Big Cats

[transplant_hiker]

Please vote 'No' on Proposition 127.

A few reasons why:
1) Hunters are currently required to prepare the meat for human consumption. I have personally had some and it is delicious. Akin to pork. The whole 'Trophy hunting' language they are using is false and is there to play on voters heart strings.
2) Hunting is a tool that allows the biologists (those trained in wildlife management) to better control the population of the animals to a level that the landscape can sustain. Even if you ban lion hunting, the state will still have to cull the animals if problems arise. (California still has to kill numerous big cats every year).
3) Canada Lynx are already illegal to hunt/trap at a Federal level. This text is just there to play at your heart strings (Again).
4) Since the state has taken over managment of mountain lions in the 1990s, the population of mountain lions has actually grown to over 4000+ cats in the wild.

Please do not subscribe to 'Ballot Box Biology'. It is silly for us to think that the average person knows more about wildlife management than the biologists that are literally trained for this. Lets let the science continue to work and support the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

More information can be see in this FAQ put out by the state.
https://cpw.widencollective.com/assets/ ... u2g44shvci

[gb]

Hunting mountain lions isn't even hunting. Just let your dogs scare the animal up a tree and then shoot it at point blank range. It's pretty weak, I'll be voting for the ban.

[greenschist]

Hunting mountain lions isn't even hunting. Just let your dogs scare the animal up a tree and then shoot it at point blank range. It's pretty weak, I'll be voting for the ban.

I would vote for a ban on this kind of hunting, but a blanket ban on any hunting of any big cats is really broad and goes much further than addressing this one issue. Honestly I'm not into hunting at all but I respect others' right to do it, as well as the revenue they bring to the state as a whole.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. CPW policy is actually determined by a politically appointed commission. Sometimes they follow the advice of their scientists, and sometimes they don't. As an example, there is the spring bear hunt controversy from a few years ago. The scientists recommended some changes to the spring bear hunt regulations but the commission said no. So there was a ballot initiative to overrule the commission which passed.

Now I would definitely vote for changing how CPW determines policy, specifically to favor the advice of scientists. Overall I'm not a fan of biology and wilderness management becoming another victim of culture war garbage. Don't we all go outdoors to get away from this kind of thing?

[interloper]

My moral outrage at mountain lion hunting practices is dwarfed by my loathing of wildlife management policy being set by ballot initiatives. We already went through this with wolves. I'm sure grizzlies will be next. Nope.

That said, I fully expect it to pass.

[Dave B]

How do you know that? Elk certainly change their behavior when they are hunted. Look at how elk act in Estes Park or Yellowstone vs any National Forest where there are hunted by people. The elk in Estes Park will let you pet them. As a hunter, I can tell you for a fact elk in the National Forests will not let you pet them.

Elk get poached in RMNP and the Estes Area all the time.

Their habituation to people in Estes Park is just that, habituation. They're around them all the time and they don't see them as a threat. Predatory pressures are also less in EP so elk are less fearful overall.

[onebyone]

Hunting mountain lions isn't even hunting. Just let your dogs scare the animal up a tree and then shoot it at point blank range. It's pretty weak, I'll be voting for the ban.

Yup. It's pretty shitty. And I'm not against hunting, just this type of hunting. I have no problem removing lions that are taking people's pets or become a threat. Or even a clean hunt. But these hunters are just going after any lion indiscriminately, letting loose a pack of dogs on it then blasting it out of a tree.

[onebyone]

Please vote 'No' on Proposition 127.

A few reasons why:
1) Hunters are currently required to prepare the meat for human consumption. I have personally had some and it is delicious. Akin to pork. The whole 'Trophy hunting' language they are using is false and is there to play on voters heart strings.
2) Hunting is a tool that allows the biologists (those trained in wildlife management) to better control the population of the animals to a level that the landscape can sustain. Even if you ban lion hunting, the state will still have to cull the animals if problems arise. (California still has to kill numerous big cats every year).
3) Canada Lynx are already illegal to hunt/trap at a Federal level. This text is just there to play at your heart strings (Again).
4) Since the state has taken over managment of mountain lions in the 1990s, the population of mountain lions has actually grown to over 4000+ cats in the wild.

Please do not subscribe to 'Ballot Box Biology'. It is silly for us to think that the average person knows more about wildlife management than the biologists that are literally trained for this. Lets let the science continue to work and support the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

More information can be see in this FAQ put out by the state.
https://cpw.widencollective.com/assets/ ... u2g44shvci

You actually just convinced me to vote Yes. I have zero problem killing lions that are a problem like California does.

[transplant_hiker]

You actually just convinced me to vote Yes. I have zero problem killing lions that are a problem like California does.

May I ask, where do you draw the line? What if the next ballot measure is to ban pheasant hunting because the dogs give the hunter an unfair advantage by finding the pheasant for them. Or ban waterfowl hunting because usually a dog has to retrieve the duck/goose from a lake/pond/river.

It is a slippery slope when a society votes away their freedoms. I can understand not liking something (and therefore you do not have to participate in it)... but why should we vote away the ability for others to participate? (And also take away control from the biologists that need to keep things in balance - you know, the people that are trained to do this).

[two lunches]

It is a slippery slope when a society votes away their freedoms. I can understand not liking something (and therefore you do not have to participate in it)... but why should we vote away the ability for others to participate? (And also take away control from the biologists that need to keep things in balance - you know, the people that are trained to do this).

wouldn't it be nice if this was how things worked? alas.

[Tornadoman]

Forum rules-

Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.

[rijaca]

My son reports watching his dog chase a mountain lion from his yard in Parker this morning.

[BB_ME]

Only shoot illegal immigrant cats from other states.