Coloradans stop the chance to ban the hunting of cats and lynx by voting ‘no’ on Proposition 127
Colorado voters rejected Proposition 127, which would have defined, and banned, trophy hunting as intentionally killing or wounding a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx. The ballot initiative did not receive enough votes in order to pass, with 55.5% voting ‘no’ and 44.4% voting ‘yes.’
Since the rejection of this initiative, Cats Aren’t Trophies, the leading campaign group supporting this measure, is calling on Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to make reforms on the issue of tracking, trapping and hunting mountain lions and bobcats. Mountain lions are tracked down by hounds, so hunters may locate the cat in order to hunt and kill them. Bobcats are trapped in cages, and then hunted usually for their fur.
In a press release on Nov. 6 following the results of the election coming to fruition, Cats Aren’t Trophies believes that, despite the election results, voters still want reform in some capacity including those who voted ‘no’ on the proposition.
“When all votes are counted, nearly 1.5 million Coloradans will be on record in saying they want an immediate end to trophy hunting and commercial trapping of bobcats and mountain lions,” said Julie Marshall, Communications Director for CATs. “So many ‘no’ voters want reform, but simply didn’t feel comfortable doing it on the ballot. They want CPW to act, and that starts with having CPW end its unlimited allowance for killing bobcats and halting hounding and baiting of the animals.”
The crucial points the organization listed that they say CPW needs to seek immediate attention to include the use of baiting, hounding and commercial trapping to hunt, random hunting and trapping misinterpreted as wildlife management, and making policymakers aware of mountain lions part in controlling the balance of wildlife as well as their role in curbing the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease in elk and deer.
Opposers of the bill are content with the results of Proposition 127 not being passed. Some notable public opposers of the proposition include, but are not limited to, Republican State Senator Perry Will, Colorado Wildlife Federation, Coloradoans for Responsible Wildlife Management and Colorado Livestock Association.
CPW did not take an official stance or side on the issue. Many CPW workers have different opinions on the proposition, with some in support and some in opposition.
Lauren Dobson, former partnership coordinator at CPW and manager of CPW website, was pleased to hear the results ruled in opposition of the initiative.
“I’m very happy with the results. Wildlife management should remain with the experts,” she stated. “They understand the intricacies of our ecosystems and how they interact with a growing human population. This is a big win for Colorado and for wildlife management agencies across the nation.”
Ella Miller, a sophomore at CU Boulder, voted ‘yes’ on Proposition 127. Although, she expressed that she felt like she could not find informative information on the issue before she voted on it.
“When I was doing my research for it… I could see that if they were attacking populations of peoples [livestock], that was a situation where you could still kill the mountain lion.”
The initiative would have accepted people using non-lethal methods to defend their livestock, property, or motor vehicles. Although, lethal repercussions were only acceptable in the case of defending human life.
“I ended up voting ‘yes’ for it because I personally don’t hunt… I personally wouldn’t want to trophy hunt big cats,” Miller stated. “I don’t feel strongly about it. I didn’t know that it was a problem.”