CO Mountain Lion Ballot Initiative: Continuous Updates

[SAJ-99]

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.

There are a lot of posts on how well funded “they” are and yet hunters can’t seem to organize themselves into a cohesive group with a coherent message if their sport depended on it. Constantly putting out fires.

 

[Sytes]

There are a lot of posts on how well funded “they” are and yet hunters can’t seem to organize themselves into a cohesive group with a coherent message if their sport depended on it. Constantly putting out fires.

I think the wolf force reintroduction was a wake up call (omitting one organization who failed to step up), I believe there was a much greater, concerted effort by conservation / hunt based organizations this go around.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think the wolf force reintroduction was a wake up call (omitting one organization who failed to step up), I believe there was a much greater, concerted effort by conservation / hunt based organizations this go around.

But is it not an instance of putting out a small fire and then waiting for the next one to pop up, which we know it will? I don’t like playing “prevent defense”, which is what it feels like.

 

[Sytes]

But is it not an instance of putting out a small fire and then waiting for the next one to pop up, which we know it will? I don’t like playing “prevent defense”, which is what it feels like.

My understanding is several organizations have joined together to counter the recent and others that will likely sprout.

Example, this was originally a Colorado Wildlife Deserves Better. Since, it's been re-created as a general, "Wildlife Deserves Better".

Why it's kept a bit lower key? I questioned that early in this thread, calling out organizations and asking people to ask their organizations what they've ponied up and if the answer isn't to your satisfaction, question why you support that organization.
I pm'd a leader of an organization and it was implied there is a unified operation in place.

 

[sneakem]

They did a survey a while back and about 60% of people are indifferent either way with hunting and the pro-hunting and anti-hunting crowd roughly split the other 40% fairly equally. The majority actually has to have their opinion swayed one way or the other, that why it's important to put a good message out... and not look like a bunch of clowns...

 

[jimss]

It’s easy to look at negatives but also important to consider all of the positives to learn how to battle the antis.

You may not be giving some of the donators credit for defeating 127! The RMEF, Bighorn Sheep Society, Muledeer Foundation, and individual sportsman and hunters that donated to howl and Wildlife Deserve Better deserve credit! There obviously are more organizations and individuals that could have stepped up.

I also think it’s worth thinking outside the box.

Having 23 (or whatever it was) retired CPW wildlife biologists that devoted their careers to wildlife management advertised their support against 127 was key. CPW TV adds related to wildlife and wildlife management rather than hunters was instrumental. Educating the public about the financial support of hunter dollars for the benefit of wildlife proved important.

The antis used a pro football player and other influential people on TV advertisements that lured the public into voting their way. I hate to say it but you can imagine the support if Taylor Swift campaigned against 127.

The little things like every hunter and sportsman discussing 127 with family and friends spread the word and instantly changed votes. The margin really wasn’t much but small things like posting signs and talking to buddies swayed votes.

127 was a success for every hunter in America! It gives hunters confidence and momentum to battle antis in the future.

 

[Hammsolo]

But is it not an instance of putting out a small fire and then waiting for the next one to pop up, which we know it will? I don’t like playing “prevent defense”, which is what it feels like.

It may be a “small fire,” but all big fires start with a spark. Great teams have both a solid defense and offense. They compliment one another. Maybe it’s time to focus on building a great team?

 

[Islander]

So happy to see this. I think it's another example of the power of independent media. Meateater was a gigantic influencer on this measure. Like their style or not, they deserve tremendous credit. Far, far more people were educated about this through Meateater podcasts than all other organizations put together...because far more people watch Meateater than are members of RMEF, etc.

 

[TOGIE]

Maybe it’s time to focus on building a great team?

It is. I think in some respects this has galvanized a newer paradigm than ever before.

I hold an unpopular opinion that increasing hunter numbers is the best way to save our favorite activity. I think the new generation of hunters - many brand new to the game, many starting in their young adult or mid adult lives, many that have been doing it their whole lives, have been re-energized, made passionate and more aware by the likes of Meateater, Newberg, and others.

If we can keep this momentum of motivated, passionate hunters that want to talk to their friends, family, and neighbors - and even increase their numbers - about the importance and value of this activity we can do a lot, draw odds be damned.

 

[COEngineer]

I don't think banning ballot initiatives in anti-democracy. If you understand that the petition gatherers are paid per signature, and understand that anyone getting paid per signature is going to say literally anything to get someone to sign, you can understand that there is nothing democratic about it. I don't have any direct quotes, but if you suggested to our Founding Fathers that 50.000001% (or 55.000001% in this case) of voters got to decide whether or not a bill becomes law, they would have laughed you out of town (or tarred and feathered you). The legislative process with it's checks and balances (and horse trading and mud slinging) and public input is not perfect, but it allows for a bill to be modified and improved until a majority of elected representatives decide to pass it. Then another body (house/senate) has to go through the same process. And then the executive branch has to approve.

 

[Sytes]

https://www.nrahlf.org/articles/2024/11/4/colorado-parks-and-wildlife-commission-faces-controversy-with-new-anti-huntinhistorical,

 

[SAJ-99]

https://www.nrahlf.org/articles/2024/11/4/colorado-parks-and-wildlife-commission-faces-controversy-with-new-anti-huntinhistorical,

Bad link?

Sorry. Found it. Just went to main page.

 

[SAJ-99]

It’s easy to look at negatives but also important to consider all of the positives to learn how to battle the antis.

Sure, but can we stop referring to this as battling the antis? I get it, but sometimes it results in messaging that is not attractive to the people you need to convince. I prefer to view it as trying to convince the 60% of people that don't care one way or another that your position is valid and a better approach.

 

[Oak]

The next play has been telegraphed.

OPINION: Election Research Suggests Coloradans Oppose Trophy Hunting – Pagosa Daily Post News Events & Video for Pagosa Springs Colorado

pagosadailypost.com

 

[perma]

The next play has been telegraphed.

OPINION: Election Research Suggests Coloradans Oppose Trophy Hunting – Pagosa Daily Post News Events & Video for Pagosa Springs Colorado

pagosadailypost.com

And without any formal meetings about it, CPW already has at least two in favor.

 

[SAJ-99]

The next play has been telegraphed.

OPINION: Election Research Suggests Coloradans Oppose Trophy Hunting – Pagosa Daily Post News Events & Video for Pagosa Springs Colorado

pagosadailypost.com

Someone learned the important lesson in messaging today...win or lose, declare victory.

 

[jimss]

Sounds like someone regrets what they asked for in their 127 proposition? As someone else mentioned, it's apparent what they will be targeting the next time around. Hopefully the CPW figure out a strategy to prevent any more ballet box wildlife propositions.

 

[WYelker]

I have said through the entire process: The only thing that does not have a good sound argument is the "unlimited" take of bobcats and the fact that they only need to be taken for fur. I think 2 moves by the CPW would flat out stomp the CATS argument. the 2 proposals I would suggest are the following:

1. Change bobcats to a game animal and require them to be processed for human consumption(seriously it is as good as lion and better than any rabbit or waterfowl I have ever eaten). This eliminates the Trophy argument entirely from the equation (not that they would not still use it) but it allows all of us to battle that significantly.

2. Create a system in which a limited number of bobcats can be removed from an area. Just like the lion hunting system. But combine many units into larger regions. Allow the unlimited take of males from these area but set a quota of females, once the female quota is filled that region is closed. This would then allow us to combat the unlimited take argument. This move would also totally blow up the Science based management argument as there is ample evidence to support that male harvest typically does not harm over all populations and in many cases taking out older mature aggressive males actually increases populations.

As for hounds. There is a ton of good science supporting hounds. There are also ample logical arguments to support hounds. Everything from the recent study on aversion to humans, to a better regulated take, to avoiding take of nursing females, etc. There are many arguments for using hounds that the majority of non hunters can understand and will support.

I hate to make concessions to the anti hunters, but even as a dedicated hunter we have to play the game a bit. Slowly tweaking our practice to make it more acceptable to the general public and weakening the argument's against us are good moves.

 

[manitou1]

There are a lot of posts on how well funded “they” are and yet hunters can’t seem to organize themselves into a cohesive group with a coherent message if their sport depended on it. Constantly putting out fires.

Historically, 70% of hunters don't even vote!

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Julie Marshall and Samantha Miller are completely delusional. 55% of voters absolutely rejected their ban on lion hunting. Are they going to dispute the outcome of the election? Maybe claim voter fraud next? How is 11% a “narrow” margin? Proposition 114 was a narrow margin, this is anything but. How do they know why “No” voters rejected their proposition? Maybe because it was poorly written and not well-thought out. Voters likely rejected it for a multitude of reasons. So the CSU Anti-hunting policy center says 88% of Coloradans oppose lion hunting? Then how in the heck did you lose the proposition by 11%? Especially with an $1 million advantage. Are you publicly admitting that you are that bad at campaigning? Why would CPW and the commission take action when the majority of Coloradans rejected it? That is the complete opposite of democracy. That is the same as CPW refusing to implement Prop 114. Unbelievable the conclusions they have drawn.