By Amanda Hardin | Contributor, Rocky Mountain Voice
This past Friday, a sizable crowd gathered at the Colorado State Capitol to voice their opposition to Proposition 127, which would ban the “trophy hunting” of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx.
The event, which attracted several prominent political figures, included passionate speeches addressing concerns about how the proposition could negatively impact rural Colorado and the state’s approach to wildlife management.
While the rally had a large presence of those against the proposition, it was grounded in factual concerns about the potential implications of putting complex wildlife management issues into the hands of voters.
Prop. 127 would introduce a ballot measure that places the decision-making power for wildlife management, specifically relating to mountain lions, in the hands of the public. Proponents argue this will allow citizens to play a more active role in conservation. However, opponents, including many at the rally, expressed serious reservations about the consequences of this approach, particularly when it comes to the long-term health of Colorado’s ecosystems.
Additionally, opponents have pointed out that in Colorado it is already illegal to “trophy hunt” the animals, meaning hunting for their pelts or a “trophy” only. Also, it is noted there is a federal restriction on hunting lynx.
Rep. Ryan Armagost, a leading voice at the rally, captured the overarching concern shared by many: “Keep biology off the ballot. This is not a decision for politicians. This is for the scientists, the experts.”
His comments highlighted the view that wildlife management should be left to those with specialized knowledge and experience, such as the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) experts who have managed these issues for years. Many opponents see Prop. 127 as undermining CPW’s expertise, removing critical, decision-making from trained biologists, and putting it into the hands of voters who may lack nuanced understanding of the ecological impacts.
Delta County Commissioner Don Suppes echoed these sentiments, pointing out that mountain lions are a significant predator of bighorn sheep, a species that CPW has been working hard to protect and grow. He emphasized that disrupting the current wildlife management strategies could undo years of progress in bolstering the bighorn sheep population.
A recurring theme at the rally was the belief that Prop. 127 is another attack on rural Colorado. Dan Gates, campaign chairman for Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better, argued that, if passed, the proposition could disproportionately affect rural communities, who often rely on expert-driven wildlife management to balance their ecosystems, protect livestock and preserve local economies.
He, along with others, insisted that decisions on wildlife should be made by those living and working in Colorado, not external organizations or donors.
A legislator from Douglas County was given a chance to address the crowd, furthering the argument by relating a broader legislative history regarding wolves, a predator reintroduced into Colorado through voter decision-making. It is often used by opponents to relate a recent time where ballot-box biology went wrong.
“We already had legislation on wolves, and now they are slaughtering cattle,” he said, suggesting that Prop. 127 could repeat mistakes made in past wildlife-related initiatives. He urged voters to remember that Colorado’s ranchers and rural communities are the “original conservationists,” with generations of experience in managing land and wildlife.
Tom Harrington, from the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, also weighed in: “Stop taking away Colorado’s Western way of life.” His remarks resonated with many at the rally, framing the proposition as a threat to the heritage and culture of the state’s rural and agricultural communities, which have long depended on sound wildlife management to sustain their livelihoods.
One critical point opponents raise is that, even if Prop. 127 passes and the hunting of mountain lions is restricted or banned, the cats will still be removed from the wild. Currently, mountain lion hunting in Colorado is carefully regulated by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) through a tag system. Hunters must apply for and receive specific tags to hunt mountain lions, and after harvesting a lion, they are required to bring the animal to CPW for examination.
This process is not just about sport, they say, but about maintaining the health of the ecosystem. CPW uses the data from these examinations to track lion populations, monitor health trends, and assess how many lions can be sustainably hunted each year.
Guides and experienced hunters play an essential role in this system, using their expertise to distinguish between lions that should be harvested and those that should be left in the wild. For instance, they avoid hunting younger or reproductive animals to ensure the mountain lion population remains stable. This careful selection process helps balance the predator-prey relationship in Colorado’s wilderness areas, some say.
If hunting is outlawed under Prop. 127, the state would still be responsible for managing mountain lion populations. However, rather than relying on skilled hunters who use the animals for meat and contribute valuable data to CPW, the state would likely need to hire contractors to thin the mountain lion numbers, opponents predict. This approach would come at a cost to taxpayers and, in contrast to the current system, the harvested lions would be discarded rather than utilized for food and research.
In 1990, a similar ban on mountain lion hunting was passed in California, and the results have not been positive, according to wildlife management professionals. Without the input from hunters, California has seen issues arise in managing its mountain lion population, leading to increased human-wildlife conflict and a loss of critical data that once informed the health of the ecosystem. Despite the ban, mountain lions can still be removed if they pose a threat to public safety or livestock. The lions are still hunted.
Moreover, the ban would negatively affect many small business owners in rural Colorado, particularly hunting guides who rely on mountain lion hunts as part of their livelihood. It would also strip CPW of essential data that helps maintain balance in Colorado’s ecosystems. Without the detailed information gathered from hunter-harvested lions, wildlife managers would be left with a gap in their knowledge of predator populations and their impacts on other species.
Prop. 127 will not prevent the removal of mountain lions from the wild, it will simply shift that responsibility to the state and increase the financial burden on taxpayers, while discarding the benefits that the current hunting regulations provide for wildlife research, meat production, and economic support for rural communities, opponents predict.
Several speakers at the Colorado state capitol pointed out the financial backing behind Prop. 127. Opponents says that many of the largest contributions to the proposition’s campaign come from out-of-state organizations, including a $1.3 million donation from the Humane Society. Additionally, controversial figures like Carole Baskin from Big Cat Rescue have supported the initiative, further raising concerns among critics about external influence on Colorado’s local wildlife policies. Baskin gained widespread attention after being featured in the 2020 Netflix documentary series Tiger King, which chronicled the rivalry between her and Joe Exotic.
Friday’s rally at the State Capitol underscores significant opposition to Prop. 127, with critics emphasizing that wildlife management is a complex issue best left to scientists and local experts. Many express fear that the proposition could endanger rural communities and undermine years of successful conservation efforts led by CPW. As the vote approaches, these concerns will likely continue to shape the debate, as Coloradans weigh the risks of putting biology on the ballot.