M.L. hunting ban article

[Bigjay73]

This isn't worthy of wrapping dead fish in. Terrible article

'Not an anti-hunting issue': Why advocates hope voters approve a mountain lion hunting ban in November

Come November, Colorado voters will decide whether to ban the trophy hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and other wild cats across the state.

www.denver7.com

 

[Nick87]

This isn't worthy of wrapping dead fish in. Terrible article

'Not an anti-hunting issue': Why advocates hope voters approve a mountain lion hunting ban in November

Come November, Colorado voters will decide whether to ban the trophy hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and other wild cats across the state.

www.denver7.com

The beginning of the end. Stupid.

 

[Bigjay73]

The beginning of the end. Stupid.

I fear so. I'm curious as to which hunting groups failed to comment, I'm calling B.S.

 

[Nick87]

Disappointing to see CPW stance, but not suprising.

 

[Matthew57]

The beginning of the end. Stupid.

Maybe with that attitude. Gotta fight to win.

 

[Bigjay73]

Maybe with that attitude. Gotta fight to win.

I'll fight tooth and nail, but when the media is putting out half truths, it's an uphill battle. I've only seen 1 commercial against the ban, we need to funnel more money and resources

 

[Matthew57]

I'll fight tooth and nail, but when the media is putting out half truths, it's an uphill battle. I've only seen 1 commercial against the ban, we need to funnel more money and resources

It’s definitely an uphill battle.

 

[Robert N]

Damn. This is going to affect cougars as well.

 

[Bluffgruff]

Can someone send the news agency this PDF? CPW certainly took a stance before it was a ballot initiative.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Disappointing to see CPW stance, but not suprising.

Why? They're legally regulated from taking sides or being at all involved in a ballot measure like this.

 

[Nick87]

Why? They're legally regulated from taking sides or being at all involved in a ballot measure like this.

Don't think they should take a side. However, maybe a little guidance on how these things work would be nice. Having a fish and game agency weigh in on the pros and cons would be a benefit instead of feel good/knee jerk legislation.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Don't think they should take a side however. Maybe a little guidance on how these things work would be nice. Having a fish and game agency weigh in on the pros and cons would be a benefit instead of feel good/knee jerk legislation.

I can see that, ya. I would guess even doing that would toe the line more than they want but imo additional information is not a bad thing when trying to make a decision

 

[Nick87]

I can see that, ya. I would guess even doing that would toe the line more than they want but imo additional information is not a bad thing when trying to make a decision

More informed people is a good thing. Imo

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

More informed people is a good thing. Imo

I'll never disagree on that point. But you can bring a horse to water, etc etc etc

 

[GreenEyes]

I'll fight tooth and nail, but when the media is putting out half truths, it's an uphill battle. I've only seen 1 commercial against the ban, we need to funnel more money and resources

That seems to be what mainstream media does as the norm: half truths, or worse. And it is disappointing to not see CPW make a statement that provides more information about the values of the hunting currently in place.

 

[Triggw]

That seems to be what mainstream media does as the norm: half truths, or worse. And it is disappointing to not see CPW make a statement that provides more information about the values of the hunting currently in place.

CPW has to follow the law. The CPW FAQ sheet does a good job of presenting the management position, but once it goes on the ballot, their hands are tied. I strongly object to using the ballot box to "manage wildlife," but I don't see anything wrong with the article. It does a reasonable job of presenting the pro-hunting position. What "half-truths" are you referring to?

 

[perma]

Don’t let this lower morale. I speak to a lot of CO residents, mostly non hunters and a good chunk on the front range. A lot of people are highly opposed to this amendment, even some that surprised me that I thought would be in favor. There’s a real chance CO hunters can win this. Don’t let up on the gas pedal, you guys got this.

 

[GreenEyes]

CPW has to follow the law. The CPW FAQ sheet does a good job of presenting the management position, but once it goes on the ballot, their hands are tied. I strongly object to using the ballot box to "manage wildlife," but I don't see anything wrong with the article. It does a reasonable job of presenting the pro-hunting position. What "half-truths" are you referring to?

Certainly, CPW has to follow the law. It's just tough when voters can potentially determine the status of a legal hunting season and it potentially becomes against the law. And simply it would just be balanced, or more balanced, in my opinion, when CPW states that they will do what "...voters" and certainly again CPW needs to follow the law, which includes voters. More balanced would be to include a statement about the current management and its effectiveness, and why.

Regarding "half-truths" I was simply referring to mainstream media comment. Half truths have been ongoing for centuries to sell newspapers, influence public opinion, even influence history in the making... there is real news, slanted news, fake news... and many folks out there who are voters that believe everything they read in black and white. And, not just voters. Wishing everything everywhere was always factual, straightforward truth.

 

[shb]

 

[Bonasababy]

Why? They're legally regulated from taking sides or being at all involved in a ballot measure like this.

Just curious--I assume in legislative hearings before a measure is approved they are very active in presenting their views on a matter? Sure hope so, if banned from even that there's a real issue with legislators not getting the expert opinion on impacts they need to make a decision.

Also wondering--in matters like these where fish and game staff may be prevented from openly talking about an issue, professional society's sometimes take a stance. Has the state TWS chapter spoken up?