Between slogging through the Biden administration’s outrageous proposed rules about fair and competitive marketing under the Packers and Stockyards Act and listening to Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Climate, Forestry and Natural Resources and Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), chairman, host a subcommittee meeting in Burlington titled “Hearing on the High Plains: Combating Drought with Innovation,” I took a few minutes to review the draft language on Initiative 91: Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx, and Mountain Lion Hunting released by the Legislative Council staff that will appear in the Blue Book.

I’m a real hoot at parties.

It should come as no surprise I vehemently oppose more ballot-box biology via the initiative process. The first draft is just a draft, and the signatures have yet to be counted to place it on the ballot. However, this one has some problems. The title that will appear on the ballot reads: “Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a prohibition on the hunting of mountain lions, lynx, and bobcats, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the intentional killing, wounding, pursuing, entrapping, or discharging or releasing of a deadly weapon at a mountain lion, lynx, or bobcat; creating eight exceptions to this prohibition including for the protection of human life, property, and livestock; establishing a violation of this prohibition as a class 1 misdemeanor; and increasing fines and limiting wildlife license privileges for persons convicted of this crime?”

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

The actual measure revises statute to prohibit trophy hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, or lynx and defines trophy hunting as “practiced primarily for the display of an animal’s head, fur or other body parts, rather than for the utilization of the meat.” It goes on to say it is “almost always conducted by unsporting means” including the use of hounds.

In the summary, though, trophy hunting is defined as the hunting for sport rather than food. The summary then clarifies certain scenarios — the defense of human life; by an employee or contractor of CPW; as a result of a motor-vehicle accident; or for scientific research or humane euthanasia, etc. — are not considered trophy hunting. None of those scenarios are hunting.

In summarizing the arguments for the initiative, it reads, “Bobcat and mountain lion populations do not require hunting to regulate their numbers. Research does not support that banning hunting of these animals will increase the density of a population or cause any negative effects on their habitat and environment.”

The fiscal impact will be included in the second draft but there are several points to consider. The costs incurred by CPW to remove a lion from an area of conflict include time and resources of CPW staff, but it also incurs federal costs by enacting the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CPW and USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services for coyotes, lions and bears. Wolves should also be added to the MOU, but I digress.

If it cost taxpayer-funded agencies $1,000, for example, to do something a non-resident hunter would have paid more than $800 (based on proposed increases planned by the commission but not yet finalized) for the license alone to do, that lost revenue is only compounded by the revenue brought to rural communities by that hunter. Further, mountain lions kill one deer per week and based on a non-resident deer license price of $586.80, that’s potentially $30,000 of lost revenue per mountain lion annually.

For the rural communities supported, in part, by hunting, the reality of lost revenue is significant. A non-resident lion hunter who hires the services of an outfitter will pay $6,500 or so for the hunt plus the license, fuel, meals, souvenirs for the family, more fuel and other dollars injected into the communities. Those dollars not only circulate within that community another eight to 10 times, but portions of that $6,500 find their way back into the tills of local businesses and to support the management and monitoring of lions by CPW. That monitoring, coincidentally, is done with the aid of contracted houndsmen and hounds who tree the lions to count, determine gender and identify.

Even in the summary of the arguments against the initiative, trophy hunting is again referenced and should not be.

One of the points in that section reads: “Wildlife management in Colorado should be overseen by experts who make science-based decisions to achieve the state’s ecological objectives, which include preserving biodiversity, ensuring sustainable ecosystems and protecting endangered species. This measure threatens to undermine these objectives by disregarding the expertise and research necessary for effective wildlife management.”

Nothing in the document references Colorado Statute 33-1-101 that reads, “It is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors.” The statute also directs that “The state shall utilize hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests.” That’s management, gentle readers.

Rachel Gabel writes about agriculture and rural issues. She is assistant editor of The Fence Post Magazine, the region’s preeminent agriculture publication. Gabel is a daughter of the state’s oil and gas industry and a member of one of the state’s 12,000 cattle-raising families, and she has authored children’s books used in hundreds of classrooms to teach students about agriculture.