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 big a big hand. If it were left solely to residents, we likely be up shit 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.