CO Mountain Lion Ballot Initiative: Continuous Updates

[Ben Lamb]

Ben I am curious your perspective on this: Do you feel that a 2-year, coalition-led educational push culminating in attempting to pass an amendment guaranteeing Coloradans right to and fish like Florida just passed would be the logical next step? It seems to me that would be a way to positively redirect some of the organizational momentum that was built through the 127 opposition efforts.

It all depends on the language.

But, if you don't like ballot box biology, is it hypocritical to pass a ballot initiative telling folks what they can and can't do in terms of hunting?

How do you account for nuances in wildlife management for species that aren't hunted? Typical NRA language says that hunting and angling will be the preferred methods of management. Does that mean we'll be hunting bats when there's too many of them? Does that mean only hunters can solve landowner problems with problematic concentrations?

I put my faith and trust in guys like @Oak because they have the temperament to bring people together, take the high road when every fiber in your being is telling you to throw hands instead, and not get sucked into the reactionary stuff that is too easy to fall into. I don't trust @Forkyfinder to have that same approach (But I still love ya, man! Would share a camp any day.).

So - more than anything I guess I am just saying, sit down, shut up, act like you've won before and wait for your entirely capable and thoughtful and damned strategic leaders to tell you what the next play is.

 

[npaden]

Let’s be fair - messaging on both sides of the issue were guilty of mis-information (or at a minimum, over-dramatization). But that’s just ‘politics’ in today’s world.

“...The pack is set loose in nature, tracked by phone app, often aided by drones. It’s a long, raucous, and terrorizing attack on unoffending native animals, who seek safety up a tree. It resembles the canned hunt as wildlife has nowhere to run, no chance to survive.

and...

“...violent predators threatening the safety of our pets, children, and neighborhoods”

We can all be better. (Now cut to @Oak saying ‘stay Golden, Pony Boy’ )

See, one of those is for sure over-dramatization. The other is mis-information at best, an outright lie is more accurate. Using a drone to assist in hunting is illegal in Colorado but they were saying that they are often used. Pretty much a straight up lie.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I dont trust the lobbyists - who are the source of initiatives like this.

Ballot initiatives are over rated.

 

[TOGIE]

But, if you don't like ballot box biology, is it hypocritical to pass a ballot initiative telling folks what they can and can't do in terms of hunting?

It's trying to defend the things i enjoy from attack. It is what it is - every group that exists wants to protect their activity so that it can continue to be enjoyed.

If it's hypocritical then so be it. I just view it as a good defense is a good offense. I don't think the solution is to just continually be fighting fires and responding to every ballot initiative that continues to come up. Let's work together to try and preserve our sacred activity in a more definitive manner. If the voters agree then they agree. I have no stomachache over that.

How do you account for nuances in wildlife management for species that aren't hunted? Typical NRA language says that hunting and angling will be the preferred methods of management. Does that mean we'll be hunting bats when there's too many of them? Does that mean only hunters can solve landowner problems with problematic concentrations?

I don't think it's appropriate to jump to these conclusions. Trying to put a law on the books that attempts to emphasize and codify that hunting is a legitimate activity that will remain legal, regulated appropriately by a commission and its staff, so long as the resources can sustain it, is simply that. Not sure why non game comes in to play there since we're simply talking about hunting as a regulated legal activity. And we're not talking about the NRA, we're talking about Colorado and what the resident voters want, not what the NRA wants. But, since it came up, if it came to be that bats can sustain a harvest and people want to do it and the commission decides they can properly regulate it, why not? And then, hopefully, with good legislation or new law from the ballot box, we can't have Wild Earth Guardians and the HSUS come in and push new ballot initiatives to say you can't simply because "bats have feelings and we don't like it."

don't get me wrong, i understand everything you're saying. but on many levels it's hard for me to fully agree.

 

[lastlight]

Let’s be fair - messaging on both sides of the issue were guilty of mis-information (or at a minimum, over-dramatization). But that’s just ‘politics’ in today’s world.

“...violent predators threatening the safety of our pets, children, and neighborhoods”

We can all be better.

While I agree using “violent” term is a little dramatic you’re higher than a kite if you think lions aren’t a threat to pets and children. More and more cougar attacks are taking place in states that banned hunting them. Kid died from a young male cougar where I’m from this year. They have eaten countless pets in CA. I know of at least a dozen people who’ve lost dogs, goats, sheep, cats, etc to lions. All were backyard pets. One lady I used to live next to was walking her dog and a cat snatched it out of her hands/leash. They must be managed and telling the truth of threat to human life shouldn’t be kept silent.

 

[Ben Lamb]

don't get me wrong, i understand everything you're saying. but on many levels it's hard for me to fully agree.

Did my wife get your login?

Kidding.

I'm ok with you disagreeing. Lot of people disagree with me. It ok though because I'm always right.

 

[sneakem]

While it's a big pat on the back for CO residents, there was a good amount of support from out of state/conservation groups, including donations/advertising/social media to mount a fight. Lots of people/groups from out of state lent a hand to help and also deserve a big hand. If it were left solely to residents, we likely be up creek again like the wolf fiasco. Fortunately, people took it a little more serious this time and a much more concerted, well organized effort was put into this. Kudos to EVERYONE that went above and beyond...

 

[Sagebrush1]

Yes, removing freedoms from citizens always leads to great results.

Folks need to think pretty critically here on the next steps. Right now, everything I've seen from you chuckleheads would make we not want to fund you. This thing died with a margin that should worry everyone. Rather than simply pretend like it was a massive dismissal of the anti-hunting crowd, people would be well advised to continue the positive, well thought out approach that the coalition led on for further educational efforts.

Those guys won because they kept it above board and kept the shenanigans to a minimum. Grace, humility and kindness do far more to move people on these issues than bravado and boner pill models.

Unfortunately grace humility and kindness are severely lacking in today’s political climate.

I’m glad it didn’t pass, but it will be back next year.

 

[Dave N]

Just got an email from GOHUNT about the win and offering a discount in the gear shop.

 

[TOGIE]

Unfortunately grace humility and kindness are severely lacking in today’s political climate.

I’m glad it didn’t pass, but it will be back next year.

No i don't think it will be back next year. I'm not political analyst but i can't imagine that would be a good use of funds for those orgs.

Some say the margins weren't great. I think a 55.5/44.5 margin was solid, especially with the demographics of this state now. Trying to come right back to voters after decent defeat is asking for more of the same IMO

What i could see coming right around the corner now is hunting lions with dogs. The proponents were really framing this as a fair chase and ethics issue and greatly leaning on the dogs and treed cats to rile people up.

Now, what seemed to land in my conversations with people is that if this was really about fair chase and ethics they wouldn't be going after a total ban, they would be going after the dogs. I tried to argue in my conversations that framing the issue around dogs and fair chase while going after a blanket ban betrayed the reality that the proponents weren't actually concerned with fair chase and ethics, they were concerned with hunting bans. I found that point really resonated with some folks.

I think we have to be prepared for that. We also have to realize and be honest that it's understandably hard for many people to stomach the dogs and treed cats. Their trepidations and, for some, disgust with those practices is not something to trivialize.

 

[seeth07]

I think a 55.5/44.5 margin was solid

Think about this: There were many "common sense" and slam dunk props in states this year regarding voting rights. Here is the one and results from my state.



Shouldn't this measure had turned out with simular results if you remove the passion and remove the words "trophy hunting" from the prop wording? Last I checked, people still overwhelmingly support hunting and fishing (as evident by the passing of the Florida prop adding it to their constitution as a right)

 

[Mudranger1]

Think about this: There were many "common sense" and slam dunk props in states this year regarding voting rights. Here is the one and results from my state.

View attachment 348043

Shouldn't this measure had turned out with simular results if you remove the passion and remove the words "trophy hunting" from the prop wording? Last I checked, people still overwhelmingly support hunting and fishing (as evident by the passing of the Florida prop adding it to their constitution as a right)

I do agree with you but the Colorado majority is nothing like the Florida majority. Just facts that California is more of kin than Florida

 

[seeth07]

I do agree with you but the Colorado majority is nothing like the Florida majority. Just facts that California is more of kin than Florida

Idk about that, I remember once reading in outdoor life not long ago that even in states like Mass where hunting is very limited for its residents to participate in, the public still highly accepts hunting and fishing. I'm guessing in CO the support for hunting and fishing is extremely high

 

[bayoublaster7527]

No i don't think it will be back next year. I'm not political analyst but i can't imagine that would be a good use of funds for those orgs.

Some say the margins weren't great. I think a 55.5/44.5 margin was solid, especially with the demographics of this state now. Trying to come right back to voters after decent defeat is asking for more of the same IMO

What i could see coming right around the corner now is hunting lions with dogs. The proponents were really framing this as a fair chase and ethics issue and greatly leaning on the dogs and treed cats to rile people up.

Now, what seemed to land in my conversations with people is that if this was really about fair chase and ethics they wouldn't be going after a total ban, they would be going after the dogs. I tried to argue in my conversations that framing the issue around dogs and fair chase while going after a blanket ban betrayed the reality that the proponents weren't actually concerned with fair chase and ethics, they were concerned with hunting bans. I found that point really resonated with some folks.

I think we have to be prepared for that. We also have to realize and be honest that it's understandably hard for many people to stomach the dogs and treed cats. Their trepidations and, for some, disgust with those practices is not something to trivialize.

I agree. The logic that CATS was pushing this based on “fair chase” ethics related to hound-hunting, despite it being a total ban, I believe painted them as a bit deceptive in the eyes of many non-hunting voters.

Great win, huge outpouring of support from Colorado and the hunting community nationwide. Kudos to the Colorado voters for seeing this proposition for what it is and putting their faith in the consummate professionals at CPW. So much grassroots work by Colorado hunters talking to friends, neighbors, family, colleagues, etc. Gives me great hope. We do need to think deeply on the next move. I am sure the experienced folks that guided the opposition to victory have a good plan.

I doubt CATS come right back in 2 or 4 years with a ballot initiative. Maybe they try to take a petition to ban hound hunting before the CPW Commission? They expended a lot of resources on this to fail, 11 point margin is pretty large. That being said, Animal Wellness Action, Center for Humane Economy, WildEarth Guardians, Center for Biological Diversity, Anti-Hunting Policy Center at Colorado State University, etc aren’t going away anytime soon. All are well funded and looking for work. They won’t relent in their quest to eliminate hunting. We must stay engaged and active.

 

[Mudranger1]

Idk about that, I remember once reading in outdoor life not long ago that even in states like Mass where hunting is very limited for its residents to participate in, the public still highly accepts hunting and fishing. I'm guessing in CO the support for hunting and fishing is extremely high

Not in total disagreement.

 

[Sytes]

Curious if anything may be done with the @Ben Lamb grace to ensure those that attempted to use their position to influence voters are held accountable? Speaking of several pages back when I shared CPW commission's regulations.

 

[jimss]

Who finances fish and wildlife management in Colorado? It definitely isn’t those that financially supported 127. How much $ have the CATS and other activists invested in Colorado wildlife conservation? Their primary concern is eliminating trophy hunting. Most of the big financial supporters of 127 didn't even live in Colorado and likely have never seen a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx track in the wild.

If hunting is eliminated, who supports wildlife habitat improvement projects, wildlife monitoring, disease control, livestock loss and crop damage claims by wildlife, etc?

As I posted earlier, it was apparent that the public was in favor of ecological and wildlife decisions being made by CPW experts that have years of education, experience, and knowledge rather than leaving decisions up to public vote.

The average Joe Public was willing to say NO to 127 because they are in favor of the experts making key wildlife decisions rather than the idea that 127 is related to allowing or not allowing hunting.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Yes, removing freedoms from citizens always leads to great results.

Folks need to think pretty critically here on the next steps. Right now, everything I've seen from you chuckleheads would make we not want to fund you. This thing died with a margin that should worry everyone. Rather than simply pretend like it was a massive dismissal of the anti-hunting crowd, people would be well advised to continue the positive, well thought out approach that the coalition led on for further educational efforts.

Those guys won because they kept it above board and kept the shenanigans to a minimum. Grace, humility and kindness do far more to move people on these issues than bravado and boner pill models.

Recent events in the presidential election call this theory into question, but I still agree...

 

[Sagebrush1]

No i don't think it will be back next year. I'm not political analyst but i can't imagine that would be a good use of funds for those orgs.

Some say the margins weren't great. I think a 55.5/44.5 margin was solid, especially with the demographics of this state now. Trying to come right back to voters after decent defeat is asking for more of the same IMO

What i could see coming right around the corner now is hunting lions with dogs. The proponents were really framing this as a fair chase and ethics issue and greatly leaning on the dogs and treed cats to rile people up.

Now, what seemed to land in my conversations with people is that if this was really about fair chase and ethics they wouldn't be going after a total ban, they would be going after the dogs. I tried to argue in my conversations that framing the issue around dogs and fair chase while going after a blanket ban betrayed the reality that the proponents weren't actually concerned with fair chase and ethics, they were concerned with hunting bans. I found that point really resonated with some folks.

I think we have to be prepared for that. We also have to realize and be honest that it's understandably hard for many people to stomach the dogs and treed cats. Their trepidations and, for some, disgust with those practices is not something to trivialize.

Yah I hope you’re right.

From a non hunting perspective I can see the efficacy in targeting the use of dogs. It definitely pulls on the old heart strings for a bunch of people.

That would be a ban in all but name, and probably easier to achieve. I dislike both the “lion hunting is evil ‘trophy’ hunting” and “if we don’t hunt lions they’ll be eating our kids” arguments.

Its unfortunate that we, as a state, can’t discuss this without hyperbole- but that seems antithetical to political discourse.

 

[reallyoldman]

The issue is not about preventing ballot box biology, but rather limiting the tools of the citizens to change their government.

I've seen good attempts at this and some bad. But regardless, the right to hunt and fish amendments aren't going to save use from the anti-hunters. We as hunters are the people who should be doing that through education & better relationships with those in your circles whom you can influence.

May I add- supporting better candidates and voting in all elections.