With ballots being marked across the country, 24 former Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioners are urging voters to reject a measure seeking to ban mountain lion and bobcat hunting in the state. The former commissioners, including Gov. Jared Polis appointees, represent decades of service to all stakeholders of CPW and said CPW is renowned for its science-based adaptive management practices to balance the needs of wildlife, ecosystems and communities.

“Proposition 127 undermines science-based wildlife management and undercuts over 125 years of investment from CPW that has resulted in both the recovery of and sustainable populations of wildlife in Colorado,” they said.

Former Commissioner Gaspar Perricone said he hopes voters will pause before casting their vote.

---

---

“I think fundamentally the impetus behind the letter was the recognition that 125 years of science-based wildlife management is at a junction point with proposition 127,” Perricone said. “Those of us who have had the honor of serving the agency as Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioners take great pride in the work and the commitment that we’ve made to the agency and are dedicated to ensuring that the adherence to science-based wildlife management and a holistic approach to managing our shared ownership of wildlife continues into the future. Obviously proposition 127 puts a question to the voters that in our opinion does not spawn from the perspective of best available science or a holistic wildlife management approach, but rather is being driven by special interests and an attempt to manage wildlife in a vacuum.”

RESULT OF NO HUNTING PRESSURE

---

---

John Howard served the CPW Commission from 2014 to 2020, chairing the commission twice during his tenure. Howard said if the ban were to pass, it is the wildlife biologists who would be forced to manage the lions that depredate or come into communities and threaten people, pets or livestock much like current management in California.

“Without that hunting pressure on the lions, you see the lions losing their fear of human beings, and so that causes more conflict with humans and their livestock and pets,” Howard said. “Then the way you’re managing lions at that point is similar to Fish and Game in California. In California, they’re managing reactively, right? There’s an incident and they have to react to it. Whereas when you’re using hunting pursuant to statute in Colorado — I think sometimes the advocates forget that there is a statute that directs CPW to use hunting — you’re managing proactively.”

California outlawed lion harvest in 1972 and according to the former commissioners’ letter, California Fish and Wildlife is still culling roughly as many lions from the landscape annually using government sharpshooters at the taxpayers’ expense rather than any harvest of the meat via hunting. Howard said managing with hunting as a tool creates in those animals a fear of humans that works for the benefit of the lions, that will see humans and go the other direction.

Perricone said Colorado has seen the unintended consequences of ballot box biology unfolding with the implementation of Proposition 114. He said that failure has not been the fault of CPW, but the consequence of trying to manage wildlife in a vacuum.

“There’s a juxtaposition between social considerations around wildlife management and those decisions that are guided by best available science and sound management practice,” Perricone said. “The reason we are witnessing wildlife ballot measures on the ballot this year and in previous years is because these concepts have not held up to the court of public opinion or to the court of biological opinion through previous venues like the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission where this proposal was unanimously turned down on several different occasions.”

He said the proposal was dismissed by the Colorado General Assembly as well, both groups that had the opportunity to weigh this proposal against sound wildlife management practices and criteria.

“The unfortunate reality is, when you change the venue of this discussion to the public, it makes it more difficult to properly educate what those sound science-based wildlife management standards and protocols are, and I think it allows the advocates to lean in on a social sympathy that is often a bit more removed in consideration of science-based wildlife management decisions themselves,” he said.

Perricone said the proponents of Proposition 127 have claimed that prohibiting the hunter-harvest of mountain lions is the solution to the chronic wasting disease (CWD) problem. 

“That’s just simply misleading,” Perricone said. “The fact of the matter is CWD is a terribly infectious disease that unfortunately has taken hold of too many of our wildlife populations in Colorado. But the way in which this disease manifests within an individual animal is a rather long and drawn-out period of time. The notion that prohibiting a hunter harvest somehow would lead to lions culling early infected animals is just a bit of a misnomer. And there’s no concrete evidence to suggest that prohibiting hunter harvest as a management tool in Colorado will significantly lead to any type of a reduction in the CWD infected species we have in the state.”

STRAINING RESOURCES, EXPERTISE

According to the letter, the proponents’ claims that banning the hunting of lions leads to a self-regulated population are misleading. If lion hunting is banned, the responsibility for managing wildlife will fall entirely on the shoulders of wildlife managers, straining their resources and expertise. It would also cut off a vital revenue stream that currently supports conservation efforts, further stretching the agency’s capacity to manage wildlife effectively, including lions, bobcats and lynx.

“We should just mention that there was something like 170 lions in the mid-60s when CPW took over management through regulated hunting,” Perricone said. “Now there’s somewhere between 3,800 and 4,400. So that huge success doesn’t just happen.”

Howard said management success like that happens because CPW invested in scientific studies on public and private ground, and then creates a management plan like the East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan that’s currently in front of the commission.

“We’re respectful of the Front Range, but we’d like them to understand our communities as well, and the unintended consequence that would come both economically and culturally in where we live,” Howard said.

Perricone said the problem with initiatives addressing particular elements of wildlife management like this one, is that it seeks to manage wildlife in a singular perspective, addressing only one species with no consideration for the impacts and the unintended consequences that it will have on the ecosystem writ large.

“It also puts undue stress on our wildlife professionals and creates a social and a cultural rift between the state, as we’ve seen play out with Prop 114,” he said. “To take an approach that is largely driven by emotion that has been summarily dismissed by previous wildlife agency professionals is just a poor way to go about wildlife management. We, by necessity, have made significant investments over the last 125 years into our state’s wildlife populations that has led to the greatest recovery that this world has ever seen. That didn’t happen by accident.”

Howard said it is a mistake to look at wildlife management as a partisan issue or a rural or suburban or urban issue.

“This is a broad-based, nonpartisan, science-based movement to vote no on this and to leave with our legislature and with the commission and the experts, the management of these predators, and to celebrate this huge success story that all Coloradans have contributed to,” Howard said. “Supporting CPW, whether that means going and buying a fishing license or access to state wildlife area pass, those types of things, and then just telling your friends and neighbors that, hey, it’s okay. You can vote no against this.”

Former CPW commissioners opposing the banning of mountain lion, bobcat, and lynx hunting are Alex Zipp, Brad Coors, Brad Phelps, Charlie Garcia, Chris Castilian, Claire O’Neal, Dale Pizel, Dean Wingfield, Dick Ray, Duke Phillips, Gaspar Perricone, George VanDenBerg, Jeanne Horne, Jeff Crawford, Jim Vigil, John Howard, John Singletary, Ken Torres, Mark Smith, Marvin McDaniel, Michelle Zimmerman, Rick Enstrom, Robert Bray, and Tom Burke. The full letter is accessible on our website.

FULL LETTER

We, the undersigned twenty-four former Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioners, encourage all Coloradans to vote NO on Proposition 127, the proposed ban on hunting mountain lions, bobcats and lynx. Collectively, we intimately understand the importance of science-based wildlife management and the role that Colorado Parks and Wildlife plays in serving as both trustees and stewards of our state’s wildlife and the places that they inhabit.

We are proud to have served and overseen one of the most respected state fish and wildlife agencies in the country. CPW is renowned for its science-based adaptive management practices which balance the needs of wildlife, ecosystems and communities. Proposition 127 undermines science-based wildlife management and undercuts over 125 years of investment from CPW that has resulted in both the recovery of and sustainable populations of wildlife in Colorado.

CPW’s experience in managing wildlife is grounded on industry-leading research, national expertise and proven techniques. Colorado boasts some of the most scenic and conserved landscapes as well as robust wildlife populations. This didn’t happen by accident; it is the result of over a century’s worth of sound management and conservation practices from CPW staff.

Our state agency is also a leader in addressing complex issues like Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) which has impacted wildlife populations across Colorado and beyond. Through extensive research, innovative management strategies and collaborations with other state and federal agencies, CPW has made substantial progress in understanding CWD and other wildlife diseases.

The proponents of Proposition 127 have claimed and would like you to believe that prohibiting the hunter-harvest of mountain lions is the solution to the CWD problem. The truth is not that simple. Deer and elk contract CWD long before they show any symptoms and before they become selective as prey. Sure, predators single out the younger and weaker animals, however, there is no evidence to suggest that a prohibition on hunter harvest of lions will have any measurable reduction in CWD-infected populations in Colorado. 

Moreover, claims that banning the hunting of lions leads to a self-regulated population are misleading. But you don’t have to take our word for it, just ask California who outlawed lion harvest in 1972. California Fish and Wildlife is still culling roughly as many lions from the landscape annually using government sharpshooters instead of hunters at a taxpayer expense and without any harvest of the meat. Banning hunting simply removes a valuable tool from the expert’s toolbox. Wildlife professionals will still be responsible for managing lions to protect human health and safety and to mitigate livestock depredation, not to mention the predator-prey balance required for sustainable populations of all species. In California, predators have become bolder in approaching people, especially young children. These interactions are happening in broad daylight, in people’s backyards and picnic grounds, like the recent attack on a 5-year-old in September.

If this proposition passes, the responsibility for managing wildlife will fall entirely on the shoulders of wildlife managers, straining their resources and expertise. Moreover, banning hunting would cut off a vital revenue stream that currently supports conservation efforts, further stretching the agency’s capacity to manage wildlife effectively, including lions, bobcats and lynx.

Wildlife management is a nuanced field requiring input from biologists, ecologists and experts in disease control, population management and habitat conservation. If Proposition 127 becomes law, would take away the ability to manage specific species such as bobcats and mountain lions from those who are best equipped to do so. This measure seeks to impose a blanket ban on managing these complex animals without considering the real-world ecological dynamics at play, leaving CPW unable to address population imbalances in practical ways or manage predator-prey relationships effectively. The unintended consequences are enormous.

As Commissioners, we have a deep connection to Colorado’s natural resources and to the agency’s mission. The people entrusted with these responsibilities have spent their careers understanding the complexities of ecosystems and ensuring that wildlife populations remain healthy and resilient for future generations.

Colorado has long been a leader in wildlife conservation and our national reputation is built on thoughtful science-driven management. Let’s keep it that way. Vote NO on Proposition 127 to protect the integrity of wildlife management in our state.

From the Undersigned Former Colorado Parks and Wildlife Chairs and Commissioners:

Alex Zipp

Brad Coors

Brad Phelps

Charlie Garcia

Chris Castilian

Claire O’Neal

Dale Pizel

Dean Wingfield

Dick Ray

Duke Phillips

Gaspar Perricone

George VanDenBerg

Jeanne Horne

Jeff Crawford

Jim Vigil

John Howard

John Singletary

Ken Torres

Mark Smith

Marvin McDaniel

Michelle Zimmerman

Rick Enstrom

Robert Bray

Tom Burke