Big Cats

[onebyone]

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).

Because I'm a practical person who views each issue separately and tries to strike a balance between the extremes. I don't agree with using dogs to hunt mountain lions for sport. No problem if it is a situation where a lion becomes a threat to humans. Or allowing hunting without dogs. If more lions become a problem than we will simply kill more of those lions that exhibit that behavior.

[Wentzl]

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.

tornadoman profile page quote:

I am not worthy to weigh in on the greatness of this forum.

Why did I post that? Because I started the Big Cat discussion out of a curiosity about a complex issue about which I had not made up my mind and was looking for an open exchange of ideas among people with at least one common interest.

Why are you, tornadoman, wanting to shut that down?

So far the vote no people have seemed more persuasive.

[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.

tornadoman profile page quote:

I am not worthy to weigh in on the greatness of this forum.

Why did I post that? Because I started the Big Cat discussion out of a curiosity about a complex issue about which I had not made up my mind and was looking for an open exchange of ideas among people with at least one common interest.

Why are you, tornadoman, wanting to shut that down?

So far the vote no people have seemed more persuasive.

I just want people to abide by the rules of the forum. Life is immersed with politics nowadays it would be nice to have a place where we could all enjoy a break from that. I find it unlikely given your posting history that you weren't trying to stir up controversy but that isn't relevant. Bill runs the board not I; so your blatant disregard for the rules can stand.

Most of my profile is facetious but that's cool that you want to read it.

Honest question- why did you have to cancel your Montrose gathering while the one Kiefer posted was well attended? Hmm...

Save yourself some time and don't bother sending me another rambling semi-coherent email. It will be deleted unread.

[Wentzl]

The dude abides.

the-dude-abides-5cf09c4557.jpg

Big Cat Question:

still open for debate/discussion

[montanahiker]

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).

This is the entire basis of "our democracy" in the 21st century. What good is freedom if you can't take it away from your neighbor?

[Trotter]

"Together, hunting and fishing bring over $3.25 billion to Colorado every year, impacting all 64 counties. Hunting and fishing also support more than 25,000 full-time jobs across the state, from small businesses to manufacturers to the tourism industry."

Yeah lets get rid of big cat hunting because we know better then the biologists and scientists who study big cat hunting for a living.

If we ban hunting, maybe the outside world will turn into a disney movie where the animals all hug, and nothing has to die!!!

[dubsho3000]

"Together, hunting and fishing bring over $3.25 billion to Colorado every year, impacting all 64 counties. Hunting and fishing also support more than 25,000 full-time jobs across the state, from small businesses to manufacturers to the tourism industry."

According to Mark Udall, lion license sales generates 0.4% of Colorado's wildlife operations budget. If we apply that to your $3.25B "economic activity" number, that suggests lion hunting generates $13M for CO (although I'm not sure where your number came from, so I'm not sure how accurate it is). The FRED shows CO GDP at $530B for 2023, and lion hunting would represent 0.0025% of that total. Just putting these out here for context and in the hopes that the No camp will abandon the economic argument

https://coloradosun.com/2024/10/02/opin ... g-ban-yes/
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CONGSP

[Cygnus X1]

"Together, hunting and fishing bring over $3.25 billion to Colorado every year, impacting all 64 counties. Hunting and fishing also support more than 25,000 full-time jobs across the state, from small businesses to manufacturers to the tourism industry."

According to Mark Udall, lion license sales generates 0.4% of Colorado's wildlife operations budget. If we apply that to your $3.25B "economic activity" number, that suggests lion hunting generates $13M for CO (although I'm not sure where your number came from, so I'm not sure how accurate it is). The FRED shows CO GDP at $530B for 2023, and lion hunting would represent 0.0025% of that total. Just putting these out here for context and in the hopes that the No camp will abandon the economic argument

https://coloradosun.com/2024/10/02/opin ... g-ban-yes/
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CONGSP

It's not about the money. It's about a holistic approach to wildlife management and it should be left to the experts.

[dubsho3000]

"Together, hunting and fishing bring over $3.25 billion to Colorado every year, impacting all 64 counties. Hunting and fishing also support more than 25,000 full-time jobs across the state, from small businesses to manufacturers to the tourism industry."

According to Mark Udall, lion license sales generates 0.4% of Colorado's wildlife operations budget. If we apply that to your $3.25B "economic activity" number, that suggests lion hunting generates $13M for CO (although I'm not sure where your number came from, so I'm not sure how accurate it is). The FRED shows CO GDP at $530B for 2023, and lion hunting would represent 0.0025% of that total. Just putting these out here for context and in the hopes that the No camp will abandon the economic argument

https://coloradosun.com/2024/10/02/opin ... g-ban-yes/
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CONGSP

It's not about the money. It's about a holistic approach to wildlife management and it should be left to the experts.

That seems like a far better argument to me. I agree, the money is insignificant.

[cedica]

If we ban hunting, maybe the outside world will turn into a disney movie where the animals all hug, and nothing has to die!!!

Sounds like pretty unfair characterization to me, Bambi was about growing up without dead mother and absent father. And hunting was a major plot device.

[dubsho3000]

It's not about the money. It's about a holistic approach to wildlife management and it should be left to the experts.
[/quote]

Here's the opinion of some self-proclaimed wildlife experts (Mark Udall referenced this letter): https://catsarenttrophies.org/wp-conten ... -09-12.pdf

CPW seems to be moot on the issue according to the link you provided earlier. They say they will implement whatever the legislature and voters pass. Is there a mechanism for the CPW to change the legality of mountain lion hunting? Is that within their authority?

[dwoodward13]

CPW seems to be moot on the issue according to the link you provided earlier. They say they will implement whatever the legislature and voters pass. Is there a mechanism for the CPW to change the legality of mountain lion hunting? Is that within their authority?

CPW specifically does not take stances on ballot issues. I've wondered if there are avenues they (CPW) can take should the prop pass and at some point in the future the mountain lion population needs culled. The answer is yes, although IANAL. If you read the full prop 127, Section 2(a)(II)(B) specifically excludes CPW personell (and other gov personell) from the ban, including for reasons beyond protection of life and property.

(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;

As far as CPW allowing run of the mill hunters to hunt, I don't think so without further change at the ballot box or legislature. The 2(a)(II)(G) allows CPW to issue special hunting permits, but if you look up the referenced code, that is only for scientific research, wildlife sanctuaries or zoos.

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electi ... 1Final.pdf