This article also appears in the Fall 2024 issue of Backcountry Journal. 

By Bryan Jones

This fall the public’s right to hunt will take center stage on the ballot in Colorado with a proposed ban on hunting mountain lions, bobcats and lynx (a federally protected, non-huntable species). Not only would this hunting ban define in Colorado state statute the legal hunting of multiple wildlife species as “trophy hunting,” it would also classify “trophy hunting” as a Class 1 misdemeanor. BHA strongly opposes Propostion 127, and our concerns extend far beyond preserving hunting traditions; they are deeply rooted in the potential dangers this ban poses to wildlife management, conservation efforts and funding, and the broader ecosystem.

For more than a century, hunters and anglers have played a pivotal role in wildlife conservation across North America, guided by the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. This model ensures that wildlife is managed for the benefit of all citizens, a success made possible largely due to the financial contributions of hunters and anglers. Through licenses, excise taxes and other direct contributions, these efforts have been critical in supporting habitat restoration, species reintroduction and the establishment of protected areas.

BHA is deeply concerned that Colorado’s proposed hunting ban could jeopardize this proven model of wildlife conservation. The initiative, driven by public opinion and emotional appeal over scientific expertise, risks dismantling the carefully structured processes that have allowed wildlife populations to thrive. Our primary objection lies in the method of pursuing this ban through a ballot initiative – a tool that, while democratic, can oversimplify complex issues and lead to decisions that may not align with the best available science.

Wildlife management is a specialized field that requires a deep understanding of ecological dynamics, population biology and species interactions. Decisions made by popular vote, rather than by scientific evidence, carry a significant risk of unintended and potentially harmful consequences.

Moreover, banning public hunting does not eliminate the need for population control. To prevent overpopulation and its associated issues – such as increased conflicts with humans and ecological imbalances – the government will still need to intervene. This often involves employing contract hunters for hire. Unlike public hunting, which is regulated and contributes to conservation funding, contract hunting is costly for the state, diverting resources away from other crucial conservation efforts. This could lead to misunderstandings about the effectiveness and necessity of wildlife management practices, potentially undermining public trust in the science-based methods that have been successful for decades. Contract hunting is also a waste of both opportunity and resources, including the potential waste of the meat derived from the current hunting of these animals. Colorado has strict laws governing the wanton waste of big game animals, and mountain lions are no different. Not only are the harvested animals required to be inspected by Colorado Parks & Wildlife biologists, but the meat is also required to be taken and consumed. Despite what proponents of this initiative may state, mountain lion meat is well regarded and can be utilized in a variety of recipes.

Professional wildlife managers, trained in the complexities of ecosystems, should guide decisions about wildlife populations. These experts manage predator numbers through various scientific methods, including regulated hunting, to ensure that prey species are not over-exploited, which is crucial for maintaining the health of the entire ecosystem.

Bypassing these scientific processes in favor of public opinion could undermine decades of successful wildlife management.

Bypassing these scientific processes in favor of public opinion could undermine decades of successful wildlife management. Without the ability to manage mountain lion populations through regulated hunting, we could see a cascade of negative effects throughout the food chain, ultimately harming the very wildlife this ban aims to protect.

It is also important to recognize the broader implications of such a ban. Economic impact assessments for this initiative predict that the state could lose an estimated $410,000 annually from mountain lion hunting license sales alone, with additional losses from bobcat hunting licenses as well. More concerning, however, is the potential cascading effect on the state’s revenue from elk and mule deer hunting due to decreasing tag allocations and potential loss of licenses fees for those prey species.

As hunters and anglers, we are not just financial contributors; we are stewards of the land and wildlife. The deep connection to the natural world gained through hunting and angling fosters a profound sense of responsibility for sustainable management. This stewardship is essential to wildlife conservation and should not be sidelined by initiatives that fail to recognize its value. While BHA supports greater public involvement in wildlife management, we believe this should occur within the existing framework, which has proven effective over time. Public input is vital, and we welcome a diverse range of voices, including non-consumptive users, in the conversation. However, this should not come at the expense of sidelining hunters and anglers or undermining science-based management practices.

In conclusion, our opposition to the proposed Colorado mountain lion hunting ban is not about excluding the non-consumptive public from the conversation. It is about ensuring that wildlife management decisions are based on credible science and guided by professional expertise. The risks of politicizing wildlife management through ballot initiatives are significant, and we urge that proven conservation methods not be discarded in favor of processes that oversimplify complex ecological issues.

As Coloradans consider Propostion 127, it’s crucial to recognize the dangers this ban could have on wildlife management, conservation efforts and the broader ecosystem. BHA calls for a more inclusive and informed approach to wildlife management – which respects the contributions of hunters and anglers and upholds the principles of science-based management.

Bryan Jones was born and raised in Colorado with a passion for the outdoors. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 10 years before earning a degree in fish and wildlife management. His experience in conservation and wildlife management was developed while serving in both public and private lands management roles, and he holds a master’s degree in natural resource stewardship from Colorado State University.

Listen to Episode 188 of BHA's Podcast & Blast with special guest Gaspar Perricone to learn more about ballot box biology and the proposed lion hunting ban in Colorado.