Advertisement

CO Mountain Lion Ballot Initiative: Continuous Updates

Did they represent themselves as carrying an official position?

That's the hurdle. If it's just sitting member's opinion, then it seems like it falls under the 1st amendment right for protected speech.

If I were to imagine other public servants accompanying a statement position about something related to their roles, with the precursor that they are currently in that role, it sure feels like an official position.

If wrote an op-ed saying, “ I’m Nameless Range, I am an xxxx for agency yyyy, and I think this about topic zzzz related to my agency’s work”, I’d probably be in the HR office on Monday.

That said, doesn’t make it right or wrong, and I often feel like public servants or Trustees lower down the chain have a higher level of professionalism expected of them than the bigwigs, and exhibit it.

I hope Colorado pulls through. It would be very disheartening to me for my wildlife commissioners to speak against a well established heritage. You can bet that once again there will be a bill in the Montana legislature to make hunting fishing and trapping methods, a constitutional initiative.
 
If I were to imagine other public servants accompanying a statement position about something related to their roles, with the precursor that they are currently in that role, it sure feels like an official position.

If wrote an op-ed saying, “ I’m Nameless Range, I am an xxxx for agency yyyy, and I think this about topic zzzz related to my agency’s work”, I’d probably be in the HR office on Monday.

That said, doesn’t make it right or wrong, and I often feel like public servants or Trustees lower down the chain have a higher level of professionalism expected of them than the bigwigs, and exhibit it.

I hope Colorado pulls through. It would be very disheartening to me for my wildlife commissioners to speak against a well established heritage. You can bet that once again there will be a bill in the Montana legislature to make hunting fishing and trapping methods, a constitutional initiative.

Employees are held to different standards than appointed commissioners, generally. Regardless, it appears as if these commissioners were in violation of their own regulations. Getting anyone to take that seriously may prove to be difficult.

That's why accountability exists in issue campaigning.
 
From a campaign perspective, it gives the opportunity for a negative attack on process & impartiality, which helps move swing votes towards your position if played correctly. Since there is a big election this year, dems have to be really careful in some districts and at the statewide level to not alienate people and help maintain their majorities, which are not entirely certain as is.

It's an unforced error that makes the proponent side look shady and shifty. Opponents should play that card and push the dems into a corner, especially in districts that are swingable at the legislative level.
How about something like,
"Activists behind Prop 127 are lying to voters. They claim that drones are being used to hunt mountain lions. Hunting anything with drones is completely illegal in CO. They also claim that cats are strangled after they are captured. This is also illegal in Colorado. Any evidence of such activity should be turned over to law enforcement immediately. A third claim is that there are no human/lion conflicts. A quick google search will produce plenty of examples of conflict, including a fairly recent attack on two young brothers in California (where lion hunting has been banned for decades) in which one of them lost his life. Another claim is that mountain lions will reduce the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in deer and elk. There is no peer-reviewed science that supports this claim. In fact, CWD seems to be just as prevalent in areas of Colorado where there is little or no mountain lion hunting. These activists seem intent on increasing the urban/rural divide and they are not above bald-faced lies to achieve their emotionally charged proposition. Vote No on Prop 127."
 
How about something like,
"Activists behind Prop 127 are lying to voters. They claim that drones are being used to hunt mountain lions. Hunting anything with drones is completely illegal in CO. They also claim that cats are strangled after they are captured. This is also illegal in Colorado. Any evidence of such activity should be turned over to law enforcement immediately. A third claim is that there are no human/lion conflicts. A quick google search will produce plenty of examples of conflict, including a fairly recent attack on two young brothers in California (where lion hunting has been banned for decades) in which one of them lost his life. Another claim is that mountain lions will reduce the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in deer and elk. There is no peer-reviewed science that supports this claim. In fact, CWD seems to be just as prevalent in areas of Colorado where there is little or no mountain lion hunting. These activists seem intent on increasing the urban/rural divide and they are not above bald-faced lies to achieve their emotionally charged proposition. Vote No on Prop 127."

Don't restate your oppositions position. No need to carry their water for them. Always punch forward when you have to punch!

Hit em with the facts, maintain moral superiority and force them into a rear action defending their lack of ethics, rather than litigating their position.

It's a maneuver designed to move them off their attack and defend their rear, splitting their effort & stopping momentum forward.
 
If I’m understanding Mr lamb correctly, we need a snazzy op ed blasted out titled: Breaching Ethics While Preaching Ehics (and laws)

The art of diplomacy is telling someone to go to hell in such a manner that they ask for directions.

Lead with the science, or lack there of and hammer on the established conservation plan that exists, and has led to a remarkable recovery of lions, bobcats & even lynx, to a lesser extent (regulated hunting & trapping), the dollars used for land & habitat protection and how hunters have been leading proponents for huntable populations of large carnivores, not their extirpation.

Focus on shared values: love of open space, public lands & public wildlife. Opposition wants to paint cat hunters a blood thirsty trophy hunters & not advocates for roadless lands, wilderness & thoughtful development of natural resources.

Lion hunters & houndsmen provide invaluable data to wildlife agencies in terms of lion populations but also in the scientific study of those critters. Focus on the positives while moderating the need to lash out at your detractors.

Stay calm, steady handed & above reproach. Focus on the positives of management & hunting; cite your science & be professional in how you write.

Your audience isn't the people who opposed you, it's the 20-30% in the middle who need good reasons for voting against it.
 
The art of diplomacy is telling someone to go to hell in such a manner that they ask for directions.

Lead with the science, or lack there of and hammer on the established conservation plan that exists, and has led to a remarkable recovery of lions, bobcats & even lynx, to a lesser extent (regulated hunting & trapping), the dollars used for land & habitat protection and how hunters have been leading proponents for huntable populations of large carnivores, not their extirpation.

Focus on shared values: love of open space, public lands & public wildlife. Opposition wants to paint cat hunters a blood thirsty trophy hunters & not advocates for roadless lands, wilderness & thoughtful development of natural resources.

Lion hunters & houndsmen provide invaluable data to wildlife agencies in terms of lion populations but also in the scientific study of those critters. Focus on the positives while moderating the need to lash out at your detractors.

Stay calm, steady handed & above reproach. Focus on the positives of management & hunting; cite your science & be professional in how you write.

Your audience isn't the people who opposed you, it's the 20-30% in the middle who need good reasons for voting against it.
May your appointment in Hades be an experience indicative of the tribulations awaiting your destination...
 
There was an electronic billboard on Arapahoe next to the dealerships that had a vote no on 127 ad. This was right after I had a discussion with someone who was voting yes.

Fun part about that is I know this person will be driving that road quite often so he'll see that sign every time he looks over there.
 
I talked to a coworker who I thought would be better informed. She was flabbergasted to know that people eat mtn lion, that lions eat (or at least kill) about a deer each week. So on and so on. Most people are clueless - you have to tell them! They will listen! Vote No on 127.
 
Please read the following article about California wild sheep and mountain lions. Colorado will likely face the same scenario if this passes! You may want to pass this article along to those that are undecided whether to vote
yes or no!

Below are the last couple paragraphs in this article and reflect exactly what is going on right now in Colorado!

"With this policy, California has in effect permitted an animal-rights agenda to override science-based conservation, which focuses on the health of populations and ecosystems, not the fate of individuals.

The lives of a small number of mountain lions are being saved at the cost of many Sierra bighorn, favoring an animal with wide distribution and a large population over one that—at least so far—has barely escaped extinction."


 
I know, you are getting sick of my posts! Here is one of the best videos that I've seen about proposition 127. If you have any relatives or buddies that are on the fence about this, be sure to have them watch it. It really explains things in great detail.

 
Please read the following article about California wild sheep and mountain lions. Colorado will likely face the same scenario if this passes! You may want to pass this article along to those that are undecided whether to vote
yes or no!

Below are the last couple paragraphs in this article and reflect exactly what is going on right now in Colorado!

"With this policy, California has in effect permitted an animal-rights agenda to override science-based conservation, which focuses on the health of populations and ecosystems, not the fate of individuals.

The lives of a small number of mountain lions are being saved at the cost of many Sierra bighorn, favoring an animal with wide distribution and a large population over one that—at least so far—has barely escaped extinction."



“Mountain lions have also been shown to significantly depress bighorn sheep populations beyond the Sierra Nevada, from New Mexico and Texas to southern Alberta province in Canada. What these otherwise varied ecosystems have in common is an absence of wolves.

Wolves aren't good bighorn sheep hunters, but they compete with mountain lions for prey and steal and eat what they kill. Lion populations shrink substantially in the presence of wolves, which greatly benefits bighorn sheep.“




Be careful with that article, it reinforces exactly what all the proponents want: unmanaged wolves and unmanaged lions.
 
I heard from a fb contact who is reconsidering her Yes vote after we corresponded. My strategy was asking her to read a Denver news article opposed to 127. I opined the initiative came from big $ out of state, and that CPW manages all wildlife in balance, not favoring one species over others. She'll change her husband's mind, so that's 2. DIL is not changing her Yes vote, said her mind was made up by her HSUS connections. One vote at a time.
 
Advertisement

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,993
Members
36,275
Latest member
johnw3474
Back
Top