Back to News
Image Source: (AP Images/Ronald Wittek)
October 3, 2024
True Conservation Groups Join on Letter to Oppose Colorado Prop. 127
The push to stop anti-science, anti-hunting “ballot box biology” in Colorado has seen a huge boost after a group of 39 pro-hunting, pro-wildlife conservation groups which includes NSSF – representing millions of members – signed on to a letter urging Coloradans to reject Proposition 127 at the polls next month.
Proposition 127 is the direct democracy “stop trophy hunting” initiative to ban the regulated hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx in the Centennial State. Supporters of the ban are mostly animal rights activists and those claiming to be hunter conservationists while masking their true backgrounds and intentions. Proposition 127, if approved by Colorado voters on Nov. 5, would lead to overpopulation of the big cats, significant financial costs to ranchers and farmers and more dangerous instances of domestic pet attacks.
America’s hunters are the original conservationists and best advocates for effective and smart wildlife management practices and the newly released letter should be shared far and wide with voters unsure of the consequences of passing Prop. 127.
Political Games
The effort to ban big cat hunting in Colorado is nothing more than an animal rights scheme to remove from the wildlife management system those who are best at managing wildlife populations and instead replace them with anti-hunting activists from ivory towers in Washington, D.C., and New York City. After all, among the major funders of efforts like Prop. 127 is the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundation. The opposition letter, led by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, calls baloney on these misguided efforts.
“This political effort mischaracterizes the legal, regulated harvest of mountain lions and bobcats in Colorado as trophy hunting and would prohibit these activities in the state,” the letter states. “The intentionally misleading manner proponents of Proposition 127 seek to undermine the professional wildlife managers employed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department is a real issue.”
Chris Dorsey, an internationally well-known sportsman, writer and conservation advocate, previously cautioned Coloradans against the dangers of making conservation and wildlife management decisions at the ballot box by approving measures like Colorado’s Proposition 127. Namely, if approved, it’ll be costly and dangerous.
“The cat population boom has greatly impacted elk and deer herds that draw 350,000 hunters each year who contribute nearly $2 billion to the state’s economy,” Dorsey wrote in Forbes recently. “State biologists estimate that Colorado mountain lions kill nearly 230,000 mule deer each year—more than half the state’s entire population.”
The letter NSSF proudly cosigned addresses these concerns too.
“It is our hope that addressing the emotionally driven misinformation of this initiative’s proponents will encourage you to join us in opposing this effort, thereby safeguarding an economically, ecologically, and culturally important way of life for many Coloradans.”
The System Works
As America’s original conservatists and most effective wildlife managers, hunters provide the best avenues for monitoring wildlife populations and governing those population levels through regulated hunting activities.
“For mountain lions and bobcats, CPW relies on the current legal, regulated harvest by hunters and trappers to maintain populations within the constraints of both biological and social carrying capacities as established by CPW’s science-based management practices,” the letter says. “This ensures that populations remain in balance with the rest of the ecosystem while minimizing human-wildlife conflicts (i.e., an abundance of mountain lions attacking pets, livestock and humans).”
To date, there is no science or hard data to support the anti-hunting big cat activists’ “trophy hunting” overpopulation concerns. They are most simply anti-hunting at their core and that is the depth of their misguided campaign. To the contrary, science and data does show that reducing or prohibiting big cat hunting will have adverse effects across the state.
Cast Your Vote
The most important action any Coloradan can do to help keep big cat populations at a safe and manageable level is to be informed and vote on Nov. 5th.
“You, as a voter, must ask yourself the questions that are truly before you. Equipped with the facts presented here, it should become clear that emotion-based ‘ballot box biology’ is harmful, and that professional biologists work closely with hunters and trappers, and in many cases rely on legal, regulated hunting of predators like mountain lions and bobcats to achieve ecosystem management objectives,” the conservation groups write.
“Proposition 127 is…a referendum on the successful systems that have led to the sustainability of Colorado’s now thriving big cat populations and its ecosystem as a whole… Knowing this, we simply encourage you to ponder these questions, show up to the polls on November 5, and join us in opposing this misguided and misleading attempt to prevent others from doing so.”
Policy decisions regarding wildlife management must be driven by science. It is critical to ensure that agenda-driven policies don’t harm the incredible success of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. On Nov. 5th, Colorado voters must reject the anti-science, anti-hunter Proposition 127.
You may also be interested in:
Latest Endorsement of Colorado Ballot Initiative a Dead Giveaway – It’s Not About Science
That Flawed Anti-Hunting JAMA ‘Study’ Got the Headlines They Wanted
Categories: BP Item, Featured, Government Relations, Hunting, Top Stories
25650
