By Lindy Browning | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
Even after voters rejected a ban on mountain lion hunting, people that supported the ban are continuing to try to influence Colorado wildlife officials into implementing many of the measures that voters rejected in Prop. 127 during the CPW rulemaking and hearings process.
CPW regularly evaluates and updates their data concerning the number of lions that are in specific areas of the state, in order to fulfill the mission of the agency to manage lions for sustainable populations and strike a balance in apex predator and prey numbers, insuring that the prey species are not decimated while maintaining robust lion populations.
As a result of the newest studies, a new Eastern Colorado plan was needed, because the previous one was 20 years old and updated management methods were needed based on new science. But it also acknowledges some of the arguments anti-hunters make for not hunting lions.
After going through the regular public process, writing draft plans that are then put out to the public for comment, and then making adjustments to the draft, CPW has approved the plan to shape the future of hunting regulations for the mountain lions east of the Continental Divide.
CPW consolidated six separate data analysis units stretching from the Wyoming border to New Mexico into one unit, the agency says, because the agency believes larger management scales are most relevant to lion biology.
With the updated information received through the data, there were adjustments made to the way that mountain lions are going to be managed on the eastern side of the state.
The plan reduces the total number of lions hunters can kill in the region by 23 percent, (48 animals), in the 2025-26 hunting season and by 25 percent, ( 53 lions), in the winter hunting season 2026-27.
The plan also adjusts the percentage of adult females hunters can kill at 22 percent, in order to maintain a stable population. The female lion is more critical than the males in maintaining the population of lions according to CPW.
According to the new plan, the agency has reversed the previous objective of suppressing lion populations in Eastern Colorado with the goal of keeping that population stable, while allowing for management flexibility.
In a meeting in late November, where CPW was educating the public on the updated lion hunting plan, members of the public who supported the lion hunting ban through Prop. 127 were outspoken and, at times, outraged over the new management plan.
During the public’s comments, some of the people were very critical that CPW did not eliminate the use of hunting dogs during a lion hunt. Eliminating the use of hunting dogs was at the core of the Prop. 127 ban that voters rejected with 55 percent of voters against the ban.
CPW has explained in meetings and on their website that using dogs to tree a lion during the hunt is the best way for hunters to accurately determine the sex of the lion before shooting, reducing the harvest of females critical to a robust lion population.
Many of the people who commented during the meeting said they agreed with the million-plus Coloradans who voted to ban lion hunting in Colorado.
Of those people, most gave impassioned testimony for why hunting lions with hounds should be eradicated. And, echoing each other, they accused CPW of everything from violating its own fair chase hunting policy, to failing to adequately research the use of hunting as a management tool, to violating Colorado revised statutes 33-1-11, which cites hunting as one of several recreational activities Coloradans can use to interact with wildlife and ignoring science that says lions self-regulate their populations.
CPW Commissioner Murphy Robinson wanted to know what would happen if the commission voted to remove hound hunting, which opponents had earlier called cruel and barbaric and only roughly benefited less than 1 percent of the state’s population of lion hunters.
Vieira answered by saying he had studied the subject in Oregon and Washington, which are states that have banned using hounds for lion hunting through citizen initiatives in 1994 and 1996, but sold thousands more licenses to non-hound lion hunters than Colorado in 2023.
Citing Oregon statistics, he said 16,826 hunters tried for a cougar in 2023, and 331 animals were killed, while in Colorado approximately 2,500 licenses were sold and an average of 500 lions were taken in the past three years.
Vieira said, “Female lions are at a much higher rate on the landscape” than males, leading to hunters being much more likely to encounter one than a male. Because it’s harder to identify a lion’s gender on the ground than when it’s in a tree, adult female lions are being killed at a “much, much higher rate” than in Colorado, he said.
One of the people who spoke out, Else Elswood, accused the agency of “creating a commodity for out-of-state hunters to get guaranteed trophy cats,” and spewed accusations at Mark Vieira, CPW’s carnivore and furbearer program manager, of being beholden to this hunting group and completely ignoring the majority of stakeholders here in Colorado.
Refuting the allegation, Danielle Eisenhart, CPW manager of licenses and reservations, reported to the group the actual breakdown of resident versus nonresident lion licenses sold in 2024-25.
Eisenhart answered Elswood saying, “I believe you’re probably asking about percentages, as we had a lot of public comments saying the vast majority were non-resident hunters. That’s not the case. We had about 80 percent resident and 20 percent nonresident hunting (licenses sold)”
Attendee Matthew Burgess said, “It’s hard to believe that in 2024 in the United States of America, we need to have a conversation and a vote about whether or not it is OK to chase a frightened animal with a pack of hounds up a tree, look at it, take pictures of it and then shoot it.”
After Commissioners had taken a verbal beating from some members of the public, Commission Chair Dallas May said, “I for one want to say that the people of CPW and the commissioners are here because they care about animals. Granted, there is (harvest) but there has to be some regulation in order to provide habitat.”
“Yes, all populations are self-regulating,” he added. “But does anybody enjoy seeing starving animals? Does anybody enjoy seeing a male bear trying to kill the cubs of a sow that is not his? I mean it’s part of life. It’s reality. But whenever the statement is made that CPW and this commission does not care about animals, I take great offense to it.”
CPW employees say they appreciate the perspective of Tai Jacober, a rancher who represents agricultural producers on the commission. He said “the people that put these plans together are the ultimate wildlife enthusiasts and have spent their entire life dedicated to taking care of wildlife and enjoying wildlife and the science behind them. So, I want to recognize that’s how these plans are built, and that’s who they’re built by.”