2 weeks Ago
“Cats Aren’t Trophies” — the animal-rights campaign behind Proposition 127’s mountain lion hunting ban on this fall’s statewide ballot — would have voters believe safaris of armed human predators mercilessly hunt down Colorado’s wildcats for bragging rights and bloodlust. Don’t be deceived by the campaign’s disingenuous name; it is illegal to hunt cats as trophies in Colorado. Which is reason enough to vote against the flawed policies proposed by 127, and The Gazette’s editorial board urges a NO vote.
There’s a more fundamental reason to vote down the ballot measure, though. It represents yet another attempt to undermine Colorado’s long-standing, carefully balanced, highly effective and scientifically directed system of wildlife management. Trophy hunting, as well as failing to properly dress and prepare edible meat from a harvested mountain lion, in fact violate some of the many rules rigorously governing not only mountain lion hunting but also game hunting in Colorado in general.
The largely nonhunting voters who signed the petition to place Proposition 127 on the ballot might have been under the impression mountain lions and bobcats, both covered by the proposal’s hunting ban, are in peril as a species. They actually are abundant. Voters also might be unaware that hunting, including the prohibition on trophy hunting, is strictly regulated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, which enforces game laws through permits, fees and fines.
The state agency is staffed with top-flight wildlife biologists and other experts who monitor and look after all aspects of wildlife. And hunting is a key component of a wisely managed wildlife population like Colorado’s. It helps keep species in balance with one another and the rest of nature, ensuring all thrive.
Populations are kept in check through limits on the numbers of each kind of game animal that can be hunted annually, on which days of the year a hunt is allowed and other restrictions. Not surprisingly, mountain lions are doing very well. Dan Gates, who heads the group Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management and chairs the Colorado Wildlife Council, put it like this in a recent Gazette news report on the ballot issue: “Under the current science-based management, our mountain lion and bobcat populations are thriving.
“This measure continues to be driven by out-of-state extremists who are seeking to threaten the balance of Colorado’s fragile ecosystem. This ballot measure is dangerous, reckless and based on absolutely zero scientific research.” He added, “This measure has absolutely no place in Colorado.
” Proposition 127 is only the latest bid by national animal-rights activists to catch Colorado’s largely urban-suburban population unawares. Proposition 114 in 2020, which introduced wolves into our state — and now, as anticipated by critics, is wreaking havoc on Colorado’s livestock producers — barely passed statewide but won the edge among Front Range voters. Many of them had as little personal experience with wolves as they have with mountain lions.
Gates is right. No such proposals to micromanage wildlife and second-guess the state’s experts belong on the ballot in the first place. The proper venue for proposing and fine-tuning wildlife policy is the wildlife division and its governing commission, where proposals can get the thorough scientific review they warrant.
Our state’s respected wildlife authorities are entrusted with seeing to the best interests of the wildlife we treasure — and that approach has served Colorado well. THE GAZETTE EDITORIAL BOARD.
