By Jen Schumann | Contributor, Rocky Mountain Voice
In the heart of Colorado’s rugged landscapes, a battle brews over the fate of its wildlife, vital to the fabric of its rural economy.
Rural communities like Grand County are pushing back against Proposition 127, which would prohibit the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx. Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 5.
Grand County commissioners recently passed a formal resolution condemning the measure, warning of the far-reaching consequences for both wildlife management and the rural economy.
Grand County Commission Chair Merrit Linke has been vocal in his opposition.
“Agriculture contributes $14 million to our local economy and that’s a very different $14 million compared to what we get from tourism,” Linke explains. “It’s actual products, food and materials, that are grown and produced right here in Grand County.”
Local businesses, from hotels and restaurants to outfitters and retailers, benefit each hunting season. This economic contribution goes far beyond dollars and cents.
Agriculture, hunting and resource extraction fuel Colorado’s rural economy, especially on the Western Slope. They also support the state’s economic health.
“It’s a producer versus consumer divide,” Linke said. “Agriculture, oil, gas — those are the industries producing real things. But tourism and other consumer industries don’t actually produce anything.”
“What’s the endgame here? We put the producers out of business and then what?,” he asks. “Our food just magically shows up and we still need power, we still need to drive our cars. But no one’s thinking about that.”
Linke’s concerns align with the economic impact of hunting, fishing and wildlife tourism. They support more than 20,000 jobs in the state. Prop. 127 threatens the balance that allows rural Colorado to thrive. It harms industries providing essential goods while catering to urban consumers.
If Prop. 127 passes, wildlife management will be knocked off balance, he says.
“CPW (Colorado Parks & Wildlife) won’t be able to handle the increased workload of problem predators without the help of hunters. It’s just impossible for them to do all of this on their own,” Linke said. “If CPW has to step in and take care of problem predators, that’s a different story. They’re killing animals, but nothing comes of it, no benefit to the ecosystem or the community. It’s just a lost resource.”
Linke argues current hunting practices are more of a win-win for humans, animals and the environment.
“When a hunter takes down a deer, that meat goes into someone’s freezer and feeds a family,” he says. “It’s not wasted. It’s part of the natural cycle, and it contributes to the local economy.”
Grand County’s resolution also aligns with the stance taken by wildlife professionals. The Colorado Wildlife Employees Protective Association (CWEPA) represents CPW employees. They passed a resolution in support of science-based wildlife management.
“All wildlife in Colorado is best protected, enhanced and managed via the science-based wildlife management professionals employed by the State of Colorado,” CWEPA stated in their resolution.
Merrit Linke echoes this sentiment: “We’re seeing emotional policies like Prop. 127 that ignore the science. The professionals at CPW and others have a wealth of research and data to guide predator management. Yet, we’re letting public votes dictate policies that won’t work on the ground.”
Both Grand County’s and CWEPA’s resolutions reflect a shared goal. They want to maintain wildlife populations using sustainable, science-based practices. They argue that Prop. 127 replaces effective management with emotionally-driven policies.
Linke likens Prop. 127 to the reintroduction of wolves, more “ballot-box biology.” It means urban voters, uninformed about rural issues, make decisions based on feelings, he says.
“It’s making that divide between urban and rural even worse,” Linke said. “None of those counties [that voted for wolves] are gonna see either the positive or negative implications of this. They might see a cute video of a wolf playing in a puddle, but they won’t see any negative effects.”
In rural Colorado, banning predatory hunting could lead to more conflicts with wildlife.
“We had a neighbor’s dog that was taken by a mountain lion right out of their yard,” Linke said. “It’s a real threat, and people don’t realize how often it happens.”
As Coloradans vote on Proposition 127, Grand County leaders are raising awareness of its wider implications.
For Linke, the stakes are clear. Without hunting, rural economies will suffer. Wildlife management will become harder.
“It seems very short-sighted, and somebody has a short-term agenda that makes them successful in the short term,” he said. “But in reality, they’re shooting themselves, and all the carbon-based life forms, in the foot.”