Hunting advocacy groups sue Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners over mountain lion op-ed during the November election
Lawsuit claims that two current commissioners violated the state鈥檚 open meeting laws in working on the opinion piece
Colorado Parks and Wildlife/Courtesy Photo
Two national hunting advocacy groups are suing the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and two individual commissioners over an op-ed written during the November election, claiming they violated open meeting laws.
Amid the battle over Proposition 127 鈥� a measure that sought to ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx in Colorado 鈥� current Parks and Wildlife Commissioners Jessica Beaulieu and Jack Murphy were listed as authors on an opinion article that ran in on Oct. 12 expressing their personal support for the measure. James Pribyl, a former chair of the commission, was also listed as an author.
Safari Club International, the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and Brett Axton, president of the Colorado chapter of the Safari Club, filed a Nov. 21 complaint in the Denver County District Court, claiming that to draft the op-ed, Beaulieu and Murphy “must have met to discuss their position on the hunting of mountain and bobcats.”
The complaint argues that this violates Colorado’s Open Meetings Law because “the hunting of lions and bobcats is ‘public business.'”
“(Colorado Parks and Wildlife) Commissioners Beaulieu and Murphy flatly 鈥� and falsely 鈥� criticized Colorado’s current mountain lion and bobcat management programs,” the lawsuit alleges. “And (Parks and Wildlife) Commissioners Beaulieu and Murphy violated Colorado law in airing these opinions.”
Support Local Journalism
The groups are asking the court to rule on whether two or more of the commissioners violated the open meetings law, prohibit it from happening again and cover any attorney fees and costs associated with the legal action.
The lawsuit claims that the alleged breach harmed the plaintiffs “by putting false information into the public discourse.”
“This false information could have been corrected and this harm could have been avoided if (Parks and Wildlife Commissioners Beaulieu and Murphy had met their obligations to involve the public in matters of public business,” it adds.
Both Safari Club International and the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation contributed to the fight against Proposition 127.
According to the , various chapters of the Safari Club International 鈥� including the Colorado chapter that Axton leads 鈥� contributed just over $300,000 to the two committees opposing the measure, Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better and the Western Heritage Conservation Alliance. An Alaska chapter also gave $10,000 in non-monetary contributions. Axton personally donated $1,000 to Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better. The Sportsmen’s Alliance donated $10,000 to the same group.
Colorado’s Open Meetings Law, also known as the Sunshine Law, applies to all state public boards and commissions. It requires that any meetings of two or more members of these groups must be open to the public. The law also includes rules around the noticing of such meetings. A meeting can include any communication 鈥� be it by phone, text, email or otherwise 鈥� to “discuss public business.”
“For a meeting to be subject to the Sunshine Law, there must be a demonstrated link between the content of the meeting and some policy-making responsibilities of the public body,” according to the .
A Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit, stating that the agency is currently reviewing the action with its legal counsel.
Before the legal action was filed, both Murphy and Beaulieu addressed the op-ed at the Commission’s Nov. 14 meeting, indicating that the commission had received emails mirroring the concerns raised in the lawsuit.
“There was no collusion. We simply signed off on a letter,” Murphy said. “We did not talk about it at all. Not one single word was written by either one of us.”
Beaulieu said they did not violate Colorado’s Open Meeting Law.
“I want to make it clear that at no point did I communicate with Commissioner Murphy about the op-ed or pending commission business including the East Slope Mountain Lion Plan,” she said. “I did not email, call or participate in virtual meetings with Commissioner Murphy concerning the development of the op-ed.”
Both commissioners issued apologies during their comments, Murphy for any “grief” the matter caused to staff or the commission and Beaulieu for not “clearly” indicating that the op-ed reflected her personal opinion 鈥� something required by the agency’s communications policies.
“While I do stand by what was written and it did reflect my personal opinion, I acknowledge I could have made that clearer,” Beaulieu said.
The current disclaimer from the Durango Herald opinion piece states that the article “written by Murphy, Beaulieu and Pribyl reflects their personal views and not those of the entire thirteen-member Commission.”
Cats Aren’t Trophies, the citizen group who petitioned to get the measure on Colorado’s ballot, issued a statement regarding the lawsuit last Friday, calling it a baseless lawsuit to defame Parks and Wildlife.
“Greedy lion trophy hunting industry profiteers keep showing us all they care about is intimidating and silencing anyone, including citizens or good public servants, who dare to legally and responsibly disagree with their inhumane and unsporting commercial industry,” said Julie Marshall, the group’s communication’s director, in a news release. “Their unintelligent, baseless lawsuit brings ultimate disrespect to democracy, to ecologically valuable apex predators, to ethical hunting and to the entire state of Colorado.”
