ߣÏÈÉú

As Proposition 127 wades into the science of wildlife management, proponents argue it also asks voters a moral question.

In Colorado, the predominant method of hunting mountain lions is hound hunting, accounting for over 90% of the cats killed. Hounds allow hunters to be “more selective of gender,” which is a major consideration in keeping a species’ population stable,.

However, proponents of the measure call the method cruel, unsporting, inhumane and misaligned with ethical hunting practices including fair chase.

---

---

Christina Capaldo, a Telluride veterinarian and proponent of the measure, called the way hunters use hounds, wearing GPS collars, to chase and tree an animal before the hunter kills it, “the moral equivalent of shooting a lion in a cage.”

In the natural environment, predator and prey have a “dynamic balance” where either party sometimes has the advantage, according to Barry Noon, a professor at Colorado State University’s Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology. Noon argues that the same should be true in hunting.

---

---

The use of ATVs, high-powered rifles, dogs with GPS collars and drones have all grown lion hunter’s advantages over time, creating a significant imbalance and making the practice unethical, he said.

Oregon and Washington, through citizen-led ballot initiatives, have both banned the practice of hound hunting, citing similar ethical arguments. In 1992, Colorado as a method of hunting bears.

“If it’s not right for bears, it’s not right for mountain lions,” Capaldo said. 

Opponents of the measure, like Kody Lostroh, vice president of the United Houndsmen of Colorado, feel that the assumptions around hound hunting are misunderstood.

“It’s way more than just buying a dog and turning it out there and it catches a lion for you,” he said. They’re just like us: they learn, they make mistakes, they succeed and they fail.”

Sometimes this means the lion wins, Lostroh said, adding they have the “upper hand” in the mountains, making hunting rewarding and challenging. 

“The average success rate on lion harvest in Colorado has been 19%,” he added. 

Jerry Apker, a retired wildlife biologist who spent 38 years as a wildlife officer and carnivore biologist for Colorado Parks and Wildlife and who said he participated in a few mountain lion hunts when he was younger, agreed.

“(It was) almost more challenging than anything else that I ever hunted because it was physically demanding,” said Apker, who opposes Proposition 127.

For Lostroh, it’s the years of dog training, miles of hiking, and learning that make the experience so special.

“It’s not the act of pulling the trigger,” he said. “It’s putting in the work to have the opportunity to pull the trigger if you choose to do so.”

In response to the claims that the GPS collars undermine “fair chase” principles, Lostroh said that these serve as a wireless leash, adding control and ensuring they don’t lose the dogs, which are a significant investment. 

“It’s not a high-tech device for killing. It’s to keep my dogs and me both safe,” he said. “In the mountains, you’ve got to be within about half a mile to three-quarters of a mile, probably, at most from your dog to be able to see where they’re at. You’re with your dogs, and you’re hunting with them.”

Hounds for wildlife management

Hounds are also the predominant method wildlife agencies use to track and manage the species. In Oregon and Washington where hound hunting is banned, hounds remain a main tool for their state wildlife agencies. In a, Derek Broman, Carnivore Coordinator for the department, called hounds a “priceless tool.”

While Washington voters banned hound hunting for lions and other species in 1996, the state’s wildlife agency for nonlethal hound hunters in 2021. In its decision, the agency said it needed more trained hound handlers and dogs to be able to handle problem mountain lions.  

A studied how captures by biologists between 2001 and 2019 impacted mountain lion welfare, evaluating the use of cage traps, hounds and cable restraints. It concluded that while each method had risks, they were “all relatively safe when following appropriate animal welfare practices.”

The study suggested that training personnel and conservative decision-making were the most impactful factors in maintaining lions’ health during capture.

What about bobcats?

With bobcats, Sam Miller, the campaign manager for the initiative leading the measure, Cats Aren’t Trophies, said the practice of fur trapping is concerning because it’s one of the last ways wildlife is being commercialized. 

Capaldo joined Cats Aren’t Trophies after a bobcat in her community was trapped and strangled to death by a hunter, calling it “completely cruel and barbaric.”

“Strangulation, bludgeoning to death and other cheap, inhumane methods that are used to kill bobcats are condemned by veterinary professionals and constitute cruelty to animals,” she argued.

For bobcats, include any rifle, handgun, shotgun, handheld bow or crossbow, live traps, air guns, bait and electronic call devices. Any other methods — including strangulation and bludgeoning — are illegal in the state.  

As with mountain lions, opponents of the measure argue that the trapping and hunting of bobcats is necessary to manage the species.

“Just like lion hunters, bobcat hunters are participating in conservation when they hunt,” said Crystal Chick, a former district and area wildlife manager and statewide hunter outreach coordinator for Colorado Parks and Wildlife who opposes the measure.

Chick argued they keep populations healthy and provide “useful biological information” to the agency.

What is trophy hunting?

While language is always important in ballot initiatives, in Proposition 127, one in particular has become heavily scrutinized: trophy hunting.  

The measure states that “‘trophy hunting’ means intentionally: (a) killing, wounding, pursuing, or entrapping a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx; or (b) discharging or releasing any deadly weapon… at a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx.”

The state’s informational ballot book clarifies, “While the measure uses the term ‘trophy hunting,’ it bans all hunting, pursuing, or entrapping …”

Opponents of the measure claim that the term is utilized to provoke an emotional response and that it’s already illegal.

With no legal definition of “trophy hunting,” Colorado Parks and Wildlife does not ban it specifically. It does require hunters to prepare any big game for human consumption and present the head and hide for mandatory checks. Bobcat hides must also be presented.

“The proponents of this bill seem to imply that lion hunters only kill for the hide and leave or discard the meat, very similar to poaching,” Lostroh said. “That is 100% illegal in Colorado. No hunter that I know of will stand for it, me included.”

Lostroh said that he and other hunters he knows do eat lion meat.  

“Hunters hunt for very different and personal reasons,” Chick said. “Making a hasty generalization that every hunter is after a trophy is making an unfair judgment about all hunters.”

Proponents claim that hunters are not consuming the meat, or, at the very least, the agency is not making sure people do.

“The reason we say trophy hunting is that the primary purpose of these hunts is for the trophy,” Miller said. “It’s to mount something on your wall, to take a picture, hugging the cat, or to have a fur that you could display or sell in some way.”

Miller said this was evident in how outfitters advertise lion hunting as a way to get a trophy.

“There was an to get everyone to take down the words ‘trophy’ from their websites, to sanitize what they’re actually doing,” Miller said. “I think that when you look at the photos or look at the images of what they do, it’s very clearly trophy hunting. … I think to call it anything else is disingenuous.”

Lostroh admitted he knows some of this scrubbing took place but said “the biggest reason behind that is (proponents are) using trophy hunting in a different context.”

“When you talk about a trophy animal, that’s not saying that’s the only reason it was killed,” he said. “Trophy is in the eyes of the beholder. For some people that might be the hide, but for most people, I feel like it’s the experience.”

Chick worries that if the measure passes, this definition of “trophy hunting” could have widespread implications for all hunting. She argued that it would make trophy hunting synonymous in law with traditional “pursue and take” hunting.

An attack on hunting

Opponents argue that this measure is a broader attack on hunting, with both sides referring to the ban as “low-hanging fruit.”

“Fundamentally, this is simply anti-hunting, and they’re going after a soft target,” Apker said. “They’re going after the low-hanging fruit of mountain lions and bobcats and lynx. Lynx is even thrown in there, I think, just for the emotional tug.”

Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, one of the groups supporting and fundraising for the opposition, claims on its this is part of an “anti-hunting agenda” that could morph into a ban on all hunting. 

Weld County resident Dave Ruane said while he’s been a hunter and sportsperson his whole life, he supports the measure, calling it a necessary step in re-shuffling hunting ethics.

“The hunting community has got a lot of cleanup to do, and this is the low-hanging fruit,” he said. 

As a hunter himself, Dan Ashe, former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and currently the president of and CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in Maryland and proponent of the measure, said that for “hunting as a tradition” to survive, hunters need to draw clearer ethical boundaries.

“Just because a population can sustain hunting doesn’t mean that you should hunt them,” he said. “That’s not a scientific question. That’s a question of social tolerance and preference.”

If the measure passes, Lostroh said that he and his fellow houndsmen would see huge impacts.

“These dogs and the challenge … has given me some new purpose and drive in life,” he said. “If that was taken away by people that just didn’t understand it, that would have a huge effect on not only my life but my mental state and my dogs.” 

A found that while 63% of Coloradans support hunting mountain lions to protect human safety, 78% oppose hunting lions for trophies and 88% oppose using dogs.

To learn more about the scientific questions behind the measure — including what might happen to mountain lion populations without hunting — read the . 

Ballots were mailed starting on Oct. 11. is Nov. 5.