CO Mountain Lion Ballot Initiative: Continuous Updates

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.
Yeah. Thought the same thing. They are really reaching with that one. Would love to run into Ol Tom Pool at some veterans event so I could ask him a few questions. Animal Wellness Action/Center for a Humane Economy is an organization with a singular goal of eliminating hunting, their leader Wayne Pacelle has stated it on numerous occasions. Have these self-proclaimed “hunters” spent a second investigating the organization they are throwing their support behind?

Don’t be fooled, Pool is a political hack and paid anti-hunting activist. He is on the board of Pacelle’s Center for a Humane Economy. The primary out of state donor for CATS.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if any of you looked at the link attached in the Boulder Weekly newsletter article that Oak posted above? I found it interesting that there are both direct and indirect effects on bighorn sheep lamb survival. It is an extremely detailed journal publication with numerous references to other similar research.

There is a lot more ecology and science involved than lions just killing prey. You may want to read some of the results I posted immediately below. It mentions the direct and indirect effects predators have not only on wild sheep, but elk, moose, mtn goats, and even pika! This is a prime example of science-based, long-term research. The anti-hunter's campaign has very little science to back their claims.

Direct and indirect effects of cougar predation on bighorn sheep fitness


Predation had strong negative effects on lamb survival through both direct and indirect effects. For neonatal survival, the best model retained the effect of cougar predation in the year of conception, suggesting an indirect effect on this vital rate. Although we cannot assess the physiological mechanisms involved, perhaps females that experience intense predation suffered high energy costs. Bighorn females adopt a conservative reproductive strategy (Douhard et al., 2018; Festa-Bianchet & Jorgenson, 1998; Gaillard & Yoccoz, 2003), suggesting that they may respond to the energetic costs of predator-induced stress (Boonstra et al., 1998) and possibly lower foraging efficiency by curtailing allocation to reproduction. For lamb survival to weaning and overwinter, we cannot partition the relative importance of direct and indirect effects as we do not have data on causes of mortality. Cougars prey on lambs (Ross et al., 1997); therefore, part of the reduction in lamb survival is due to direct predation. However, indirect effects may also be involved, because low mass at weaning reduces survival (Bourbeau-Lemieux et al., 2011; Feder et al., 2008).

Our conclusions support the findings by Bourbeau-Lemieux et al. (2011) who reported that intense cougar predation induced indirect effects on lamb body size, which in turn contributed to lower overwinter survival. Similarly, Dulude-de Broin et al. (2020). found that high predator occurrence reduced fecundity in mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus). Yin et al. (2017) analogously found detrimental effects of predator presence on reproduction by plateau pika (Ochotona curzoniae). Our research also sheds light on the controversy about the role of indirect effects on wolf–elk interactions (Creel et al., 2007, 2009). Some authors questioned the interpretation that wolf predation caused large indirect effects on female elk reproductive performance. White et al. (2011) found no evidence of indirect effects of wolf predation in the same elk population. Middleton et al. (2013) also argued against the indirect effect of wolf predation on elk. They measured a low encounter rate, suggesting that on average an elk was within 1 km of wolves only once every 9 days, and these interactions did not reduce calf production. Middleton et al. (2013) additionally claimed that coursing predators such as wolves cannot apply a pressure strong enough to induce indirect effects. For example, White and Berger (2001) found that although moose (Alces alces) responded to coursing predators by increasing maternal vigilance and reducing foraging when their calf was active, they were able to compensate by increasing forage intake when the calf was inactive. Compared with coursing predators, stalking/ambush predators tend to hunt in a smaller area, leading to a higher encounter rate of prey with predators and likely generating a greater perception of risk by prey (Sommer et al., 2023). Our results support the predator-sensitive food hypothesis, suggesting a trade-off between predation risk and foraging behavior (Sinclair & Arcese, 1995). Future research should seek to quantify the causal mechanisms for the indirect effects of predation. For example, during predation years, space use and gregariousness patterns may have differed compared with non-predation years.
 
Final day of bids for the Hunt Talk Auction benefiting donations towards Wildlife Deserves Better. Several great items donated by many Hunt Talk members. Thus far members have raised $3,419 for this endeavor!
If interested - could sure use a final push across the finish line.

 
A version of this story should be out in The Colorado Sun on Monday.

 
I got the below via text a few minutes ago.

Not sure who the ‘Western Heritage Conservation Alloance’ group is - but this kind of messaging is just too dramatic.

There needs to be better messaging than ‘cats are dangerous so we have to protect ourselves from them’

IMG_0408.jpeg
 
I got the below via text a few minutes ago.

Not sure who the ‘Western Heritage Conservation Alloance’ group is - but this kind of messaging is just too dramatic.

There needs to be better messaging than ‘cats are dangerous so we have to protect ourselves from them’

View attachment 346316

The commercials running are much better. The opeds are also much better.

The stuff being sent out by the proponents is almost worse than that text though, the commercials, opeds, and texts alike.
 
I got the below via text a few minutes ago.

Not sure who the ‘Western Heritage Conservation Alloance’ group is - but this kind of messaging is just too dramatic.

There needs to be better messaging than ‘cats are dangerous so we have to protect ourselves from them’

View attachment 346316
I did hear from a 127 firmly opposed person today who saw a 127 opposition commercial that they thought was way overdramatic. Probably not any more overdramatic than the other side.
 
I did hear from a 127 firmly opposed person today who saw a 127 opposition commercial that they thought was way overdramatic. Probably not any more overdramatic than the other side.
This election season over dramatic seems to be more rampant than ever. In our State it has me voting for the candidate that kept it clean even though I don’t care for her much. The other guy just seems slimy with the ads he has been running.
 
Between my wife and I, we have heard directly from 6 folks that our emails and follow up conversations about voting no swayed them to now vote no when they initially thought it was a yes.

Slowly but surely, making a difference.

Keep the conversations and information sharing going! Together, we got this!
 
Between my wife and I, we have heard directly from 6 folks that our emails and follow up conversations about voting no swayed them to now vote no when they initially thought it was a yes.

Slowly but surely, making a difference.

Keep the conversations and information sharing going! Together, we got this!

i've heard about a lot of no's i was not expecting.

i even read this on a hiking forum: "My moral outrage at mountain lion hunting practices is dwarfed by my loathing of wildlife management policy being set by ballot initiatives."

there is hope.
 
There were some interesting posts on the Western Watersheds Project insta page after they (WWP) made a post endorsing Prop 127. Many of their followers seemed to take issue with 127, as generally bad policy, somewhat dishonest, and criticized the CATS folks for being more worried about ethical virtue signaling and grandstanding than actually collaborating with the wildlife community on ensuring ethical hunting practices. Sort of exposed their agenda as more “anti-hunting” than actually “pro-wildlife”.
 
Well, I think we could all see this coming, Prop 127-CATS team attacks Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, and Wild Sheep Foundation in email to supporters. All evil “trophy hunters”. I guess RMEF, MDF, and WSF must be the “dark money DC groups” they keep trying to scare voters with. Very scary organizations.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2800.jpeg
    IMG_2800.jpeg
    599.7 KB · Views: 36
Where was this posted?

The truth is showing its shiny face! Does this group truly care about wildlife or is this an anti-hunting debate? It looks like they are shooting themselves in the foot losing the votes from the members of all of those organizations.

The true colors are coming out about who truely is supporting wildlife management and who could care less about the positive impacts and benefits those groups have on wildlife.
 
Last edited:
i've heard about a lot of no's i was not expecting.

i even read this on a hiking forum: "My moral outrage at mountain lion hunting practices is dwarfed by my loathing of wildlife management policy being set by ballot initiatives."

there is hope.
Yep, saw that one. Also thought the overall vibe on that thread to voting NO was more positive than I had expected.
 
Back
Top