Big Cats

[LURE]

It seems like Ballot Box Morality to me. And morality is something that is appropriate to be voted on. Is it moral to hunt mountain lions and bobcats? Is it moral to trap animals? I think the citizens of Colorado have good reason to give guidance to CPW on what should be hunted and by what means. This proposition doesn't remove their ability to deal with problem animals and we (and the legislature) can address unintended consequences down the road.

The proposition about vet associates seems more like Ballot Box Biology to me.

but these are rather complex matters in wildlife biology and management. it's just the way it is. the problem is the average citizen simply doesn't know enough about these things to ever make a properly informed decision - hence the term. ultimately they just vote because they "don't like something" or find it "Immoral."

i've never found disliking something to be a great reason to outlaw it. especially when the thing you want to outlaw really has no bearing or effect on your life. but hey, that's just me.

[mtree]

Ballot Box Biology. Ballot Box Morality. They're all very cute and catchy sayings.

For me, the deer ate my snow peas. Mountain lions eat deer. Less deer equals more snow peas. Easy math. Vote "yes" on 127.

Ballot Box Gardening. Not as catchy. Maybe someone can come up with a better phrase.

[k_fergie]

It seems like Ballot Box Morality to me. And morality is something that is appropriate to be voted on. Is it moral to hunt mountain lions and bobcats? Is it moral to trap animals? I think the citizens of Colorado have good reason to give guidance to CPW on what should be hunted and by what means. This proposition doesn't remove their ability to deal with problem animals and we (and the legislature) can address unintended consequences down the road.

The proposition about vet associates seems more like Ballot Box Biology to me.

but these are rather complex matters in wildlife biology and management. it's just the way it is. the problem is the average citizen simply doesn't know enough about these things to ever make a properly informed decision - hence the term. ultimately they just vote because they "don't like something" or find it "Immoral."

i've never found disliking something to be a great reason to outlaw it. especially when the thing you want to outlaw really has no bearing or effect on your life. but hey, that's just me.

Only 3/11 voting members of the CPW commission are wildlife biologists by my reading, so does CPW make properly informed decisions on wildlife biology right now?

Either way, I think that opining on who is informed enough and who isn't to make decisions is a mute point for this particular initiative because whether it passes or not, CPW will still have authority on controlling mountain lion population. If the measure passes, it just won't be for sport anymore. Seems like a moral (and economic) decision, rather than biology/ecology decision to me.

[k_fergie]

Ballot Box Biology. Ballot Box Morality. They're all very cute and catchy sayings.

For me, the deer ate my snow peas. Mountain lions eat deer. Less deer equals more snow peas. Easy math. Vote "yes" on 127.

Ballot Box Gardening. Not as catchy. Maybe someone can come up with a better phrase.

^ this man Utilitarians

[LURE]

Only 3/11 voting members of the CPW commission are wildlife biologists by my reading, so does CPW make properly informed decisions on wildlife biology right now?

Either way, I think that opining on who is informed enough and who isn't to make decisions is a mute point for this particular initiative because whether it passes or not, CPW will still have authority on controlling mountain lion population. If the measure passes, it just won't be for sport anymore. Seems like a moral (and economic) decision, rather than biology/ecology decision to me.

The commission has never been and never will be made up purely of wildlife experts. That's not how it was ever designed. It is meant to represent stakeholders and beneficiaries in the public trust that is state wildlife. The legislature is the same way in that they are representing people and not are not supposed to be experts in all of the decisions that are made by the legislature - the legislature relies on citizen engagement, expert testimony, and lobbyists to help them understand the laws they pass. The CPW commission relies on their staff of biologists, ecologists, fisheries experts, lawyers and law enforcement officers, and yes also those stakeholders and beneficiaries, to help them understand and guide their decisions. Science guides and informs the decisions of the commission, but it does not expressly make the decisions. This is how it always worked, it's how it was always intended to work. And the biologists, ecologists, and law enforcement officers staunchly oppose this proposition - https://www.summitdaily.com/news/colora ... ition-127/

Lastly, your last point is false. CPW does lose their ability manage populations of lions, they expressly lose that management authority. They only maintain authority to manage (kill) problem lions but that absolutely does not equate to an ability maintain populations at a certain level. Believing otherwise shows a lack of understanding of wildlife management.

As a side note, the way this law is written, ranchers and farmers who lose livestock to lions will no longer be eligible for compensation due to the change in legal status of lions. Talk about an inflammatory action in the already tattered urban/rural relationship. Tolerance of animals by those that live with them has always been a hugely important component to their success on the landscape. Further shattering that dynamic is of no help to anyone, including the lions.

[dwoodward13]

Lastly, your last point is false. CPW does lose their ability manage populations of lions, they expressly lose that management authority. They only maintain authority to manage (kill) problem lions but that absolutely does not equate to an ability maintain populations at a certain level. Believing otherwise shows a lack of understanding of wildlife management.

I don't think this is true? 2(a)(II)(B) (copied below with some context) allows CPW and other agencies to kill lions. There is no carve out only for problem lions in this subsection (2(a)(II)(A) already addresses the ability for anyone to deal with problem lions). I agree they would need to contract out kills/culls to satisfy the 'authorized employee' clause, but to say they have zero ability to manage the population is incorrect by my reading, although it certainly becomes a lot more complicated to do so versus just issuing standard hunting permits.

(2) AS USED IN THIS SECTION :
(a) (I) “TROPHY HUNTING ” MEANS INTENTIONALLY :
(A) KILLING , WOUNDING , PURSUING , OR ENTRAPPING A MOUNTAIN LION , BOBCAT , OR
LYNX ; OR
(B) DISCHARGING OR RELEASING ANY DEADLY WEAPON , AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-
901(3)(e), AT A MOUNTAIN LION , BOBCAT , OR LYNX .

(II) “TROPHY HUNTING ” DOES NOT INCLUDE :
(B) ANY ACT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2)( a ) OF THIS SECTION IF IT WAS CONDUCTED
BY AN AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE OF THE DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE , THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE , OR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WHEN
THE EMPLOYEE IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY;

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/ ... 1final.pdf

[k_fergie]

Lastly, your last point is false. CPW does lose their ability manage populations of lions, they expressly lose that management authority. They only maintain authority to manage (kill) problem lions but that absolutely does not equate to an ability maintain populations at a certain level. Believing otherwise shows a lack of understanding of wildlife management.

I don't think this is true? 2(a)(II)(B) (copied below with some context) allows CPW and other agencies to kill lions. There is no carve out only for problem lions in this subsection (2(a)(II)(A) already addresses the ability for anyone to deal with problem lions). I agree they would need to contract out kills/culls to satisfy the 'authorized employee' clause, but to say they have zero ability to manage the population is incorrect by my reading, although it certainly becomes a lot more complicated to do so versus just issuing standard hunting permits.

(2) AS USED IN THIS SECTION :
(a) (I) “TROPHY HUNTING ” MEANS INTENTIONALLY :
(A) KILLING , WOUNDING , PURSUING , OR ENTRAPPING A MOUNTAIN LION , BOBCAT , OR
LYNX ; OR
(B) DISCHARGING OR RELEASING ANY DEADLY WEAPON , AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-
901(3)(e), AT A MOUNTAIN LION , BOBCAT , OR LYNX .

(II) “TROPHY HUNTING ” DOES NOT INCLUDE :
(B) ANY ACT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2)( a ) OF THIS SECTION IF IT WAS CONDUCTED
BY AN AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE OF THE DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE , THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE , OR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WHEN
THE EMPLOYEE IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY;

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/ ... 1final.pdf

You are correct, and LURE is incorrect, thank you for pulling the text. It explicitly allows CPW (and licensed contractors) to continue about their work by carving them out of the ban. No other statutes related to CPW's authority are altered, removed, or amended, so I don't see how their mandate is affected by this prop.

For the record, I voted NO, but I thought about it for quite a long time, and have some regrets about my choice.

[LURE]

I don't think this is true? 2(a)(II)(B) (copied below with some context) allows CPW and other agencies to kill lions. There is no carve out only for problem lions in this subsection (2(a)(II)(A) already addresses the ability for anyone to deal with problem lions). I agree they would need to contract out kills/culls to satisfy the 'authorized employee' clause, but to say they have zero ability to manage the population is incorrect by my reading, although it certainly becomes a lot more complicated to do so versus just issuing standard hunting permits.

It would be interesting to get a lawyers opinion. You may be right that it technically allows for CPW or USDA employees to kill lions for reasons unrelated to depredation. But do you really think CPW has the manpower to maintain populations at their current levels?

Let's say that's the case and CPW is gonna go ahead and meet population targets with their own employees. Let's conservatively assume that one lion hunt lasts a total of 20 hours and a CPW officer earns around 30 bucks an hour (they should be paid at least 1.5x this, that's a whole other thing).

Now we need about 500 dead lions a year to maintain current population levels, maybe more, since some evidence suggests lion populations are ever so slightly increasing.

500*20*30 is $300,000 dollars, assuming only one officer is involved and no biologists. That's 10,000 hours taken away from enforcing wildlife laws, investigating poaching, investigating depredation, aiding in research, public interaction and education. There are maybe a handful of wildlife officers that patrol areas that encompass 1,000 square miles or more and they are beyond overloaded already. They don't have time to become full time lion hunters.

That's not even including the costs of all the roundsmen that would have to be contracted with to find and kill the 500 lions a year - yes they would and will still use hounds to find lions. I bet it would turn into roughly 1-2 million dollars a year for CPW to try and maintain lion populations. Whereas, right now? CPW instead gets paid to have the lion population target kept.


This law would effectively neuter CPWs ability to maintain target lion populations, no matter how slice the statute language.

[dwoodward13]

I don't think this is true? 2(a)(II)(B) (copied below with some context) allows CPW and other agencies to kill lions. There is no carve out only for problem lions in this subsection (2(a)(II)(A) already addresses the ability for anyone to deal with problem lions). I agree they would need to contract out kills/culls to satisfy the 'authorized employee' clause, but to say they have zero ability to manage the population is incorrect by my reading, although it certainly becomes a lot more complicated to do so versus just issuing standard hunting permits.

It would be interesting to get a lawyers opinion. You may be right that it technically allows for CPW or USDA employees to kill lions for reasons unrelated to depredation. But do you really think CPW has the manpower to maintain populations at their current levels?

Let's say that's the case and CPW is gonna go ahead and meet population targets with their own employees. Let's conservatively assume that one lion hunt lasts a total of 20 hours and a CPW officer earns around 30 bucks an hour (they should be paid at least 1.5x this, that's a whole other thing).

Now we need about 500 dead lions a year to maintain current population levels, maybe more, since some evidence suggests lion populations are ever so slightly increasing.

500*20*30 is $300,000 dollars, assuming only one officer is involved and no biologists. That's 10,000 hours taken away from enforcing wildlife laws, investigating poaching, investigating depredation, aiding in research, public interaction and education. There are maybe a handful of wildlife officers that patrol areas that encompass 1,000 square miles or more and they are beyond overloaded already. They don't have time to become full time lion hunters.

That's not even including the costs of all the roundsmen that would have to be contracted with to find and kill the 500 lions a year - yes they would and will still use hounds to find lions. I bet it would turn into roughly 1-2 million dollars a year for CPW to try and maintain lion populations. Whereas, right now? CPW instead gets paid to have the lion population target kept.


This law would effectively neuter CPWs ability to maintain target lion populations, no matter how slice the statute language.

Ya I totally don't disagree with your analysis about added complexities/cost to such a management program should the prop pass, was just pointing out what the text actually says. FWIW I also voted no.

[XterraRob]

but these are rather complex matters in wildlife biology and management. it's just the way it is. the problem is the average citizen simply doesn't know enough about these things to ever make a properly informed decision - hence the term. ultimately they just vote because they "don't like something" or find it "Immoral."

i've never found disliking something to be a great reason to outlaw it. especially when the thing you want to outlaw really has no bearing or effect on your life. but hey, that's just me.

Social media taught average citizens that if they change their profile pictures to whatever's trending, it means they're thoroughly educated on a topic. What reason would they have to independently research anything when they can get validation for going along with the crowd?

Vote with your emotions.

HUNTING = BAD
GUNS = BAD

[SkaredShtles]

mountain-lion-nonsense1.jpg

[ekalina]

Somebody should make an ad from the lion's perspective as the dogs chase it down and it gets blasted by a gun. At least that scene plays out regularly.