For the second time in four years, Colorado voters will consider a wildlife ballot measure.

Proposition 127, placed on the ballot by animal rights groups in November, would ban the hunting and trapping of mountain lions, bobcats and bobcats.

Proposition 127 asks voters to declare “that any trophy hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, or bobcats is inhumane, serves no socially acceptable or ecologically beneficial purpose, and does not promote public safety.” It is already illegal to kill bobcats, one species , which is listed as endangered in Colorado.

Here’s what you need to know about the ballot measures and the groups supporting and opposing them.

Would there be exceptions?

Yes.

Proposition 127 would allow the killing of mountain lions and bobcats to protect personal safety, livestock and property.

What would be the penalty for violating the ban?

• Violating the ban would be classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
• Fines would be increased for violations.
• Those convicted of this crime could have their wildlife license privileges restricted.

Essentially, the measure aims to provide legal protection to these species by restricting hunting while allowing certain exceptions when the safety of people or property is at risk.

How would Proposition 127 change hunting in Colorado?

Colorado Parks and Wildlife has managed mountain lion hunting since 1965.

The agency sets annual limits on the number of animals hunters can kill. Hunters must check current limits daily during mountain lion season and report kills to wildlife officials within 48 hours. All lion hunters must complete a special training and identification course.

The agency estimates there are 3,800 to 4,400 mountain lions in Colorado.

In 1980, hunters killed 81 mountain lions. During the 2022-23 season, 2,599 hunters who took special online courses to better determine the sex of mountain lions spent 1,635 days hunting lions and killed 504 animals, including 298 males and 204 females. That was below the annual cap set by the state wildlife agency.

Earlier this year, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissions eliminated the April lion hunting season, which runs from December to March, with a second season in April.

The agency is updating its management plan for lions in the Front Range, where development continues to impact lion habitat. The public process reflects Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s 2020 lion management update on the Western Slope.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife estimates that passage of Proposition 127 would result in an annual loss of about $410,000 from the sale of mountain lion licenses.

The conservative-leaning Common Sense Institute released a report in August claiming that increased numbers of mountain lions following the approval of Proposition 127 would reduce the number of mule deer and elk in the state, resulting in a $5 drop in license revenue for ungulate hunters .8 million and up to $61.65 million in lost economic activity from hunters per year.

What is the background and national context behind Proposition 127?

In 2022, animal rights groups urged lawmakers to pass a law that would have banned mountain lion hunting in Colorado. Hunting groups opposed the bill, but it failed at its first committee hearing.

Proposition 127 is not the first wildlife management ballot measure to come before Colorado voters.

Colorado voters narrowly approved a ballot measure in 2020 that directed Colorado Parks and Wildlife to reintroduce gray wolves to western Colorado. Approval of wolf reintroduction was supported by Front Range residents, widening the gap between urban and rural voters in Colorado. Ranchers have lamented the reintroduction of wolves because the predators kill livestock.

In 1992, Colorado voters approved Amendment 10, which banned the use of dogs or bait to hunt black bears, and in 1996, voters approved an amendment that banned leg-holding and instant-kill traps.

California is the only other state to ban mountain lion hunting, after voters there approved a 1990 ballot measure to end cat hunting.

Passions flare up on both sides

Supporters of Proposition 127 hope voters will end what they call “cruel and inhumane trophy hunting and fur trapping of Colorado’s wild cats.” They argue that hunters who kill female lions leave their kittens behind.

Proponents always use the word “trophy” and insist that lions are killed primarily for taxidermy, not meat. (Colorado Parks and Wildlife requires that “edible parts of lions must be properly prepared for human consumption.”)

Colorado Parks and Wildlife does not take sides on voting issues. A spokesman said the agency will “implement any laws duly passed by the Colorado legislature, governor or voters.” The agency recently published an online list of frequently asked questions about mountain lion hunting and management.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife supports hunting as a wildlife management tool. This is a premise of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation used by all state and federal wildlife management agencies.

“For many people, hunting is a continuation of the hunter-gatherer tradition and a way to connect with nature. It also helps maintain a healthy wildlife population,” reads a statement on the agency’s website, which details mountain lion management but was omitted from the recent launch of the agency’s new website. “There is no evidence that controlled hunting has led to the extinction of any species in Colorado or that well-regulated hunting has negatively affected the population stability of the state’s mountain lions.”

Opponents of Proposition 127 argue that voters should not be included in wildlife management guidelines created by biologists and wildlife experts at Colorado Parks and Wildlife. They point to healthy populations of mountain lions across the state as evidence that science-based wildlife management works better than what they call “ballot box biology.”

Who is funding the campaign to pass the measure and the efforts to stop it?

Supporters of Proposition 127, led by the group Cats Aren’t Trophies, submitted 147,529 voter signatures in July to place the measure on the 2024 ballot. The issue committee is made up of nearly 100 wildlife and animal welfare groups

As of September, Washington DC-based Animal Wellness Action Cats Aren’t Trophies has donated more than $673,000, including a $500,000 donation in September. Wild Animal Sanctuary Keenesburg donated $465,000 to the campaign, including $150,000 on September 18. Florida-based Big Cats Rescue Corp. donated $200,000.

Cats Aren’t Trophies spent $1.9 million – mostly on advertising – according to a Sept. 30 filing with the Colorado Secretary of State.

Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better, the issue committee opposing Proposition 127, has raised $1.4 million through September, according to its most recent filings with the secretary of state. That includes $600,000 donated on Sept. 25 by the Virginia-based conservative advocacy group Concord Fund, formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network. Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better spent $510,000 as of Sept. 19, including $235,000 on advertising through Denver lobbyist Pac/West Strategies.