Proposition 127: Hunting and trapping of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx would be banned in Colorado
Colorado Sun
For the second time in four years, Colorado voters will consider a wildlife management ballot measure.
Proposition 127, which was placed on the November ballot by animal conservation groups, would outlaw the hunting and trapping of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx.
Proposition 127 asks voters to declare “that any trophy hunting of mountain lions, bobcats or lynx is inhumane, serves no socially acceptable or ecologically beneficial purpose and fails to further public safety.” It is already illegal to kill lynx, a species classified as endangered in Colorado.
Here’s what you need to know about the ballot measures and the groups supporting and opposing it.
Would there be exceptions?
Yes.
Proposition 127 would allow for the killing of mountain lions and bobcats in the defense of personal safety, livestock and property.
What would be the penalty for violating the ban?
- Violating the prohibition would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor.
- Fines would be increased for violators.
- Wildlife license privileges could be limited for individuals convicted of this crime.
In essence, the measure seeks to provide legal protection to these species by restricting hunting, while still allowing for certain exceptions where human safety or property is at risk.
How would Proposition 127 change hunting in Colorado?
Colorado Parks and Wildlife has managed mountain lion hunting since 1965.
The agency imposes annual limits on how many animals hunters can kill. Hunters must check daily updates on limits during the mountain lion season and must report kills to wildlife officers within 48 hours. All lion hunters must take a special education and identification course.
The agency estimates Colorado is home to 3,800 to 4,400 mountain lions.
In 1980, hunters killed 81 mountain lions. In the 2022-23 season, 2,599 hunters who took special online courses to help them better identify the gender of mountain lions, spent 1,635 days hunting lions and killed 504 animals, including 298 males and 204 females. That was below the annual cap set by the state wildlife agency.
Earlier this year, Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners eliminated the April lion hunting season, which runs from December through March with a second season in April.
The agency is updating its management plan for lions on the Front Range, where development continues to impact lion habitat. The public process mirrors Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s 2020 update to its lion management on the Western Slope.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife estimates the passage of Proposition 127 would result in an annual loss of about $410,000 from selling mountain lion licenses.
The conservative-leaning Common Sense Institute in August issued a report claiming that increased number of mountain lions following the approval of Proposition 127 would reduce the number of mule deer and elk in the state, leading to a $5.8 million decline in license revenue from ungulate hunters and as much as $61.65 million in lost economic activity from hunters every year.
What’s the background and national context behind Proposition 127?
Animal conservation groups in 2022 lobbied lawmakers to pass legislation that would have banned mountain lion hunting in Colorado. Hunting groups opposed the bill, which failed during its first committee hearing.
Proposition 127 isn’t the first wildlife-management ballot measure to go before Colorado voters.
The Daily Sun-Up podcast | More episodes
Colorado voters in 2020 narrowly approved a ballot measure directing Colorado Parks and Wildlife to reintroduce gray wolves to western Colorado. The approval of wolf-reintroduction was anchored by Front Range residents, widening a chasm between urban and rural voters in Colorado. Ranchers have lamented the reintroduction of wolves as the predators kill livestock.
In 1992, Colorado voters approved Amendment 10, which prohibited the use of dogs or bait to hunt black bears and in 1996 voters approved an amendment that banned leg-hold and instant-kill traps.
California is the only other state that bans mountain lion hunting, after voters there in 1990 approved a ballot measure eliminating cat hunting.
Passions flare on both sides
Supporters of Proposition 127 hope voters will end what they call the “cruel and inhuman trophy hunting and fur-trapping of Colorado’s wild cats.” They argue hunters killing female lions leaves kittens abandoned.
Supporters always use the word “trophy,” insisting that lions are largely killed for taxidermy and not meat. (Colorado Parks and Wildlife requires that “edible parts of lions must be properly prepared for human consumption.”)
Colorado Parks and Wildlife does not take sides on ballot issues. A spokesman said the agency “will implement all laws duly passed by the legislature, the governor, or Colorado voters.” The agency recently posted an online list of frequently asked questions about mountain lion hunting and management.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife supports hunting as a tool for wildlife management, which is a premise of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation used by all state and federal wildlife management agencies.
“For many people, hunting is a continuation of the hunter-gatherer traditions and a way to connect to nature. It also helps maintain a healthy wild animal population,” reads a statement that was on the agency’s web page detailing mountain lion management but was dropped in the recent launch of the agency’s new website. “There is no evidence of managed hunting leading to the extinction of any species in Colorado, or of well-regulated hunting negatively affecting the population stability of the state’s mountain lions.”
The opponents of Proposition 127 argue that voters should not be involved in wildlife management policies created by biologists and wildlife experts at Colorado Parks and Wildlife. They point to healthy populations of mountain lions across the state as evidence that science-based wildlife management works better than what they call “ballot box biology.”
Who is funding the campaign to pass the measure and the effort to stop it?
Advocates for Proposition 127, led by the Cats Aren’t Trophies group, submitted 147,529 voter signatures in July to get the measure on the 2024 ballot. The issue committee is made up nearly 100 wildlife and animal advocacy groups
Through September, the Washington D.C.-based Animal Wellness Action has given Cats Aren’t Trophies more than $673,000, including a $500,000 donation in September. The Wild Animal Sanctuary Keenesburg has given the campaign $465,000, including $150,000 on Sept. 18. The Florida-based Big Cats Rescue Corp. has given $200,000.
Cats Aren’t Trophies has spent $1.9 million –mostly on advertising – according to its Sept. 30 filing with the Colorado Secretary of State.
Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better, the issue committee opposing Proposition 127, has raised $1.4 million through September, according to its latest filings with the Secretary of State. That includes $600,000 on Sept. 25 from the Virginia-based conservative advocacy group Concord Fund, which was formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network. Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better has spent $510,000, including $235,000 for advertising through Denver lobbyist Pac/West Strategies on Sept. 19.