Colorado has a history of using the ballot box to sidestep scientific methods that decide which game species are hunted and how they're hunted.

This was done in the '90s with a ban on black bear hunting and, most recently, in 2020, to reintroduce wolves into the state. This ban was pushed by several historically anti-hunting political action committees and nonprofits. These groups got enough signatures to put the ban on the ballot this November as Proposition 127. 

Prop 127, What is It?

This proposition does a few troubling things. First, it proposes a complete ban on the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and the lynx for the reason that it is inhumane and serves no social or ecological benefit to society or public safety. Trophy hunting is very clearly defined as "the display of an animal's head, fur, and other body parts, rather than for utilization of the meat." The bill says the hunting of these animals is almost always done through unsavory means, like using dogs with electronic collars to track and surround the lion. It then bans the use of dogs for hunting cats as well. Following this definitive statement, the bill has several paragraphs defining terms and laying out guidelines for enforcing the ban. But what does this all mean to us as hunters?

No Logic is to Be Found

Political activists from Cat's Aren't Trophies, a Colorado-based anti-hunting group, clearly crafted Prop 127's language with an agenda that had little understanding of the North American Conservation Model. The bill's reasoning for the ban is clear: it is seen as inhumane, and hunting cats does not benefit the general public good, with no regard for the science behind wildlife management.

Using the phrase "trophy hunting" puts a bad image in the general public's mind. I firmly believe that this phrase was chosen specifically for that reason. The display of the animal’s pelt and head is also banned as it is part of trophy hunting. Why is this in the proposition if the logic behind it is truly what the proponents of this movement say? To preserve the species? These clear definitions of trophy hunting and the subsequent bans on collecting non-edible parts of the animal and hound hunting show that this is genuinely about banning hunting.  The final part of the proposal reinforces that thought process with an attack on hound hunting, which is historically how cats are hunted. The bill says plainly  that hound hunting is done through "Unsavory means."

As you read all of this, you may think, "That all sounds terrible, but this is a Colorado issue, so it won't affect me." But it will. 

Setting a Wrong Course for Hunting

To be very frank, if this bill is passed, it could be incredibly damaging to the future of our hunting traditions nationwide, not just in Colorado. Historically, bills that are successfully passed are used as the framework and blueprints for passing similar bills in other states. Not only can it be used in different states, but it can be modified to support similar bans in the same space, such as a ban on elk hunting, for example.

The language in this proposed legislation is even more concerning. That is the significant issue here. The language and the logic behind this bill are aimed at the long-term objective of curbing hunting. If not, a total ban on hunting. This would completely ignore the North American conservation model that has successfully maintained the population and improved the population and environments of hundreds of game species across the continent.

Vote No to Preserve Our Hunting Future

This directly threatens our hunting traditions, and we must act now to protect them. 

With election day just a few weeks away and early voting starting 15 days before the election in Colorado, the stakes are high. High enough, in fact, that pillars of the conservation community, such as Bass Pro Shops founder Johnny Morris, have personally made their voice heard on the issue. Other organizations like RMEF, NWTF, The Congressional Sportsman's Foundation, The Mule Deer Foundation, The Wild Sheep Foundation, and Ducks Unlimited have all rallied behind a Bass Pro Shops initiative to encourage Colorado voters to vote no. The Bass Pro Shops Statement is as follows, "COLORADO ACTION ALERT: We are proud to stand alongside sportsmen and women and leading conservation organizations encouraging Colorado Residents to “VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 127"."

The future of hunting in both Colorado and the nation is at risk.  The way this language is used and the history of states like Colorado and California are using legislation to override a scientific approach to wildlife management should be a cause for concern. If this bill passes, it will be used as a template to continue eroding our rights as hunters and the tradition across the nation.

So, let's unite in our opposition to Prop 127. If you are in Colorado, we strongly encourage you to vote no on Prop 127.  When you go to vote, don't vote alone. Bring a family member or friend. If you're not a resident of Colorado, help share the message on social media, reach out to your friends who may live there, and encourage them to vote no as well. 

Our future is very much in our hands as hunters, as it always has been, so it's essential, if not critical, that we get out the vote and get this piece of legislation shot down. Together, we can make a difference. 

- Cody Fongemie, DeerCast Senior Writer 

"Cougar! Puma! Mountain Lion!" by Appalachian Encounters is licensed under CC BY 2.0.; "Bobcat snow" by ForestWander.com is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.; "Voting booths at Sedgwick Middle School, West Hartford, CT" by ragesoss is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.; "Mountain Lion" by USFWS Mountain Prairie is licensed under CC BY 2.0.