CO Mountain Lion Ballot Initiative: Continuous Updates

[Sytes]

Brother and his neighbor joined your gathering. Said he enjoyed meeting several of those present. Someone gave them a couple stickers.
He hasn't hunted in some 15 years though knows the importance of conservation efforts, applied via tools inclusive of trapping / hunting.
They're a bit concerned as a couple ladies within their church were recently sharing pamphlets, Yes on 127.
Same time, during some BBQ gatherings the topic has been raised with good opposition for 127.

At church. Really?

 

[TheTone]

. DIL is not changing her Yes vote, said her mind was made up by her HSUS connections. One vote at a time.

time to scrub someone out of any inheritance or favors

 

[jimss]

One interesting thing brought up in the video in post #158 above is that currently the cpw offers damage claims for livestock loss due to lions since lions are currently game species. If 127 passes, lions will no longer be considered game animals in Colo so rancher’s that loose livestock to lions won’t be offered damage claims.

Also, $ generated from hunters is currently flipping the bill that pays ranchers for damage claims.

If 127 passes it is a big hit in the wallet for Colorado ranchers living in lion country.

 

[elkduds]

time to scrub someone out of any inheritance or favors

I asked her if she was offended by my reply to her pro 127 post on FB, which politely asked if a linked article would get her to reconsider. She said it didn't bother her. I figure an approach from the 'have you seen this?' perspective, with people I know, might sway them instead of making them defensive, which proved accurate w DIL. Her mind was made up by Bascom. If someone disagrees with my advocacy online, I typically ask a one word question: Why? Sometimes a constructive discussion results.

If these acquaintances were well informed, I wouldn't need to campaign them in the 1st place.

 

[brocksw]

Colorado Proposition 127 w/ BHA's Bryan Jones

Podcast Episode · North Dakota BHA Podcast · 10/21/2024 · 1h 39m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[Big Fin]

It is interesting that the CPW Commissioners, appointed Trustees of the agency, can issue public statements, yet the employees with the knowledge, training, and education, are muzzled.

The document below is the most the employees are able to say in any official capacity, via their professional association, without retribution or legal complication to their employment. They are not allowed to make specific reference to the Initiative, yet the CPW Commissioners can make a full-on promotion of their own personal positions. All the Employee Association can do is make an affirmative statement about the North American Model and science-based wildlife management. Hardly a fair playing ground and the Commissioners know it. This resolution is required to be so sterile it will get no traction by media driven by the principles of "clickbait awareness."

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Murphy and Beaulieu were appointed as political actors to push an openly anti-hunting agenda. Neither has actual wildlife biology or parks/outdoor recreation advocacy experience. Beaulieu was narrowly confirmed (2 votes) after significant bipartisan opposition. They have both reversed their positions on “ballot box biology” since their senate confirmation hearings. Clearly violated CPW Commission policy and potentially Colorado law in their attempt to mislead Colorado voters and undermine the integrity of the vote on Prop 127. Response from Commission Chairman Dallas May was “CPW Commissioners are appointed volunteers and not CPW agency staff, therefore not beholden to the same restrictions.” I am sure he was instructed by the Governor’s office and/or Polis’ henchmen Dan Gibbs and Tim Mauck to defend Murphy and Beaulieu. Absolutely zero accountability to the public.

Alas, can’t expend too much on this right now, gotta keep fighting real battle- defeat Prop 127! Spreading the word, planting signs, and writing editorials. It was great to talk with all the folks at the Capitol on Friday.

 

[elkduds]

Well-attended online discussion against 127 on Nextdoor social media site here in Canon City.


Lance Brauch
•Penrose•5d

These 2 are EXISTING laws. C.R.S. 33-6-119(2). A violation of this law occurs where someone fails to reasonably attempt to take care of edible portions of a game animalThe above is a misdemeanor and loss of hunting privilegesC.R.S. 33-6-117. Willful destruction of wildlife is where the officers are charging you with taking only the trophy portions of an animal with no intention of using the meat or carcass whatsoever.The above is a felony.This isn’t about stopping trophy hunting, please do your research. This started with a group from California who wants to ban all hunting eventually. “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.” Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP Humane Society of the US (HSUS), formerly of Fund for Animals, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990

 

[TOGIE]

It is interesting that the CPW Commissioners, appointed Trustees of the agency, can issue public statements, yet the employees with the knowledge, training, and education, are muzzled.

The document below is the most the employees are able to say in any official capacity, via their professional association, without retribution or legal complication to their employment. They are not allowed to make specific reference to the Initiative, yet the CPW Commissioners can make a full-on promotion of their own personal positions. All the Employee Association can do is make an affirmative statement about the North American Model and science-based wildlife management. Hardly a fair playing ground and the Commissioners know it. This resolution is required to be so sterile it will get no traction by media driven by the principles of "clickbait awareness."

View attachment 345388

It is getting some press, thankfully.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife employee association criticizes wildlife-management ballot initiatives in first-of-its-kind resolution

While Colorado Parks and Wildlife is prohibited from taking a stance on ballot initiatives, a group of the agency’s employees is speaking out as Proposition 127 — a measure that would ban the hunting of...

www.summitdaily.com

 

[Oak]

No on 127: Hunting ban will harm mountain lion management - Boulder Weekly

Hunting of mountain lions is a solid population strategy, writes former CPW wildlife officer. Boulder Weekly

boulderweekly.com

 

[perma]

No on 127: Hunting ban will harm mountain lion management - Boulder Weekly

Hunting of mountain lions is a solid population strategy, writes former CPW wildlife officer. Boulder Weekly

boulderweekly.com

Strong article

 

[COEngineer]

Cabelas trying to make a difference. Email from them yesterday:

 

[perma]

Cabelas trying to make a difference. Email from them yesterday:
View attachment 345976

That’s amazing actually.

 

[noharleyyet]

That’s amazing actually.

Yep, they'd've been blasted only a couple of years ago for it.

 

[Mudranger1]

Wife just got this text

 

[perma]

Wife just got this text
View attachment 346037

Wonder if Tom Pool's stance will change when Carol Baskin goes after deer and elk next.

 

[Mudranger1]

New ‘Yes on Prop 127’ Ad: Army Colonel Tom Pool — Rancher and Hunter — Says Native Cats May Save Deer and Elk Hunting in Colorado

Col. Pool, calling out anti-127 campaigners and their trophy hunting programs, 'opponents of Prop 127 are deceiving you.

animalwellnessaction.org

I figured he was made up. Apparently not

 

[TOGIE]

New ‘Yes on Prop 127’ Ad: Army Colonel Tom Pool — Rancher and Hunter — Says Native Cats May Save Deer and Elk Hunting in Colorado

Col. Pool, calling out anti-127 campaigners and their trophy hunting programs, 'opponents of Prop 127 are deceiving you.

animalwellnessaction.org

I figured he was made up. Apparently not

i was just reading that article after also asking the question "who the *&^% is tom pool?"

the proponents apparently really seem to be relying on the veterinarians to voice opposition from a voice of authority. since when the hell are veterinarians experts in wildlife biology, ecology, and management?

there is a part of me that thinks we have a real chance on this - the grasping at misinformation and making hunters boogeymen is so palpable it's almost comical to read their articles. i've sensed a bit of a disposition from a lot of people that I otherwise would not have expected that there is a little bit of buyers remorse from the wolf prop and there is a bit of disgust at seeing how poorly things are going with reintro.

if prop 127 does not pass, my hunch is they will have learned that they tried to go after the cats way too soon after the wolf thing - too much too fast.

i dunno. i also really am not sure which way this is gonna go. if we get good hunter turn out i think we have it.

 

[tormenter]

Strong article

Wow - I never thought Boulder could ever aline with some of my thoughts. Seriously this is good thing for us. If the Boulderites can even consider NO 127 we could very well defeat this horrid Proposition!!

Boulder has always been Ground Zero for the anti hunter movement!

 

[perma]

i dunno. i also really am not sure which way this is gonna go. if we get good hunter turn out i think we have it.

Agreed. Hunters who aren’t registered to vote will make or break it IMO. I think we still have a good shot.