Colorado’s Reckless Anti-Wildlife Management Ballot Initiatives: A Case Against Emotion-Driven Policies

I was not born a hunter. I didn’t kill my first deer until I was twenty six years old. I have always cared about wildlife, and was fed the lie all throughout my childhood and young adult life that the best way to help wildlife and the planet was to not eat meat and to view hunters as the antithesis of evil. That is until I started reading about actual wildlife conservation and sought out different perspectives on the issues when things stopped adding up in the rhetoric (not factual information) that I was being fed by activists” and college professors. 

Colorado, similar to the Michigan Coyote Hunting Ban we have covered in detail, has recently become a battleground for ballot initiatives that aim to significantly alter wildlife management practices, particularly regarding the hunting and trapping of wild felines such as mountain lions and bobcats. These initiatives, while often driven by well-meaning but misinformed public sentiment, pose a serious threat to effective wildlife management. These passionate, as I once was, folks are unconsciously trying to undo the fabric of wildlife conservation in North America. It is our job as hunters, angler and conservationists to not only stand our ground and make sure that this does not happen, but also to educate these people that hunting is great for both wildlife and ourselves. 

Let’s take a look at the issue currently going on in Colorado and learn what we can do to get involved. 

Understanding the Initiatives

The most prominent initiative, known as Initiative 91, seeks to prohibit all hunting and trapping of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx in Colorado. Proponents of this measure, like the Cats Aren’t Trophies campaign, argue that such practices are inhumane and unnecessary. They have successfully mobilized support by appealing to the emotional aspect of wildlife conservation, portraying hunting as cruel and outdated​.

However, the reality of wildlife management is far more complex. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) department, which has been managing lion populations since 1965, sets stringent regulations to ensure sustainable hunting practices. These regulations include annual harvest limits, mandatory hunter education, and specific hunting seasons to maintain stable population levels​​.

The Consequences of Emotion-Driven Policies

Emotionally charged initiatives like these often ignore the scientific foundations of wildlife management. The CPW's current management strategies are based on decades of research and experience, aiming to balance predator and prey populations and minimize human-wildlife conflicts. For instance, regulated hunting helps control the population of mountain lions, which can otherwise lead to increased human-lion conflicts, livestock depredation, and imbalanced ecosystems​​.

In states like California, where mountain lion hunting was banned in 1990, the absence of regulated hunting has led to a rise in depredation permits issued to manage lion conflicts. This shift places the burden of control on the state, often resulting in the removal of problem animals in less humane ways than hunting​.

The Role of Science in Wildlife Management

Scientific wildlife management, tenant number six of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, involves using data and research to make informed decisions about how to maintain healthy wildlife populations. CPW biologists use population studies, habitat assessments, and ecological data to set hunting limits and regulations that ensure the long-term health of both predator and prey species. By contrast, initiatives that circumvent this expertise risk undermining these carefully crafted management plans, and therefore the demise of the species and ecologies that these regulations are meant to protect​.

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which has been successful for over a century, relies on regulated hunting as a key tool for managing wildlife populations. This model emphasizes sustainable use, scientific management, and public involvement in conservation efforts. Removing hunting from this framework, as proposed by the anti-wildlife management initiatives, threatens to disrupt this balance and lead to unintended negative consequences for both wildlife and human communities​. Not only are hunters a tool for management, but they are also paying a fee to manage wildlife, which in turn goes back to the state agencies doing the research and taking action to protect the wildlife we all love.

Conclusion

While the intentions behind anti-wildlife management ballot initiatives in Colorado may seemingly stem from a concern for animal welfare, the practical implications of these measures could be detrimental. Effective wildlife management requires a balance of science, regulation, and public input. It is essential to support policies that are grounded in scientific research and proven management practices rather than those driven by emotional appeals. Voters must recognize that the best interests of wildlife are served not by banning hunting outright but by continuing to rely on the expertise of wildlife professionals who have dedicated their careers to sustainable conservation.

By advocating for science-based wildlife management and resisting emotionally driven initiatives, we can ensure the long-term health and stability of Colorado's rich and diverse wildlife populations.

For further information and to take action against these initiatives, visit the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management websites​ (Save the Hunt Colorado)​​ (Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation)​.