In November, Colorado voters will weigh in on whether or not the state should ban hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx. It’s a measure that asks larger ethical and scientific questions about wildlife management.

Proposition 127 would make hunting all three cats a misdemeanor but would allow the killing of cats that threaten people or livestock. 

A citizen-led effort, Cats Aren’t Trophies, brought the initiative to the ballot, with proponents arguing that the current methods of hunting are cruel and unnecessary to successfully manage the species. Opponents argue that the initiative undermines Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s ability to manage the species. 

---

---

The campaigns for both sides have drawn large donations, making it one of the ballot initiatives that has garnered the most donations and spending. 

As of Oct. 15, Cats Aren’t Trophies has raised just over $2.3 million‚ and received $300,000 in non-monetary contributions, and spent around $2.4 million. The group has received donations from just under 600 unique donors, with over 80% from Colorado. Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better, the opposing issue committee, has raised over $1.6 million and spent around $1.3 million It has had over 700 donors, around 60% from out of state.

---

---

How does Parks and Wildlife currently manage these cats? 

Proposition 127 would ban the hunting and trapping of three separate species, all with different levels of hunting and protection in Colorado. Parks and Wildlife manages all three. 

The state wildlife agency is restricted from taking a position for or against the ballot initiative.

• Mountain Lions

Mountain lions have been defined as a big game species in Colorado since 1965. 

The regular lion hunting season in Colorado runs from November to March. A second season can be held in April depending on the number of regular season kills. Hunters, who are required to pass a mountain lion exam, are limited to one lion per license each year. 

According to Parks and Wildlife, an average of 505 mountain lions have been hunted annually for the last three years, falling below caps set by the agency.

For the 2023 hunting season, the agency sold 2,681 lion licenses and collected $324,958. Revenue from all hunting and furbearer licenses goes to its Wildlife Cash fund, allocated for improving and conserving wildlife habitats and public access. The agency’s total budget for that year was $311 million, making the revenue from mountain lion licenses around 0.1% of the overall budget.

This year, the commission banned the use of electronic calling devices and canceled this April’s hunting season.

Outside of hunting, management methods include outreach and education to learn how to co-exist as well as hazing, translocation or euthanization.

• Bobcats

Bobcats are classified as a “furbearer” species in Colorado, meaning they are hunted for their fur. Parks and Wildlife estimates there are around 21,000 bobcats in Colorado.

Bobcats can be hunted with a permit between December and February. There are no limits on the number that a permit-holder can kill. On average, for the last three years, the agency reports that 880 bobcats have been hunted annually.

In its 2023-24 fiscal year, the agency sold 20,496 furbearer permits, which can be used for hunting 16 different species, for a total of $248,037.  

• Lynx

Since 1999, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has been working to reintroduce and stabilize its population of Canada lynx, which had been eradicated. There are an estimated 75 to 100 lynx in Colorado. 

It is already illegal to hunt lynx in Colorado, as they are listed as endangered in Colorado and threatened in the Federal Endangered Species Act.  

The measure would continue to protect lynx in the state if they were ever delisted at the federal level, said Sam Miller, the campaign manager for Cats Aren’t Trophies. 

Hunting as a wildlife management tool

Since 1965, hunting has served as its primary management tool for mountain lions.

In a 2023 Parks and Wildlife podcast, Matt Alldredge, a wildlife researcher for the agency specializing in mountain lions, said Colorado was one of the first states to start actively managing the species after they had been nearly wiped out in the West. Estimates put lion numbers in Colorado around 200 in the 1960s. As of 2024, Parks and Wildlife estimates their numbers between 3,800 and 4,000.

“By the early ’70s, all the Western states were managing lions as a hunted species, and hunting is an important management tool to manage these populations,” he said. “Our management has been a great success across the West as these populations have flourished back into historic ranges.”

Crystal Chick, a former district and area wildlife manager and former statewide hunter outreach coordinator for Colorado Parks and Wildlife who opposes the measure, said hunting is the main tool “because it is an ethical way to maintain a healthy, sustainable population and minimize conflict with people.”

“For some species, such as lynx, this means protecting them from mortality as much as possible to bring their numbers up to a healthy stable level,” she said. “For other species, such as bobcats and lions, it means managing the mortality to maintain their numbers at the current stable and healthy level.”

Hunting is a wildlife management tool within the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which was created by sportsmen and conservationists. It is used by Parks and Wildlife and all state and federal wildlife agencies. 

In Colorado, opponents of the measure argue that hunting provides funding for programs, valuable species information gathered by hunters and helps selectively manage population numbers and problem animals.

“Removing (hunting as a tool) from Colorado Parks and Wildlife ties their hands,” said Bryan Jones, the Colorado-based policy coordinator for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a group opposing the measure. “It severely limits what they can do and what tools they have in order to maintain those healthy populations, which we have in this state.”

Opponents of 127 argue the proof that hunting is effective is in the cat’s recovery under this model.

“The animals are not in jeopardy in Colorado in any way, shape or form,” said Jerry Apker, a retired wildlife biologist who spent 38 years as a wildlife officer and carnivore biologist for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. “I think they’re doing way better than if we didn’t have hunting.

“Hunting allows you to modulate those peaks and valleys in all wildlife populations … and manage for a less widely fluctuating population,” he argued.

However, in recent years, the practice has been increasingly questioned.

Dan Ashe, former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and currently the president of and CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in Maryland and proponent of the measure, said that the “longtime philosophy in wildlife management that predator control is an integral component of managing game populations” is “simply not true.”

“Using hunting as a management tool is pretty ineffective, especially when we know what’s driving wildlife populations is habitat and drought and fire,” Ashe said.

Barry Noon, a professor at Colorado State University’s Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, said that for hunting to be a necessary management tool it must compensate for natural causes, rather than add to natural mortality. 

What would happen to the cats without hunting?

Looking at the efficacy of hunting begs the question of what would happen to the populations of mountain lions without it. Would populations grow and lead to an increase in conflicts as opponents of the measure argue? Or would the cats’ populations stabilize on their own, as proponents suggest?

Experts and studies suggest that the answer is somewhere in between.  

Currently, California is the only Western state that outright bans the hunting of mountain lions after voters passed an initiative in 1992. 

A 2020 study by wildlife biologists compared California’s lion population and number of conflicts to 10 Western states that use hunting as a management tool. The study concluded that California had similar population densities of the animals in available habitats.

It reported that there was no evidence that “sport hunting has long-term effects on puma numbers,” nor that hunting has “a regulating impact on puma populations.”

Experts suggest that the reason is mountain lions self-regulate rather than overpopulate.

Like all predator populations, lions are “going to be controlled by the availability of prey,” according to Noon. “No biological population increases without bounds.”

Although Apker opposes 127, he agrees “that you don’t have to hunt mountain lions to control their populations, they will self-regulate,” adding that the argument would be true for any species currently hunted. It could be different in the short term, he added. 

“If Proposition 127 passes, I think that the following 10 years is going to be a difficult adjustment period for mountain lions and for people,” Apker said. “Initially, there is some truth to say that the population will increase … but it’s not true to say that the next year you’re going to have another 500, and the next year, you’re going to have another 500 because eventually, natural mortality and natural social structure begins to kick in, and it will stabilize.”

Will conflict with lions increase or decrease?

The 2020 study found that there was no difference in the total livestock losses between California and states where hunting was allowed. It found no relationship between the hunting of lions and human conflicts.

Human-mountain lion conflicts are relatively rare. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has recorded 25 lion attacks on humans since 1990. 

With an initial increase in populations, Apker expects there to be “more tension amongst the animals,” more lions coming closer to humans, and probably “an increase in conflicts for a while” before populations restabilize. 

Proponents of 127 argue that hunting increases livestock depredation and conflict since it separates adults from younger cats before they fully learn how to hunt.

“Hunting disrupts their social fabric and actually can increase aberrant behavior like livestock depredations,” Ashe said.

A 2014 study looked at mountain lions’ social structure and conflict in two Washington regions — one where they were “heavily” hunted and one where they were hunted “lightly.” It concluded that in the area where the number of hunting tags issued increased, so did the number of young male cats and the number of encounters with humans and livestock. A 2013 study across Washington concluded the same.

In 2023, of the 547 mountain lion deaths — including deaths from hunting, roadkill and other causes — recorded by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 373 were estimated to be under 3 years of age based on teeth data. Female lions reach maturity around 2.5 years and males around 3 years. 

In the 2023 Parks and Wildlife podcast, Alldredge said that as humans continue to expand into lion habitat both need to learn how to coexist. The agency must balance this with the animals not becoming too accustomed to people, he added.

“I think to coexist at some level, we need to continue to hunt them or at least continue to instill that fear of humans in the lion population in these urban areas,” Alldredge said.

Without hunting, Parks and Wildlife would require a “huge commitment as far as time and money” to address conflicts through education, hazing and other methods, Chick said. 

Will banning hunting impact deer and elk populations?

In campaign materials and videos, Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better has claimed that mountain lions are decimating and jeopardizing the state’s deer and elk populations. It cites declining mule deer populations since 2004 coinciding with lion population increases as the rationale in the video. 

Parks and Wildlife’s 2020 West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan cites several research studies that indicate mountain lions have little impact on mule deer populations. In Colorado, citing a 2015 study, that mule deer populations are mostly impacted by “the quality of available winter range habitat,” and that the impact of lion predation on deer is “poorly understood.”

The agency is exploring the impacts of lion hunting in the Upper Arkansas River drainage. While the study is ongoing, it concluded the portion that looked at impacts on deer and reported the findings in January 2023. Alldredge told the commission that a single lion will kill between 30 to 50 deer a year. 

During the six years studied, lions accounted for an average of 6% of deer deaths annually. During the highest year, lions accounted for 16%, “so it could be significant,” Alldrege said. 

Over the years studied, Alldredge reported that “deer survival is high, and we’re not seeing a huge impact of lions,” with survival over 80%. He listed disease, habitat and starvation alongside predators as causes of deer declines. 

Proponents of the ban argue that lions play a critical ecological role in cleansing deer and elk populations. A report issued by Cats Aren’t Trophies and Animal Wellness Action states that lions selectively remove diseased deer and elk suffering from Chronic Wasting Disease.

In the draft of its east slope lion plan, Parks and Wildlife states that while lions play a role in controlling infectious diseases in deer and elk (including Chronic Wasting Disease), the agency’s management of the herds is the primary method to reduce disease among the ungulates. 

Ballot box biology: Should this be up to voters to decide?

One of the main tenets of the opposition’s argument is that wildlife management should be left in the hands of Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Previous attempts to ban the practice — in the legislature and before the Parks and Wildlife Commission — have failed.  

“I don’t see the point in using the ballot box to change the way we’re managing these species since it’s already proven that (Parks and Wildlife) has been doing a good job,” Apker said

Mountain lion hunting is already one of the most highly regulated in Colorado, Chick said, suggesting that rather than let voters make decisions for the agency, the commission should be allowed to listen to concerns, hear from biologists and respond, as it has in the past.

Miller said she believes Parks and Wildlife should manage wildlife populations but added a caveat. 

“They’ve got a wealth of expertise there, but what we’re saying is that this specific recreational activity, as defined by (Parks and Wildlife) as a recreational activity, is a relic of the past,” Miller said.

Ashe argued that Parks and Wildlife biologists should be challenged.

“Sometimes experts are slow to change … and sometimes it’s necessary for people to tell their public officials what they expect them to do,” he said.

Noon, who clarified that his support of the measure is not a criticism of Parks and Wildlife’s expertise, said that, to him, better management comes from better funding.

“(Parks and Wildlife) gets most of its funds from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, there is no hard-wired budget line item in the state budget for (Parks and Wildlife),” Noon said. “What I’m arguing for is, give them the funding that they need to get defensible estimates of mountain lion and bobcat abundance.”

In turn, these estimates can help them make more informed management decisions, Noon added. 

In addition to the biology — ballot box or not — Proposition 127 proponents argue the measure poses an ethical question as well. This will be explored in a follow-up story.  

Ballots were mailed starting on Oct. 11. Election Day is Nov. 5.