I usually avoid discussing politics with those outside my inner circle. However, failing to explain why I oppose Proposition 127 would be doing a disservice to my former colleagues and lifelong friends at Colorado Parks and Wildlife, who have tremendously managed our state’s big cats through the best available scientific research.
During my time at CPW, our mission was to promote, protect, enhance and manage the wildlife resources of the state on behalf of our citizens and future generations. We accomplished this goal using the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which considers hunting to be a cornerstone for managing and restoring wildlife and their habitats. We were also guided by state statute, which directs CPW to use hunting and trapping as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests.
Proposition 127 seeks to take away hunting despite experts deeming it a critical tool to effectively manage our state’s lions and bobcats. While supporters of Proposition 127 argue that this hunting is inhumane – particularly that of mountain lion hunting, which uses dogs – I could not disagree more.
All wildlife research in Colorado must pass a review panel comprised of scientists, ethicists, and veterinary animal health and welfare experts. They have consistently signed off on CPW research, including that which used dogs to capture lions. If using dogs was an inhumane practice, then these panels would have never given their approval for such research. Despite claims made by supporters of Proposition 127, CPW has ensured all research is conducted in a humane and ethical manner.
Having been a wildlife professional for nearly two decades, I can tell you that mortality is inevitable, regardless of whether a species is managed with hunting. However, hunting remains an effective and humane tool for managing Colorado’s lions and bobcats. In a managed population, surplus animals can be harvested and used to create balance within the ecosystem. This balance limits other sources of undesirable mortality like starvation, being hit by a car, being killed by peers or being euthanized after instances of conflict.
In Colorado, hunters are taught through Hunter Education how to make a quick, clean, precise kill of an animal. To me, this is far more humane than leaving our big cats vulnerable to undesirable instances of mortality.
Proponents of Proposition 127 are manipulating the public by using false claims about what this ballot measure actually does. Proposition 127 does not end trophy hunting, or the hunting of endangered lynx, or the suffocation and bludgeoning of lions and bobcats. All of these things are already illegal thanks to current state and federal laws. Instead, Proposition 127 is a 100% ban on the hunting of our state’s lions and bobcats.
Supporters of 127 are portraying every hunter as a person who supports or participates in these illegal and unethical acts. However, proponents are referring to the actions of poachers, not hunters. Poachers should be held accountable for their crimes, just like anyone who may break the law. However, we as a society do not ban driving because someone drove drunk; we hold that individual driver accountable. The same should be true when we consider our state’s wildlife management policies.
Hunting is a way to connect with our natural world. It is an excuse to spend time outside with our friends and family. It is a source of ethically raised and harvested meat. But lastly – and perhaps most importantly – it is a way to contribute to wildlife conservation and the future of Colorado’s wildlife resources.
As a conservationist and wildlife professional, I strongly encourage you to vote “no” on Proposition 127 so that our state’s wildlife can be left to the experts at CPW. They are good people and they are good at what they do.
Crystal Chick worked for Colorado Parks and Wildlife for 18 years and retired as an area wildlife manager in 2019. She lives in Durango.
