As we barrel toward yet another pivotal election, Coloradans are beginning to learn more about the latest ballot initiative seeking to implement wildlife management policy with no scientific research to support it. For those who might not be familiar, Proposition 127 wants to ban mountain lion and bobcat hunting across Colorado (the initiative would also ban the hunting of lynx, but more on that later).

Though Prop 127 will ask voters to decide whether Colorado can continue to manage these predators with hunting, it subliminally raises another important question: Is it a good idea for citizens to override policy crafted by experts at Colorado Parks and Wildlife?

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

To answer both questions, it’s worth assessing the current status of mountain lions and bobcats in Colorado, and how current policies have affected them. According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, mountain lions enjoy a healthy and sustainable population, with an estimated 4,000 independent mountain lions across Colorado. CPW also notes bobcats maintain a healthy and abundant population, and all available evidence indicates their population is growing in the state.

If you’re wondering how hunting has impacted these animals, CPW has explicitly stated there is no available evidence to indicate subjecting these animals to harvest has negatively impacted their population densities. In fact, since the regulated hunting of mountain lions first began in Colorado in the mid 1960s, the state’s resident mountain lion population has increased dramatically. This lays waste to claims made by folks in support of Prop 127, who argue the initiative is necessary to protect these populations from becoming endangered in the future. Thankfully, all evidence indicates this concern is not based in reality. Truthfully, the use of harvest for mountain lions and bobcats is a management tool to promote stable populations, according to CPW.

Now, it’s worth mentioning Prop 127 would also prohibit the hunting of lynx, a big cat classified as endangered in Colorado. However, it is already illegal to hunt or trap lynx thanks to current state and federal law. My only guess is the folks behind Prop 127 chose to include lynx in its text to incorrectly imply current regulations are not effectively protecting an endangered species. Whatever the case may be, Colorado currently maintains a secure population for these animals.

Saying Colorado Parks and Wildlife has effectively managed these animals would be an understatement. The agency has gone above and beyond to create a landscape where apex predators can peacefully coexist with Colorado’s 5.7 million residents. After reviewing all the facts, it’s clear to see Colorado’s big cats remain in good hands, and Prop. 127 only serves to disrupt current science-based wildlife management practices.

CPW has officially taken no position on Prop 127, a stance they are legally required to maintain as a state government agency. Still, despite the agency’s inability to take an official position on Prop 127, it’s hard to believe experts who have dedicated their lives to managing wild animals want to take policy pointers from the average citizen, whose wildlife expertise is limited at best.

The fact of the matter is effective wildlife management requires years of science-based research, hard work and an unwavering passion for wild animals. Experts at CPW have demonstrated time and time again they check every box to ensure our state’s wildlife can continue to remain happy and healthy.  

For the reasons outlined above, I will be voting NO on Prop 127 to allow the professionals at Colorado Parks and Wildlife to continue their effective management of all Colorado’s 961 wildlife species, including our state’s big cats, in the future.

Dan Gates is the campaign chairman for Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better, the issue committee opposed to Proposition 127. He also currently serves as the executive director of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management and as vice chair for the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project.