Three ballot measures pushed by animal rights activists in Denver and statewide failed on Election Day.

The statewide measure aimed to forbid hunting of big cats, while measures in Denver asked voters to prohibit the sale of furs and shut down a local slaughterhouse.

Proposition 127, a statewide measure that sought to ban the “trophy” hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynxes, trailed by more than 267,000 votes, or 10 percentage points, the latest tally showed. 

Trophy hunting is illegal in Colorado under Colorado Revised Statute 33-6-117 and Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations. Lynx are a federally protected species and cannot be hunted or trapped.

Supporters said claimed voters would be making a “moral decision” about hunting the big cats, arguing hunters chase them into trees, shoot them and then hang them on walls.

State regulations require mountain lions to be consumed, stating “all edible parts of lions must be properly prepared for human consumption, excluding internal organs. At a minimum, this means the four quarters, tenderloins, and backstraps.”

Those who opposed the measure pointed to the state’s widely-criticized wolf reintroduction, tied to Proposition 114, which won by a margin of less than 2 points in 2020. The ballot measure required wolves to be reintroduced west of the Continental Divide — the counties where wolves were reintroduced voted overwhelmingly against the proposal. Most of the measure’s support came from Front Range voters, particularly in Boulder and Denver counties.

Based on the unofficial results on Tuesday night, just five counties voted to support Proposition 127, and all but a few thousand of its 1.1 million “yes” votes came from Boulder, Denver and Arapahoe counties.

Opponents called the measure another effort at “ballot box biology” and cited regret over voting for 2020’s Proposition 114 as a reason not to go down that same path again.

The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado defined “ballot box biology” as the “practice of using public votes to decide on wildlife management policies, rather than relying on the expertise of wildlife biologists and scientists. Colorado’s history shows that decisions made through emotional appeals, rather than scientific expertise, often lead to unintended and harmful consequences.”

The board of the Colorado Wildlife Employees Protective Association, which represents 230 current and former Colorado Parks and Wildlife employees, passed a resolution last month that said it is “self-evident that all wildlife in Colorado is best protected, enhanced, and managed via the science-based wildlife management professionals employed by the State of Colorado for such purposes.” In particular, the group said that science-based approach is “pursuant to the mission of Colorado Parks and Wildlife” and as prescribed by the tenets of the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.”

While not formally opposing Proposition 127, the group’s president told Colorado Politics that, if this is a trend, “we’d like to get out in front of it.”

Animal rights groups pushed two other ballot measures in Denver: Ordinances 308 and 309.

The former asked voters to prohibit fur products and, beginning July 1, 2025, ban the manufacture, distribution, display, sale, or trade of certain animal fur products.

But it would have gone beyond just fur, critics said. The measure’s petition included “animal skin or part thereof of hair, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto, either in its raw or processed state; or such hair fleece, or fur fibers detached from any animal skin and re-attached to another material.”

That could prohibit specific fly-fishing lures or cowboy hats made from animal skins, such as beaver, critics said.

That drew the ire of the National Western Stock Show, which put $45,000 into the Hands Off My Hat anti-308 committee. The group raised nearly $730,000, more than double the amount that proponents raised.

Unofficial results showed the measure failing by more than 15 percentage points.

Ordinance 309 called for a ban on slaughterhouses in Denver. But there’s only one in the city —and supporters pointed to that one facility in their efforts to pass the measure.

Globeville’s Superior Farms processes lambs, is employee-owned, and closing its doors would put 160 employees out of work. The facility processes about 15% to 20% of all lambs processed in the United States.

As for the jobs that would be lost, supporters said a company shutdown would allow employees to receive unemployment assistance. The measure also called for those workers to be “prioritized” for workforce training or employment assistance programs operated by Denver, including so-called “green jobs” outlined in the city’s Climate Protection Fund.

This measure was seen as a salvo in a battle to ban slaughterhouses nationwide.

Unofficial results showed the measure losing by nearly 30 percentage points.

The measure drew opposition from the central committee of the Denver Democratic Party, citing the impact on workers. They were joined in that opposition by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, Service Employees International Union Local 105, the Denver Area Labor Federation, Denver Pipefitters Local 208 and the Teamsters Union.

The measure drew more than $2.7 million in spending, heavily weighted toward the opposition, which raised $2.4 million to fight it. That included $175,000 from Superior Farms.

Jennifer Martin, an associate professor of animal sciences at Colorado State University, wrote recently about a study on the effects of Ordinance 309, saying Colorado’s rugged environment is well-suited for sheep ranching and noting the state is the third largest producer in the country.

Closing Superior Farms would mean “sheep producers who historically sent their lambs to Denver for harvest would instead not be able, or willing, to ship them to other states due to increased costs and concerns for animal welfare effects.”

In addition, she said, “the effects, which have been observed after closures of meat-processing facilities in other regions, would have included fewer sheep produced and a decline in the economic value of live sheep.

“The closure would have resulted in a loss of livestock employment opportunities and a transition away from sheep production toward other enterprises,” she said, adding that it’s not just the size of Superior Farms that makes it important to the supply chain, “it is also its ability to access consumers in a variety of markets that is crucial for the sheep industry.” 

The study also said “the most pessimistic potential economic impact to the Colorado economy is a reduction of $861 million in current economic activity and 2,787 jobs after accounting for multiplier effects.”