Proposition 127, which seeks to ban the hunting of mountain lions and bobcats in Colorado, is being promoted as a way to end what supporters call “cruel” and “unsporting” practices. While the intentions behind this measure may seem noble, it overlooks the complex realities of wildlife management and the scientific principles that underpin current policies. Enacting this ban could lead to serious unintended consequences, affecting not only the wildlife it aims to protect but also Colorado’s broader ecosystem and conservation efforts.
The Science Behind Colorado’s Wildlife Management
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has developed a data-driven system for managing predator populations, including mountain lions and bobcats. This system is grounded in decades of research, with strict quotas and regulations that ensure sustainable hunting practices. Far from being a recreational pursuit, hunting is one of the primary tools CPW uses to balance predator and prey populations, minimize human-wildlife conflicts, and maintain healthy ecosystems.
CPW actively monitors mountain lion and bobcat populations using annual reports, harvest data, and biological assessments. According to CPW’s own findings, the statewide mountain lion population is healthy and stable, with an estimated 3,800 to 4,400 independent adults. In addition, bobcat populations are thriving, with a conservative estimate of around 21,000 individuals statewide. These numbers are regularly reviewed to ensure that hunting does not threaten the long-term viability of these species.
One key aspect of CPW’s approach is the use of hunting to manage predator numbers in areas where human development intersects with natural habitats. By allowing limited, regulated hunting, CPW helps prevent predator overpopulation, which can lead to higher incidences of human-wildlife conflict and ecosystem imbalances.
Unintended Consequences of a Big Cat Hunting Ban in Colorado
Proposition 127 proponents argue that banning hunting will protect wildlife and reduce unnecessary killing. However, such a measure could lead to several unintended consequences:
1. Increased Human-Wildlife Conflicts
California’s experience offers a cautionary tale. After banning mountain lion hunting in 1990, California saw an increase in human-lion conflicts, including attacks on pets and livestock. This is because hunting plays a vital role in managing predator behavior and keeping their populations at levels that reduce the likelihood of encounters with humans. In Colorado, CPW uses hunting to maintain predator populations in line with available habitat and prey, minimizing these types of conflicts.
Colorado already faces challenges with human-lion encounters in certain areas. According to CPW, some of the highest conflict regions—such as Glenwood Springs, the Roaring Fork Valley, and Durango—are areas with relatively low mountain lion harvest rates. If hunting were banned statewide, these conflicts could escalate as lion populations grow unchecked and venture closer to human settlements in search of food.
2. Disruption of Predator-Prey Dynamics
Mountain lions are apex predators, and their population size has a direct impact on prey species like deer and elk. Without proper management, mountain lions could overhunt prey populations, destabilizing the natural balance of predator-prey relationships. While mountain lions help regulate deer and elk populations, they can also overexploit these species if left unchecked, leading to long-term ecological damage.
In states where hunting is restricted, predator populations often grow rapidly, resulting in increased competition for resources. This can lead to more frequent territorial disputes between mountain lions and higher juvenile mortality as younger, less experienced lions struggle to find enough prey.
3. Loss of Critical Conservation Funding
One of the most significant impacts of Proposition 127 would be the loss of hunting revenue, which funds a substantial portion of Colorado’s wildlife conservation efforts. CPW relies on revenue from hunting licenses—including those for mountain lions and bobcats—to support broader conservation programs, including habitat restoration and species monitoring.
While supporters of the proposition suggest that this lost revenue could be easily replaced, they provide no clear alternative. In reality, hunting and fishing licenses are a major source of funding for CPW, and without them, critical conservation projects may face significant cuts. This could impact a wide range of species beyond mountain lions and bobcats, including elk, deer, and many non-game species that benefit from CPW’s conservation initiatives.
A More Balanced Approach: Ethical Hunting as Wildlife Management
Proponents of Proposition 127 frequently characterize mountain lion and bobcat hunting as “trophy hunting,” implying that hunters are only interested in collecting heads and pelts. This is a mischaracterization of the actual practices in Colorado. Under state law, hunters are required to prepare mountain lion meat for human consumption, much like any other big game species. The hunting of these predators is not simply for sport but is integrated into CPW’s broader strategy for managing wildlife populations.
Regulated hunting, when done ethically, serves to balance predator and prey populations, reduce human-wildlife conflicts, and provide funding for conservation. Hound hunting, a method often criticized by proposition supporters, allows hunters to be more selective in their targets, reducing the number of females and juveniles harvested. This selectivity helps maintain stable population dynamics, preserving both the breeding population and young lions.
Former State Carnivore Biologist Jerry Apker framed the overall debate and potential consequences in a recent Colorado Newsline article on Prop 127…
"Scientific wildlife management, supported by thousands of hunters, has given Colorado the abundance of wildlife it’s known for, including over 4,000 independent mountain lions and over 15,000 bobcat today... The proponents of Proposition 127 suggest we replace the experts at CPW with ballot-box biology, which is like asking a neighbor to perform surgery on your knee."
Addressing Ethical Concerns
While the moral arguments for banning mountain lion and bobcat hunting are understandable, they fail to consider the full ecological picture. Prohibiting hunting may seem like a compassionate choice, but it could lead to more harm than good for both wildlife and humans. Juvenile lions, for example, are more likely to die from starvation, injury, or conflicts with older lions if hunting is banned. These young lions are also more prone to entering populated areas, increasing the risk of conflict with humans and pets.
Rather than an outright ban, a more balanced approach could involve refining hunting regulations. CPW already enforces ethical hunting standards, and additional reforms—such as stricter quotas or increased research into non-lethal management—could further improve wildlife management while addressing public concerns.
Fact-Checking Claims of Proposition 127 Supporters
Many claims behind the Prop 127 initiative are incomplete or require deeper analysis. Here’s a fact-check of key assertions using information from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW).
CLAIM 1: This Would Ban Commercial, Rigged Hunts
What They’re Claiming:
Wealthy trophy hunters hire commercial guides with packs of dogs trained to attack and tree a lion or bobcat and shoot the animal off a tree limb. It’s a “guaranteed kill” with the trophy hunter only paying the $8,000 fee after the kill.
Fact Check:
This claim oversimplifies the complexity of hunting and mischaracterizes how it functions in Colorado. While it’s true that some hunters use guides and hounds to pursue mountain lions, CPW’s strict regulations ensure ethical hunting practices. Hunting with hounds is regulated to allow selective harvest, giving hunters the opportunity to identify the animal before taking a shot. This practice helps protect females with kittens and juveniles, which are often passed over in favor of mature males.
There is no evidence from CPW to suggest that mountain lion hunts are “guaranteed kills.” Hunters must obtain a license and comply with regulations, including the mandatory reporting and check-in of every harvested animal. Additionally, CPW tracks population data to ensure sustainable management of both bobcats and mountain lions.
CLAIM 2: Lions Promote the Balance of Nature Without Management
What They’re Claiming:
Lion populations are self-regulating and help maintain the balance of nature, reducing dangerous car crashes with deer or elk and impacts on forests and forestry. They also target diseased deer and elk suffering from Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), which biologists say is a threat to the future of hunting in Colorado.
Fact Check:
This claim is partially correct but incomplete. Mountain lions do play a role in the ecosystem by preying on herbivores such as deer and elk, which can have positive effects on ecosystem balance, such as preventing overgrazing. However, the idea that mountain lions are fully “self-regulating” ignores the complexities of predator-prey dynamics. Mountain lions themselves are subject to changes in prey availability, habitat loss, and other factors that can lead to fluctuations in their population, which is why CPW monitors and manages their numbers.
As for reducing Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), there is some evidence that predators, including mountain lions, may target weaker, diseased animals. However, mountain lions are not a primary control mechanism for CWD and studies have shown no impact from increased predator populations. CPW’s management strategies aim to balance predator populations with prey species in a way that supports healthy ecosystems, which includes addressing diseases like CWD.
CLAIM 3: This is Trophy Hunting in Its Purest Form
What They’re Claiming:
It’s plainly wrong to allow cruel killing of mountain lions and bobcats for their heads and their beautiful coats. This measure just halts trophy hunting of native cats but not taking cats posing a risk for people, livestock, or pets.
Fact Check:
This claim conflates regulated hunting with “trophy hunting” in a misleading way. In Colorado, the law requires that hunters prepare the meat from mountain lions for human consumption, which distinguishes it from the concept of pure trophy hunting. CPW’s mandatory checks ensure that harvested animals are reported and the meat is used. While some hunters may keep parts of the animal as trophies, this does not represent the primary motivation for most hunters in the state, who are also harvesting meat.
Additionally, CPW already allows for the targeted removal of mountain lions that pose a risk to people, livestock, or pets. Proposition 127 would not change these protections but would reduce the ability to manage populations through hunting.
CLAIM 4: Hunting Creates More Human-Wildlife Conflicts
What They’re Claiming:
Peer-reviewed science shows that trophy hunting increases the risk of human-lion conflicts by creating social chaos among surviving lions and increasing the percentage of juveniles in the population. California banned lion hunting a half-century ago, and in a state with six times as many people and just as many cougars, there are fewer than 10 lions killed a year for involvement in conflicts.
Fact Check:
This claim is misleading. The relationship between hunting and human-wildlife conflict is complex and varies by region. Some studies suggest that hunting can temporarily disrupt mountain lion social structures, but there is no definitive evidence that this consistently leads to increased human-wildlife conflicts in Colorado. CPW’s data shows that there is no clear correlation between higher hunting levels and more frequent lion-human conflicts. In fact, areas with regulated hunting do not necessarily experience more conflicts.
The comparison to California is problematic because the states have different ecosystems, prey populations, and levels of human development. California has reported rising mountain lion conflicts since the hunting ban, leading to significant challenges in managing the population through non-lethal means.
CLAIM 5: Widespread Orphaning of Kittens
What They’re Claiming:
Nearly half of the lions shot by trophy hunters in Colorado are females. When mothers are killed, the kittens are doomed to starvation, dehydration, or exposure. Treeing animals with hounds does nothing to discourage the shooting of females.
Fact Check:
This claim exaggerates the situation. According to CPW, hound hunting allows hunters to be more selective and identify the gender of the animal before making a decision to shoot. Colorado’s regulations also prohibit the killing of female lions with dependent kittens. In fact, only around 40% of the mountain lions harvested in Colorado are females, and CPW tracks these numbers carefully to ensure population stability. Moreover, hunters who tree a lion using hounds can often release the animal without shooting if they identify it as a female or juvenile.
CLAIM 6: Hunting Big Cats is Inherently Inhumane
What They’re Claiming:
Using GPS collars and hounds to chase mountain lions and bobcats into trees is inhumane, immoral, and should be banned unilaterally as a practice to prevent needless suffering and harm to wildlife.
Fact Check:
This claim is subjective. CPW regulates hunting practices to minimize suffering and ensure ethical standards. Colorado mandates methods that promote a quick, humane kill, and hunters must comply with state regulations designed to protect populations from over-harvest.
Hound hunting, for example, allows hunters to selectively harvest adult animals while letting juveniles or females with kittens escape. This selectivity contributes to the overall sustainability of the population.
Nature and predator-prey dynamics inevitably involve some degree of pain, death, and suffering – a reflection of the natural world and its “otherness” that both inspires and scares us as humans.
