I usually avoid discussing politics with people outside of my inner circle. However, if I do not explain why I oppose Proposition 127, I would be doing a disservice to my former colleagues and longtime friends at Colorado Parks and Wildlife, who have superbly managed our state's big cats through the best scientific research available.

During my time at CPW, our mission was to promote, protect, enhance and manage the state's wildlife resources on behalf of our citizens and future generations. We achieved this goal through the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which views hunting as a cornerstone for the management and restoration of wildlife and their habitats. We also followed state law that directs CPW to use hunting and trapping as primary methods to achieve necessary wildlife populations.

Proposition 127 aims to eliminate hunting, even though experts consider it a critical tool for effectively managing our state's lions and bobcats. While proponents of Proposition 127 argue that this hunting is inhumane – particularly mountain lion hunting that uses dogs – I cannot disagree more.

All wildlife research in Colorado must pass a review board of scientists, ethicists and veterinary experts in animal health and welfare. They have consistently endorsed CPW research, including research using dogs to capture lions. If the use of dogs were an inhumane practice, these bodies would never have approved such research. Despite the claims of Proposition 127 supporters, CPW has ensured that all research is conducted in a humane and ethical manner.

As a wildlife professional for nearly two decades, I can tell you that mortality is inevitable regardless of whether a species is managed through hunting. However, hunting remains an effective and humane tool for lion and bobcat management in Colorado. In a managed population, surplus animals can be harvested and used to create balance in the ecosystem. This balance limits other causes of unwanted mortality such as starvation, car accidents, peer killing, or post-conflict euthanasia.

In Colorado, Hunter Education teaches hunters how to kill an animal quickly, cleanly and accurately. To me, this is far more humane than subjecting our big cats to unwanted deaths.

Proponents of Proposition 127 are manipulating the public by making false claims about what this ballot measure actually does. Proposition 127 does not end trophy hunting, the hunting of endangered bobcats, or the suffocation and mauling of lions and bobcats. All of these things are already illegal thanks to current state and federal laws. Instead, Proposition 127 imposes a 100 percent ban on hunting lions and bobcats in our state.

Supporters of 127 portray every hunter as a person who supports or participates in these illegal and unethical actions. However, advocates refer to the actions of poachers, not hunters. Poachers should be held accountable for their crimes, as should anyone who may break the law. However, as a society we do not ban driving because someone is driving drunk; We hold the individual driver responsible. The same should be true when we consider our state’s wildlife management policies.

Hunting is a way to connect with our natural world. It's an excuse to spend time outside with our friends and family. It is a source of ethically raised and harvested meat. But finally – and perhaps most importantly – it is a way to help protect wildlife and the future of Colorado’s wildlife resources.

As a conservationist and wildlife expert, I strongly encourage you to vote “no” on Proposition 127 so that our state’s wildlife can be left to the experts at CPW. They are good people and they are good at what they do.

Crystal Chick worked for Colorado Parks and Wildlife for 18 years and retired as regional wildlife manager in 2019. She lives in Durango.

Copy article link