Proposition 127 Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx and Mountain Lynx Hunting

Guest host Krista Kafer and Insiders Patty Calhoun, Eric Sondermann, Chris Rourke, and Jesse Paul discuss Initiative 91, which would ban hunting mountain lions and bobcats.
Each week our Insiders will dissect a measure that will appear on our ballots this November 5th.

[@Bdalb5]

Excellent discussion! As a hunter, I’d like to add a couple more points that were touched on but maybe due to time constraints weren’t fleshed out. 1) on the government continuing to kill lions even if hunting is banned: that is correct. The only other state that has banned lion hunting is California. State agents still kill anywhere between 60 and 100 lions a year there, usually contracting hounds men to track the cats, in order to remove lions that are causing problems for farmers or in urban areas. Instead of allowing people to pay to hunt lions, the taxpayers now are paying to have them killed in Colorado. 2) mountain lions are hunted for meat just as deer and elk are. It reminds me of pork, and it’s quite good. Hunting purely for a “trophy” is illegal in Colorado. By the way, California lions that are killed are cremated, not used. Again, thanks for the discussion! I agree that these decisions have more unintended consequences than average voters may realize, which is why it’s best left to wildlife commissions based on biologists’ recommendations.

[@PBS12]

Thank you for your insight on this discussion!

[@osamanazzal4302]

Whoop tee doo! So what? Hunting mountain lions is not the answer.

[@Liberals.suck303]

​@osamanazzal4302, Are you seriously disregarding 60 years of management and research? Do you realize the unintended consequences of your stance, or are you making an emotional decision without understanding what you're talking about? Because to me you seem like a woke liberal who just hates hunting and knows absolutely nothing about wildlife management.

[@briantrybus1396]

I am a Denver voter, and suggest we should not be able to vote on rural issues. The initial directive of the "Founding Fathers" was that voters needed to possess a "vested interest"... like property ownership in the area effected by the vote (in order to protect the country & its people from tyrannical government over-reach / influence). Denver should stick to "little" issues like illegal immigration (of course, into Denver only), so that we can all enjoy the benefits of watching those decisions unfold. Rather than forcing us to see how easy it is to ruin a once beautiful state.

[@brettschultz5150]

Man I never thought I would see this day come to fruition where voters become biologist and start to ban certain types of hunting. Please leave this up to biologists. If this passes, like it did in California, taxpayers will foot the bill for bounty-man to kill lions and the meat will not be used.

[@Reed411]

Here's the thing that was missed in this discussion and frankly every discussion that is had around "ballot box biology". The rural communities of Colorado, especially those interested in ranching and hunting have a disproportionate say in how our wildlife is managed in our state. Furthermore, the conversation around reintroduction efforts for many species, not just wolves has been dominated by corporate interests and lobbying groups such as the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, The Cattlemen's Association, The Elk Foundation and so on. The debate on reintroduction of wolves has been going on for over 20 years. I support ballot box biology. People tend to think that folks on the front range have all the say and influence, but that is simply not true when it comes to public land rights and wildlife. For the first time, this method actually gives environmentalist and preservationists a say.