By Bobbie Daniel | Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
Proposition 127, currently under debate in Colorado, aims to impose a blanket ban on hunting mountain lions, bobcats and lynx. However, it is important to clarify some of the misleading claims surrounding this measure.
First, lynx are federally-protected and are not at risk of being hunted in Colorado. Additionally, “trophy” hunting is already illegal in the state.
Although the proposition may appear to promote wildlife preservation, it disregards the critical role that Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) plays in maintaining balanced ecosystems and safeguarding rural communities. This isn’t just a hunting ban—it restricts CPW’s ability to manage these species effectively under the guise of wildlife protection. If passed, the consequences for Colorado’s environment, rural economy and CPW’s conservation efforts could be severe.
Historically, hunters have contributed significantly to conservation through license fees that fund CPW programs. Banning hunting, as proposed, will not protect these predators, but will instead disrupt management efforts and cut off vital funding that supports broader conservation initiatives. Without this revenue, CPW’s budget will suffer, compromising its ability to manage wildlife and ecosystems.
The claim that Proposition 127 will protect mountain lions is misleading. These apex predators still require management, and without hunters, that responsibility will fall entirely on CPW. This would stretch the agency’s already limited resources, reducing its ability to control predator populations and increasing risks such as overpopulation, disease spread and harm to biodiversity.
Unmanaged predator populations will lead to more frequent attacks on livestock, especially affecting small, family-owned ranches that form the backbone of rural economies. In addition, the challenge of predator control is compounded by the recent voter-approved reintroduction of wolves, which has placed further strain on CPW. The agency is already grappling with wildlife management decisions driven by direct democracy rather than scientific research.
Public safety is also at risk. As predator numbers increase, human-wildlife encounters are likely to rise, particularly in rural and suburban areas. Colorado has already experienced unintended consequences following the 1992 ban on the spring bear hunt. Bear populations have since surged, leading to more conflicts and forcing CPW to relocate or euthanize bears.
The elimination of Colorado’s spring bear hunt offers critical lessons. It resulted in significant challenges for wildlife management and the economy. The ban equated to a significant decrease in license sales, substantially decreasing revenue that would have normally been accrued. This reduction in revenue hurt CPW and rural economies, which relied on hunters’ spending for lodging, food, and outfitting services.
Additionally, the absence of spring bear hunting contributed to an increase in bear-human conflicts, as bear populations grew without seasonal control. The resulting increase in CPW’s management costs, including bear relocations and euthanizations, further strained the agency’s budget. Local businesses supporting spring hunting tourism also suffered, affecting guides, outfitters, restaurants, service and related industries.
Proposition 127 appears to be another example of “ballot box biology,” driven by special interest groups that misinform urban voters who may not fully understand the challenges rural communities face. Urban areas are largely insulated from issues related to unchecked predator populations, while rural Colorado will bear the burden of livestock losses, public safety concerns and economic decline.
The proposition threatens rural economies that depend on hunting-related revenue. Money from hunting licenses and tourism supports local businesses and conservation efforts. If this ban passes, rural communities could experience steep revenue declines, pushing some businesses toward closure. With the additional pressure from inconsistent state and federal policies, which often overregulate industries and attack private property rights, rural Colorado cannot afford another economic blow.
CPW’s success in managing wildlife comes from its meticulous research and data-driven decisions. By setting precise hunting quotas and seasons, the agency ensures that predator populations remain healthy while minimizing negative impacts on the environment and rural communities. Proposition 127 ignores this expertise, opting instead for a blanket ban that dismisses the complex and nuanced work CPW undertakes to manage diverse ecosystems. What’s more, this ban isn’t crafted by legislators but decided through a majority vote, where many voters may not fully grasp the science and research that informs CPW’s decisions.
In addition, voters may not realize that CPW relies heavily on revenue from hunting licenses to fund other essential services, such as fish hatcheries and the protection of state parks. If hunting is banned, this critical revenue stream will dry up, leaving Colorado’s natural resources underfunded and more vulnerable to mismanagement.
It is disheartening to see policies driven by misunderstanding rather than grounded in facts and logic. Wildlife management should not be dictated by blanket policies that ignore local expertise, stakeholder input, and or the legislative process. CPW’s science-based approach has long provided a balance between predator populations, public safety, and ecosystem health. Local communities and CPW are best equipped to make decisions about wildlife management.
Proposition 127 threatens to unravel decades of successful wildlife management led by CPW. A one-size-fits-all solution to this complex issue risks jeopardizing ranchers’ livelihoods, public safety, and Colorado’s ecological balance. Voters should reject this proposition and instead have confidence in CPW’s proven methods for sustainably managing the state’s wildlife and our representative democracy.
As a sixth-generation Colorado native and lifelong hunter, I know firsthand how vital hunting is for conservation, economic vitality, and feeding families. Along with my fellow Mesa County Commissioners, we passed a resolution opposing Proposition 127. I invite you to join us in standing up for rural Colorado on October 18th at the Colorado State Capitol, West Stairs, from 10 a.m. to noon for a public rally against Proposition 127.
Bobbie Daniel is a Mesa County commissioner.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.