Colorado voters Tuesday night split along rural and urban lines to reject Proposition 127, which would have banned hunting mountain lions and bobcats.
The proposed ban passed in only six counties —Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, San Juan and San Miguel — while voters in rural and less populated counties resoundingly defeated the ballot measure that would have prohibited hunting mountain lions and bobcats.
In the end, about 55.5% of voters cast ballots against Proposition 127, the first time since 1992 that Colorado voters have rejected a wildlife ballot proposal. The Associated Press called the race at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday.
This is the second time in four years that Colorado voters have been asked to consider wildlife management in what opponents of the proposition call “ballot box biology.”
“Coloradans stood up for science and sound wildlife management by voting against Proposition 127,” Dan Gates, chairman of the opposition group Colorado Wildlife Deserves Better, said in a statement Wednesday morning. “This result reflects the voices of those who recognize the importance of letting wildlife experts, not the ballot box, guide decisions on the conservation of Colorado’s big cats.”
In 2020, Colorado voters narrowly approved Proposition 114 directing Colorado Parks and Wildlife to reintroduce gray wolves to western Colorado. That measure was largely approved by Front Range residents in more urban communities while Western Slope communities widely rejected wolf reintroduction. Since the first 10 wolves were released in Grand and Summit counties in December 2023, 17 cattle, eight sheep and one llama have been killed by wolves in Elbert, Jackson, Grand and Routt counties, prompting demands from ranchers that officials kill the wolves involved in the attacks.
Colorado voters also approved wildlife management questions in 1992 with the passage of Amendment 10, which prevented hunters from using dogs or bait to hunt black bears, and in 1996 with passage of an amendment that banned leg-hold and instant-kill traps.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife has since 1965 managed the state’s mountain lion population as big game by issuing hunting permits. The agency limits how many mountain lions hunters can kill, requiring hunters to check daily updates on limits and quickly report kills to wildlife officers. All lion hunters must take a special education and identification course.
The agency estimates there are to 3,800 to 4,400 mountain lions in Colorado. In 1980, hunters killed 81 mountain lions. In the 2023-24 season, 2,599 hunters who took special online courses to help them better identify the gender of mountain lions, spent 1,637 days hunting lions and killed 502 animals, including 266 males and 236 females.
Earlier this year, Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners reduced lion hunting to a single season, eliminating the monthlong April season and leaving the traditional December through March season. The agency is in the process of updating its management plan for lions on the Front Range, just as it did in 2020 for lion management on the Western Slope.
Supporters of Proposition 127 — led by the Cats Aren’t Trophies group — hoped voters would end the “cruel and inhuman trophy hunting and fur-trapping of Colorado’s wild cats.” The supporters of Prop. 127 always used the word “trophy,” insisting that lions and bobcats are largely killed for taxidermy and not meat even though Colorado Parks and Wildlife requires that “edible parts of lions must be property prepared for human consumption.” Supporters argued that lion and bobcat populations are self-regulating without the need for hunting or trapping.
“Big cats provide valuable ecological contributions, and Colorado should protect them rather than allowing them to be hunted,” reads the Colorado Legislative Council Blue Book explanation of support for Proposition 127.
The supporter campaign raised $2.8 million, including $731,490 from the D.C.-based Animal Wellness Action group and $465,000 from the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesburg.
The opponents of Proposition 127 argued that voters should not be involved in wildlife management policies created by biologists and wildlife experts at Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Opponents, led by the Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better group, argued Proposition 127 would restrict the ability of Colorado’s wildlife biologists to make science-based decisions when preserving biodiversity and ensuring sustainable ecosystems.
“The state currently manages a healthy population of bobcats and mountain lions, proving that its current management practices, which include regulated hunting, are working,” reads the opponent’s position in the Blue Book.
The opposition campaign raised $1.9 million, including $237,000 from the Washington, D.C.-based Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and $600,000 on Sept. 25 from the Virginia-based conservative advocacy group Concord Fund, which was formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network.