A recently published study by a think tank claims that a proposed ban on the “trophy hunting” of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx in Colorado could have a significant economic impact on the state.

Supporters of the ban, meanwhile, argue that the study is not based in science and relies upon fear and misconceptions. 

The study

According to the state’s fiscal impact analysis of Proposition 91, prohibiting the hunting of mountain lions and bobcats, would reduce Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s annual revenue by $425,000, based on 2023 data. Trapping and hunting lynx is already prohibited in Colorado. 

Common Sense Institute’s study builds on the state’s analysis, assuming that the initiative’s passage would not only reduce revenue from mountain lion and bobcat hunting but also decrease mule deer and elk populations due to increased predation. Based on this, the study estimates CPW could lose an additional $3.6 million to $5.8 million in permit revenue. 

Common Sense Institute’s Executive Director Kelly Caufield said the study provides a more accurate assessment than the state’s fiscal analysis, because it factors in the broader impact on deer and elk populations, which could result in a revenue loss nine to 14 times greater than when only accounting for mountain lion licenses. 

“If the mountain lions are restricted, that has impacts on other animal populations,” she said. “So for the state’s analysis, I would read that and think, ‘oh, $400,000, that’s very insignificant.’ We thought it was important for voters to understand that you do need to account for that lost elk and mule deer permit revenue as well that’s affected by that increase in the lion population.”

Caufield said CSI’s estimates were based on a study from Oregon, which found that mountain lions kill roughly one elk or mule deer per week. This information was used to estimate the initiative’s potential impact on elk and deer populations, and, consequently, on hunting license sales. 

The study also drew on a 2017 CPW report that estimated the average economic output associated with legally hunted species in the state. Based on that study, the initiative would result in an estimated decrease of $61.65 million in economic activity, the majority of which from a reduction in elk and mile deer hunting licenses.

Caufield said the goal of the study was to provide voters with insight into the potential fiscal impacts of the initiative so they can make informed decisions on their own. 

“We are nonpartisan and we do not advocate,” she said. “We do not write these reports to be pro or con on a campaign that’s outside of our mission. We are the numbers people, we are the data people, and we are most interested in economic impact and any quantitative impact that we can find. When you’re a voter trying to understand the ballot, it’s very complex. We put extremely important matters in front of people and assume that they’re all experts. Common Sense is in a place where we are just focusing on the numbers so that voters can use them to make their decision. It’s our mission to have an educated electorate.”

Proponents say study not scientifically based

Julie Marshall, director of communications for Cats Aren’t Trophies, the group behind Proposition 91, said that while Common Sense Institute’s study may have good intentions, it relied on numbers rather than biology.

Marshall agreed with the state’s fiscal analysis but argued that factoring in losses from elk and deer licenses was irrelevant because decades of research have shown that increases in mountain lion populations don’t directly result in significant declines in elk and deer numbers.

“This is no different than climate deniers who point to the weather forecast in winter as their ‘proof’ that climate change isn’t real, or a study that shows lions eat deer to suggest they will decimate the herd,” she said. “That’s emotional manipulation, not proof of what’s being tested. Lions eat deer and elk; they have to to survive, but to claim that without trophy hunting, the herds will be decimated to the tune of millions of dollars? That is just irresponsible and reckless to suggest in light of the science that has been repeatedly proven, again and again, on this very issue.”

Marshall cited mountain lion researcher Maurice Hornocker’s book, “Cougars on the Cliff,” which states that mountain lions “regulate their own numbers and actually help prey animals maintain or increase their population numbers.

“There really is no evidence that we would need to ever use trophy hunting, and there’s no evidence that we’d have an explosion of mountain lions without it, because nature would take care of the populations so they’re stable and appropriate for the landscape.” 

When mule deer and elk are removed from the equation, the revenue loss from the initiative is “a drop in the bucket,” Marshall said. She noted that the loss in revenue from mountain lion hunting licenses would account for less than a half-percent of CPW’s 2024 operating budget. This number is insignificant when compared to the cats’ “intrinsic and ecological values,” she argued, because they cull weak and sick deer and elk to keep populations healthy.

Marshall contended that financial analyses based on outside studies may be useful in economics, but they aren’t as effective at addressing the complexities of science.

“These folks might have the best of intentions, but we have to follow what the science says on this particular issue,” she said. “You can’t build a whole financial report that’s based on false, unproven science. That’s reckless. It’s irresponsible and it’s really unhelpful to the voters of Colorado that deserve to have evidence. We think it’s all simple math, but it’s not; nature has this very prescriptive way of behaving, and it balances itself out quite well.”