In the upcoming November 5th election, Colorado voters will face a pivotal decision on the future of mountain lion and bobcat hunting through Proposition 127. This ballot initiative, proposed by a coalition known as “Cats Aren’t Trophies,” seeks to ban the hunting of these big cats in the state, igniting fierce debate between animal welfare advocates and the hunting community. The proposition aims to end the long-standing practice of hunting mountain lions and trapping bobcats in Colorado, with implications for wildlife management, hunting traditions, and the state’s economy.
What Is Proposition 127?
Proposition 127, as explained on the Colorado General Assembly website, would make it illegal to hunt mountain lions and trap bobcats for sport in Colorado. If passed, the measure would classify such actions as a misdemeanor. However, it allows for exceptions: government officials, such as those from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), could still kill mountain lions or bobcats if they pose a threat to public safety or livestock. Individuals would also have the right to defend themselves or their property if attacked by these animals.
While the proposition mentions lynx, it’s worth noting that the Canadian lynx is already protected under federal law through the Endangered Species Act. Proposition 127 would continue to shield the species in Colorado, regardless of federal changes.
The Current Status of Mountain Lion and Bobcat Populations
According to CPW estimates, Colorado is home to approximately 3,800 to 4,400 mountain lions. The population of bobcats remains unclear, but state officials believe they are flourishing and possibly increasing in some regions. Neither species is currently listed as threatened or endangered in the United States, and their populations are generally considered stable. National estimates place the U.S. mountain lion population between 20,000 and 40,000 and the bobcat population between 1.4 and 2.6 million.
Hunting Trends in Colorado
CPW data shows that hunters in Colorado have killed around 505 mountain lions and 831 bobcats annually over the past three years. Mountain lions are classified as big game animals, like elk and deer, requiring a hunting license, which costs $60 for residents and $502 for non-residents. Bobcats, on the other hand, are categorized as small game furbearers, and hunters can kill an unlimited number of bobcats with the appropriate furbearer license.
Mountain lion hunting typically involves the use of dogs to track and corner the animal before the hunter arrives to shoot it. The practice of bobcat trapping, often using bait, has drawn criticism from animal welfare advocates for its inhumane nature. If Proposition 127 passes, these methods would become illegal.
Arguments in Support of the Ban
Supporters of Proposition 127, including animal welfare groups like the Mountain Lion Foundation and the Sierra Club’s Rocky Mountain chapter, argue that the hunting methods used for mountain lions and bobcats violate principles of fair chase. As reported by Ballotpedia, they claim that trophy hunting is unethical, pointing to the fact that many hunters seek the animals’ pelts or heads for display rather than for their meat. For these advocates, wildlife should be managed not for sport but for its intrinsic value to the ecosystem.
Stabilizing Cougar Population
The coalition behind the initiative, Cats Aren’t Trophies, emphasizes that Colorado’s mountain lion population does not need to be managed through hunting, citing California’s experience. Mountain lion hunting has been banned in California since 1972, and recent studies show that its cougar population has stabilized naturally, with no negative impact on other wildlife species or an increase in human-wildlife conflict. Proposition 127 supporters believe Colorado could experience similar results.
Opposition to the Measure
On the other side of the debate, hunters, ranchers, and several wildlife management organizations fiercely oppose the proposition. These opponents argue that decisions about wildlife management should be left to experts at CPW, not to the general public via a ballot vote. They claim that the stable populations of mountain lions and bobcats in Colorado are evidence that regulated hunting works to keep these species in check.
Potential Overpopulation
Opponents, as noted on Ballotpedia, also warn of potential overpopulation if the ban is enacted, suggesting that without hunting, mountain lion populations could grow unchecked, leading to more encounters with humans, pets, and livestock. The Colorado Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups fear increased predation on livestock, which could hurt the state’s ranching industry. Some opponents even view Proposition 127 as the first step in a broader movement to restrict or ban hunting altogether.
Financial Implications for the State
Proposition 127, if passed, would also impact Colorado’s finances. CPW, which is largely funded by hunting license sales, would lose approximately $450,000 annually from reduced license revenue, according to the state’s Blue Book voter guide. However, the agency would also save about $77,500 each year by no longer needing to compensate ranchers for livestock losses caused by mountain lions, which would no longer be classified as big game.
There would be additional costs, too. The state expects to pay around $172,000 over two years to develop and enforce new regulations should the ban go into effect. Overall, the financial impact is relatively small compared to CPW’s total annual revenue of $330 million, but it reflects the complex balance between funding conservation efforts and managing wildlife populations through hunting.
What Could Happen if Proposition 127 Passes?
The key question is whether banning mountain lion and bobcat hunting would lead to overpopulation. Studies from states like California suggest that mountain lion populations may stabilize naturally without hunting, but it’s unclear whether Colorado’s habitat could support larger numbers of these apex predators. Some studies indicate that mountain lion populations might initially increase but would eventually plateau as natural resources like prey availability and territory space limit their numbers.
Moreover, there is ongoing debate about whether hunting reduces human-wildlife conflicts. In California, for example, rates of cougar-human encounters are similar to those in states that allow hunting, suggesting that factors other than hunting play a significant role in these interactions.
A Complex Question for Voters
Proposition 127 presents a complex question for Colorado voters. On one side are those who believe that trophy hunting is unethical and unnecessary, advocating for a more compassionate approach to wildlife management. On the other side are hunters, ranchers, and wildlife experts who argue that regulated hunting is an essential tool for controlling predator populations and protecting livestock.
As Colorado heads toward the November election, the outcome of this vote will likely have lasting implications not just for mountain lions and bobcats, but for wildlife management policy across the state. Ultimately, the decision will reflect whether Coloradoans value hunting as a method of conservation or if they are ready to prioritize animal welfare and natural population regulation over the tradition of the hunt.
Scientific Experts or Public Voting?
What do you think? Should wildlife management be determined by scientific experts or through public voting? Can mountain lion and bobcat populations self-regulate without the need for hunting, or will this lead to increased human-wildlife conflicts? What are the ethical considerations in trophy hunting, and how do they compare to the traditional arguments for hunting as wildlife management?
To dive deeper into this topic, check out the Colorado General Assembly website here, and Ballotpedia here.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.