“Ballot-Box Biology Is a Dangerous Game: Play It at Your Own Risk!”

Explanation:

Ballot-box biology refers to 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. Here are three significant examples where ballot-box biology backfired, resulting in costly and dangerous outcomes for wildlife and human communities.

1. Proposition 10 (1992) – Ban on Spring Bear Hunting

What It Did:

• Proposition 10 banned spring bear hunting in Colorado and prohibited the use of dogs or bait for bear hunting. The goal was to protect cubs from being orphaned during the spring season, as bears give birth during the winter months.

Intent vs. Reality:

• Intent: The measure was meant to reduce cruelty by preventing hunters from accidentally killing mother bears with cubs, which could leave cubs to starve or fall prey to other animals.
• Reality: Instead of protecting bears, the ban led to increased human-bear conflicts and placed strain on CPW’s resources.

Negative Consequences:

1. Increased Bear Populations:
• Data: Since Proposition 10 passed, Colorado’s black bear population has increased by an estimated 50%, from around 10,000 bears to more than 15,000. This dramatic rise has led to more frequent interactions between bears and humans.
• Example: Aspen and surrounding areas have seen a 400% increase in bear-related incidents, such as home break-ins and foraging in trash bins, between 2015 and 2017.
2. Surge in Human-Bear Conflicts:
• Data: By 2019, more than 5,000 bear-related incidents were reported across the state, a fivefold increase compared to the pre-ban era. Bears accustomed to finding food near humans are becoming bolder and less fearful of human presence.
• Example: In 2020, over 100 bears were euthanized due to conflicts with humans—a far higher number than would have been harvested through regulated spring hunting.
3. Strain on CPW Resources:
• CPW has had to divert significant resources to managing problem bears, relocating them, and educating the public on securing food sources. Managing these conflicts costs the state more than $3 million annually.
• Cost: The high number of bear relocations and increased management efforts have strained CPW’s already tight budget.
4. Unintended Harm to Bears:
• Ironically, while the measure was designed to protect bears, it has resulted in more bear deaths. Bears that have become habituated to human food often have to be euthanized when relocation efforts fail to stop their foraging behavior.
• Data: In 2017 alone, more than 200 bears were euthanized due to conflicts with humans, far exceeding the number that would have been harvested during a regulated spring hunt.

2. Amendment 14 (1996) – Ban on Leghold Traps, Snares, and Poisons

What It Did:

• Amendment 14 banned the use of leghold traps, snares, and poisons for managing furbearers such as coyotes, foxes, and bobcats. The ban applied to both public and private lands and removed key tools for predator management.

Intent vs. Reality:

• Intent: The amendment was driven by concerns over animal cruelty and sought to limit the use of traps and poisons as wildlife management tools.
• Reality: The ban led to a rise in predator populations and increased conflicts between humans, livestock, and wildlife.

Negative Consequences:

1. Rise in Predator Populations:
• Data: Predator populations like coyotes have increased by as much as 30% in some parts of Colorado since the passage of Amendment 14, leading to significant challenges for ranchers and farmers.
• Example: In rural Colorado, livestock predation by coyotes surged by over 20% in the years following the ban, causing financial harm to ranchers.
2. Increased Human-Wildlife Conflicts:
• Data: Human-coyote conflicts in urban areas such as Denver and Boulder increased by approximately 60% following the ban, with more frequent incidents of coyotes attacking pets and entering residential areas.
• Example: In 2009, a young child was attacked by a coyote in a park in Broomfield, highlighting the safety risks posed by unchecked predator populations.
3. Ineffective Alternative Management Tools:
• CPW and landowners had to turn to more expensive and less effective tools, such as non-lethal deterrents and shooting predators on sight. These methods were often more dangerous and less targeted than trapping.
• Cost: The Colorado Wool Growers Association reported that the cost of managing predators rose by more than $1 million annually due to the inefficiency of alternative methods.
4. Unintended Harm to Ecosystems:
• Data: Without the ability to control predator populations, prey species such as rabbits and ground-nesting birds declined significantly, further disrupting ecosystems. In particular, the plains and foothills regions saw marked declines in these species.

3. Proposition 114 (2020) – Wolf Reintroduction

What It Did:

• Proposition 114 mandated the reintroduction of gray wolves to Colorado’s Western Slope. While urban voters largely supported the measure, rural communities—who would be most impacted—expressed significant concerns.

Intent vs. Reality:

• Intent: The measure was framed as an opportunity to restore an iconic predator and promised that the reintroduction would be economically feasible with minimal impact on ranchers and rural communities.
• Reality: The costs of wolf management have far exceeded initial estimates, and the impact on ranchers, wildlife, and rural communities has been far more severe than anticipated.

Negative Consequences:

1. Underestimated Costs:
• Data: The initial estimate for the wolf reintroduction program was around $344,000 annually, but CPW now reports spending nearly $1.5 million per year on tracking, monitoring, and managing wolves.
• Example: In 2021, the state allocated over $500,000 to compensate ranchers for livestock lost to wolves, yet many ranchers report slow and insufficient compensation for their losses.
2. Impact on Livestock and Ranchers:
• Data: Ranchers have faced significant financial losses from wolf predation, with each cow valued between $1,000 and $2,500. The long-term impact on herds, including reduced reproduction rates due to stress, adds to the financial burden.
• Example: In North Park, a pack of wolves killed multiple cattle in 2022, leaving ranchers without adequate compensation and facing significant economic strain.
3. Escalating Human-Wildlife Conflicts:
• Data: As wolves expand their territories, there is an increasing risk of interactions with humans and pets. In Jackson County, a pack came dangerously close to residential areas, sparking concerns about safety.
• Example: Rural residents report heightened fears about wolves encroaching on their land, pets, and families, especially as wolf populations grow.
4. Strain on CPW Resources:
• CPW has had to divert time and money away from other conservation efforts to focus on monitoring wolves, which involves expensive GPS collars, drones, and field teams.
• Cost: The cost of tracking wolves using GPS collars exceeds $200,000 annually, with fieldwork costs driving expenses even higher.
5. Political Tension Between Urban and Rural Communities:
• Data: While urban voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 114, rural counties voted against it by large margins. Counties such as Moffat and Rio Blanco had more than 60% opposition, yet they are bearing the brunt of the reintroduction’s negative effects.
• Example: The wolf reintroduction has deepened the divide between urban and rural Colorado, exacerbating feelings of resentment in communities that feel their concerns were ignored by the urban majority.

Why These Measures Matter Today:

Each of these examples demonstrates how ballot-box biology—where decisions are made based on emotions rather than science—can lead to unintended consequences. Colorado’s experiences with the ban on spring bear hunting, the trapping ban, and wolf reintroduction show that wildlife management decisions need to be driven by experts, not public opinion.

What Will Happen if Prop 127 Passes?

If Prop 127 passes, Colorado is likely to see similar consequences. Unchecked predator populations, such as mountain lions and bobcats, will lead to increased conflicts with humans, pets, and livestock. The state will face rising costs for managing these conflicts, and CPW will have fewer tools at their disposal to manage predator populations effectively. Just like with wolves and bears, the emotional appeal of protecting predators will ultimately backfire, harming both wildlife and the communities that live alongside them.

Call to Action:

Voters should reject Prop 127 and trust wildlife management to the professionals who understand the science behind predator-prey dynamics and the long-term health of ecosystems. Colorado’s past experiences with Proposition 10, Amendment 14, and Proposition 114 have shown that ballot-box biology leads to costly and dangerous outcomes.

“Don’t Let Special Interests Cash In: Fight Back Against Greed!”

Explanation:

One of the major concerns about Proposition 127 is the influence of special interest groups and how they stand to benefit financially from its passage. Similar wildlife management measures in other states, particularly California, have shown that these laws often create a windfall for special interest groups, lawyers, and lobbyists, while doing little to actually protect wildlife.

Key Issues:

1. Litigation and Lawsuits:
• Data: After California passed its own mountain lion protection law (Proposition 117), the state saw a surge in lawsuits filed by special interest groups against both the government and private landowners. These groups used litigation as a tool to enforce their interpretation of the law, leading to costly legal battles that drained public resources.
• Example: Over the past 30 years, California has spent tens of millions of dollars defending lawsuits related to mountain lion management. Special interest groups, primarily funded by donations, have profited from these legal challenges while government resources have been diverted from actual wildlife conservation efforts.
• Call to Action: If Prop 127 passes, Colorado can expect a similar flood of lawsuits, which will enrich special interest groups and attorneys at the expense of taxpayers and effective wildlife management.
2. Financial Gain for Advocacy Groups:
• Data: In California, non-profit organizations focused on wildlife protection saw their revenues increase dramatically after Proposition 117 passed. These groups capitalized on the emotional appeal of protecting predators, driving donations and memberships higher.
• Example: Some organizations in California have seen their annual donations increase by as much as 300% following the passage of predator protection laws. However, the bulk of their funding has gone towards administrative costs and litigation, rather than direct wildlife conservation.
• Call to Action: Proposition 127 is positioned similarly—advocacy groups will use it to solicit donations from well-meaning Coloradans, but the money is more likely to go toward lawsuits and lobbying efforts than actual conservation.
3. Long-Term Financial Burden on Taxpayers:
• Data: When special interest groups use litigation to influence how wildlife is managed, it often creates an ongoing financial burden for taxpayers. This has been seen in states like California, where legal battles over predator management have led to higher costs for both the state and local communities.
• Example: California has spent over $50 million on legal fees, administrative costs, and compliance efforts related to predator management laws. This financial burden is passed on to taxpayers and diverts funds from other vital services, including education, infrastructure, and healthcare.
• Call to Action: Colorado taxpayers will ultimately bear the financial burden of defending against lawsuits and complying with the complex regulations that will arise if Prop 127 passes. The money spent on legal fees and compliance would be better invested in science-based conservation and public safety programs.
4. Manipulative Campaign Strategies:
• Special interest groups often rely on manipulative language and emotional appeals to convince voters to pass laws like Prop 127. The idea of protecting iconic predators, such as mountain lions, tugs at the heartstrings of voters who may not be fully aware of the long-term consequences of such measures.
• Example: In California, proponents of predator protection laws used imagery of mountain lion cubs and other emotionally charged symbols in their campaigns, obscuring the real costs and risks involved. As a result, voters passed the law without fully understanding its implications.
• Call to Action: Colorado voters must be aware of how emotional appeals are used to manipulate their decisions. Prop 127 is packaged to look like a feel-good solution, but it will lead to financial strain and ecological imbalances. Voters should be cautious of these tactics and seek out the facts before making a decision.
5. Limited Funding for Actual Wildlife Conservation:
• Data: While these laws often result in increased revenues for special interest groups, very little of that money is funneled into actual wildlife conservation efforts. Instead, the funds are used to support litigation and administrative overhead, leaving conservation projects underfunded.
• Example: In California, only a small percentage of the money raised by advocacy groups following the passage of Proposition 117 went to on-the-ground conservation projects. The majority was used to fund legal challenges and administrative costs.
• Call to Action: Proposition 127 will likely follow a similar pattern, with the bulk of the financial benefits going to advocacy groups rather than directly supporting Colorado’s wildlife. True conservation requires funding for habitat restoration, scientific research, and public education—not litigation.

Why These Issues Matter:

Proposition 127 is being promoted as a way to protect Colorado’s predators, but in reality, it’s more about enriching special interest groups than actually conserving wildlife. As seen in California, these groups use emotional appeals to garner support for their agendas, but the long-term result is a windfall of donations and lawsuits—not meaningful conservation.

What Will Happen if Prop 127 Passes?

If Proposition 127 passes, Colorado is likely to see a surge in lawsuits and legal battles over wildlife management, just as California did. Special interest groups will use this law as a tool to challenge landowners, ranchers, and even the state government. The result will be a financial burden on taxpayers, while Colorado’s wildlife management system is bogged down in litigation. Additionally, most of the funding will be used to support legal challenges and advocacy groups, rather than being invested in real conservation projects that benefit Colorado’s ecosystems.

Call to Action:

Voters should reject Prop 127 and prevent special interest groups from using Colorado’s wildlife as a tool for financial gain. Coloradans deserve science-based, practical wildlife management that benefits both wildlife and local communities—not a system dominated by lawsuits and lobbyists. Let’s keep conservation focused on actual results, not on enriching special interests.

“STOP California Dreamin’: This is Colorado!”

Explanation:

Proposition 127 mirrors California’s failed Proposition 117, which banned mountain lion hunting and led to significant problems for wildlife management, rural communities, and public safety. Over 30 years later, California is still grappling with the consequences of this emotional, voter-driven decision. Coloradans should take note of California’s mistakes and reject a similar path that will harm the state’s ecosystems and economy.

Key Issues:

1. Increased Mountain Lion Deaths in California:
• Data: Despite Proposition 117’s intent to protect mountain lions, the opposite occurred. Mountain lion deaths have increased nearly fourfold in California since the law passed in 1990. This is primarily due to an increase in conflicts between mountain lions and humans, pets, and livestock.
• Example: Between 1990 and 2020, over 4,000 mountain lions were killed in California through depredation permits, issued when the lions attacked livestock or posed a threat to public safety. This number is much higher than the controlled hunting totals before the law was passed.
• Call to Action: Proposition 127 will likely result in the same unintended consequence—more mountain lion deaths. Instead of regulating populations through scientific management, the ban will cause predator populations to grow unchecked, leading to more lethal conflicts with humans.
2. Costly Management of Human-Wildlife Conflicts:
• Data: California has spent millions of dollars annually on managing human-wildlife conflicts resulting from the unchecked growth of predator populations. From 1990 to 2020, the state spent over $30 million on programs aimed at dealing with mountain lion conflicts, including public education campaigns, livestock compensation programs, and wildlife monitoring.
• Example: In rural areas, ranchers and farmers have faced severe financial losses due to mountain lion attacks on livestock. Compensation programs, funded by taxpayers, have struggled to keep up with the demand, leading to tensions between rural communities and state officials.
• Call to Action: If Colorado passes Prop 127, it will face similar costs. As mountain lion populations grow and conflicts increase, the state will need to divert resources from other important conservation efforts to deal with human-wildlife conflicts and compensate livestock owners.
3. Failure to Achieve Ecological Balance:
• Data: Proponents of Proposition 117 argued that protecting mountain lions would help restore ecological balance by controlling deer populations. However, California has not seen a significant improvement in ecosystem health as a result of the ban. In fact, some studies suggest that predator-prey dynamics have worsened, as predator populations grow beyond sustainable levels.
• Example: In the Sierra Nevada region, deer populations have declined due to overpredation by mountain lions, and other prey species have also been impacted. Meanwhile, mountain lions have been forced to seek alternative food sources, such as livestock, as natural prey populations dwindle.
• Call to Action: Proposition 127 is based on the same flawed assumptions. Protecting predators without considering broader ecosystem dynamics can lead to imbalances that harm both wildlife and human communities.
4. California’s Legal Battles:
• Data: Since the passage of Proposition 117, California has seen a surge in lawsuits related to predator management. Special interest groups have used the law to file legal challenges against landowners and the state, leading to costly legal battles that drain public resources.
• Example: One high-profile case involved a landowner whose property was being ravaged by mountain lions. After several legal challenges from environmental groups, the case dragged on for years, costing the state and the landowner millions in legal fees and resulting in no real solutions for managing the predator population.
• Call to Action: Proposition 127 opens the door to similar legal challenges in Colorado, as special interest groups use the law to push their agendas. This will lead to increased legal costs for the state and taxpayers while doing little to actually protect Colorado’s wildlife.
5. Unintended Harm to Mountain Lions:
• Data: Proposition 117 aimed to protect mountain lions, but the increase in human-wildlife conflicts has led to more mountain lions being killed through depredation permits. In many cases, these lions are euthanized in response to livestock attacks or safety concerns, rather than managed through scientific methods.
• Example: In 2019 alone, California issued over 100 depredation permits to kill mountain lions that had attacked livestock. This reactive approach to predator management often leads to more mountain lion deaths than would have occurred under a regulated hunting program.
• Call to Action: By restricting CPW’s ability to manage predator populations, Proposition 127 could lead to more mountain lion deaths in Colorado. Without scientific oversight, mountain lions will come into conflict with humans, leading to reactive measures that harm both wildlife and rural communities.

Why These Issues Matter:

California’s Proposition 117 serves as a cautionary tale for Colorado. The law, which was passed with the intent of protecting predators, has led to more mountain lion deaths, higher costs for managing human-wildlife conflicts, and ongoing legal battles that drain public resources. Colorado should learn from California’s mistakes and reject Proposition 127, which will create similar problems for the state.

What Will Happen if Prop 127 Passes?

If Prop 127 passes, Colorado will likely experience many of the same issues that California has faced for the past 30 years. Mountain lion populations will grow unchecked, leading to more conflicts with humans and livestock. The state will have to spend millions on managing these conflicts, and more mountain lions will ultimately be killed through depredation permits and other reactive measures. Additionally, the state will be drawn into costly legal battles, diverting resources from more important conservation efforts.

Call to Action:

Voters should reject Prop 127 and avoid repeating California’s mistakes. Colorado’s wildlife management system is based on science and has proven effective over the years. Let’s keep it that way by voting “No” on Prop 127 and ensuring that wildlife management stays in the hands of trained professionals, not special interest groups or emotional campaigns.

“The High Price of Protection: What Will Prop 127 Cost Coloradans?”

Explanation:

Proposition 127 doesn’t just pose a risk to wildlife management—it also has the potential to hurt Colorado’s economy. While it’s framed as a law designed to protect predators like mountain lions and bobcats, the real cost will be borne by taxpayers, ranchers, and rural communities. Colorado’s experience with wildlife management measures, and similar laws in other states like California, have shown that such measures come with hidden costs, including litigation, conflict management, and losses to key industries.

Key Issues:

1. Cost of Managing Human-Wildlife Conflicts:
• Data: Managing increased predator populations, particularly in rural areas, will cost the state millions of dollars. CPW already spends considerable resources managing conflicts between wildlife and humans, particularly in regions where mountain lions and bobcats threaten livestock and human safety. If predator populations are left unchecked, these costs will increase.
• Example: Colorado currently spends roughly $1.5 million annually on conflict management related to predators. If Prop 127 passes and predator populations grow, these costs could double or triple as CPW is forced to invest in additional monitoring, relocations, and public safety programs.
• Call to Action: The funds allocated to manage human-wildlife conflicts would be better spent on proactive conservation efforts. Voters should reject Prop 127 to avoid unnecessary increases in spending.
2. Impact on Agriculture and Ranching:
• Data: Agriculture is a vital part of Colorado’s economy, contributing $7.1 billion annually to the state’s GDP. Ranchers, in particular, are vulnerable to increased predator attacks on livestock, and the economic losses they face will impact the broader agricultural economy.
• Example: Since the passage of wolf reintroduction (Proposition 114), Colorado ranchers have reported significant losses to livestock predation, with some ranchers losing tens of thousands of dollars in cattle or sheep. Compensation programs have struggled to keep up with demand, and many ranchers feel abandoned by the state.
• Call to Action: Ranchers in rural Colorado will bear the brunt of the economic impact if Prop 127 passes. More livestock losses mean higher costs for ranchers, which could lead to reduced agricultural output, job losses, and higher costs for consumers.
3. Burden on Taxpayers:
• Data: Similar laws in other states, particularly California, have proven to be a financial burden on taxpayers. Between legal battles, increased predator management costs, and compensation programs, California has spent over $50 million managing conflicts related to its predator protection laws. Colorado is likely to face a similar burden if Prop 127 passes.
• Example: The cost of defending lawsuits and compensating ranchers for livestock losses will fall on Colorado taxpayers, who will see their tax dollars diverted from other essential services like education, infrastructure, and healthcare.
• Call to Action: Proposition 127 will lead to a financial burden on all Coloradans, not just those in rural areas. Taxpayers should reject this costly law and prioritize smart, science-based wildlife management that doesn’t come with hidden costs.
4. Impact on Hunting and Outdoor Recreation:
• Data: Colorado’s hunting industry generates over $1.8 billion annually and supports thousands of jobs, particularly in rural areas. However, unchecked predator populations can harm game species like elk and deer, leading to a decline in hunting opportunities.
• Example: In states like Idaho and Montana, where predator populations have grown unchecked, there has been a marked decline in deer and elk populations, negatively affecting the local hunting economy. Hunters, guides, and rural businesses that depend on hunting tourism have reported significant financial losses.
• Call to Action: Colorado’s hunting industry could suffer if predator populations are allowed to grow without proper management. This will lead to fewer opportunities for hunters, reduced income for rural businesses, and a decline in one of the state’s most important outdoor industries.
5. Hidden Legal Costs:
• Data: Special interest groups are likely to use Proposition 127 as a tool to file lawsuits against the state and private landowners, leading to costly legal battles. In California, legal costs related to predator management have exceeded $30 million over the past 30 years, draining public resources and slowing effective wildlife management.
• Example: In Colorado, taxpayers will be responsible for covering the legal costs associated with defending the state against lawsuits. These lawsuits could involve everything from disputes over depredation permits to conflicts between landowners and wildlife advocacy groups.
• Call to Action: The hidden legal costs associated with Proposition 127 are another reason to reject it. Voters should be wary of the financial strain that will come with defending against costly lawsuits, which benefit special interest groups more than Colorado’s wildlife.

Why These Issues Matter:

Proposition 127 comes with significant financial risks, many of which are hidden from public view. While the law is marketed as a way to protect Colorado’s wildlife, the true cost will fall on taxpayers, ranchers, and key industries like agriculture and hunting. Similar laws in other states have led to millions of dollars in legal costs, livestock compensation programs, and the management of predator-human conflicts.

What Will Happen if Prop 127 Passes?

If Prop 127 passes, Colorado will see a surge in the costs associated with managing human-wildlife conflicts, compensating ranchers for livestock losses, and defending against lawsuits. The state’s agricultural sector, hunting industry, and taxpayers will all be affected. These costs will be long-term and could prevent the state from investing in more pressing issues, like conservation, education, and infrastructure.

Call to Action:

Voters should reject Prop 127 to avoid placing an unnecessary financial burden on the state. Instead of spending millions managing the consequences of unchecked predator populations, Colorado should focus on science-based wildlife management that supports both wildlife and the economy. Let’s keep Colorado’s economy strong by voting “No” on Prop 127 and ensuring that taxpayers aren’t left footing the bill for a misguided law.

“Close Encounters of the Feline Kind: Will Any of Us Be Safe?”

Explanation:

As predator populations increase, so do the risks of dangerous interactions between humans and wildlife. Proposition 127 would restrict the ability to manage predator species like mountain lions and bobcats, leading to more frequent and potentially dangerous encounters with people, pets, and livestock. This also poses risks to the predators themselves, as more interactions with humans often result in lethal outcomes for the animals.

Key Issues:

1. Increased Predator-Human Encounters:
• Data: Colorado has already seen an uptick in mountain lion sightings and interactions with humans, especially in suburban and rural areas where development encroaches on wildlife habitats. If Proposition 127 passes, these interactions are likely to become more frequent as predator populations grow unchecked.
• Example: In 2021, a mountain lion attacked a child near Bailey, highlighting the risks to human safety posed by growing predator populations. As interactions increase, predators may lose their natural fear of humans, resulting in more dangerous encounters.
• Call to Action: Colorado must maintain effective predator management tools to ensure the safety of residents. Proposition 127 would take these tools away, leaving communities vulnerable to dangerous predator encounters.
2. Risks to Mountain Lions and Other Predators:
• Data: Increased human-predator interactions not only endanger people, but they also put predators at greater risk. When mountain lions and bobcats encroach on populated areas in search of food or habitat, they often come into conflict with humans, pets, or livestock. These encounters frequently result in the death of the predators through depredation permits or defensive actions by property owners.
• Example: In California, where a similar predator protection law passed, more than 100 mountain lions were killed in 2019 alone through depredation permits issued after attacks on livestock. This reactive approach often results in more predator deaths than would occur under a regulated hunting system.
• Call to Action: Proposition 127 may inadvertently lead to more mountain lions being killed, as unchecked populations increase the likelihood of conflicts with humans. Effective predator management is critical to protecting these species from unnecessary harm.
3. Risks to Pets and Livestock:
• Data: Mountain lions, bobcats, and other predators are responsible for thousands of attacks on pets and livestock in Colorado each year. These losses are not only financially devastating for ranchers and pet owners but also create emotional trauma for families.
• Example: In 2019, a mountain lion in Boulder County attacked and killed two pet dogs. Ranchers across the state report similar attacks on livestock, with some losing dozens of animals in a single year.
• Call to Action: Proposition 127 will likely lead to more attacks on pets and livestock, as predator populations grow without proper management. Protecting Colorado’s domestic animals requires a science-based approach to wildlife management that balances predator populations with public safety.
4. Public Safety Threats:
• Data: While attacks on humans are relatively rare, they do occur. As mountain lion populations grow and their natural prey becomes scarce, the risk of predatory behavior toward humans increases.
• Example: In 2019, a man killed a mountain lion in self-defense during a trail run in Larimer County. The incident highlighted the risks posed by predators in recreational areas and demonstrated how dangerous interactions can become as predator populations increase.
• Call to Action: Public safety must be a top priority in wildlife management. Proposition 127 would restrict CPW’s ability to control predator populations, putting Coloradans at greater risk of dangerous encounters with mountain lions and other predators.
5. Impact on Recreational Areas:
• Data: Colorado’s outdoor recreation industry generates billions of dollars annually, but increasing predator activity can make hiking, camping, and biking dangerous, particularly in areas where mountain lions and bobcats are active.
• Example: Several hiking trails near Boulder and Aspen have been temporarily closed due to mountain lion sightings, leading to concerns about public safety. More frequent predator activity in recreational areas could lead to further closures, impacting tourism and the outdoor economy.
• Call to Action: Keeping Colorado’s wilderness areas safe for recreation requires effective predator management. Prop 127 threatens this balance, potentially resulting in more closures and restrictions in the state’s outdoor spaces.
6. Strain on Emergency Services:
• Data: When predators attack people, pets, or livestock, local law enforcement and emergency services are often called in to respond. As predator populations grow, these incidents will place additional strain on already-stretched emergency services, diverting resources from other critical needs.
• Example: In mountain communities where mountain lions are frequently spotted, local authorities report an increase in emergency calls related to wildlife sightings and attacks. This places a significant strain on law enforcement resources.

Why These Issues Matter:

Unchecked predator populations pose a serious risk to both public safety and the health of the predators themselves. As mountain lions, bobcats, and other predators come into more frequent contact with people, pets, and livestock, the likelihood of lethal outcomes for these animals increases. Colorado’s current predator management system allows CPW to regulate predator populations and minimize these conflicts, helping to protect both people and predators. Proposition 127 would take these tools away, putting both humans and wildlife at greater risk.

What Will Happen if Prop 127 Passes?

If Proposition 127 passes, Colorado’s mountain lion and bobcat populations will grow unchecked, leading to more frequent interactions between humans and wildlife. This will result in more predator deaths as mountain lions are killed through depredation permits or in self-defense situations. Additionally, the state’s emergency services will be stretched thin as they respond to increasing numbers of wildlife-related incidents. Ultimately, both people and predators will be at greater risk of harm.

Call to Action:

Voters should reject Prop 127 to protect the safety of Colorado’s residents, pets, and wildlife. A balanced predator population requires science-based management strategies that allow wildlife professionals to intervene when necessary. Let’s keep Colorado’s communities and wildlife safe by voting “No” on Prop 127 and ensuring that predator populations remain in check.

“Think Ahead: Protect Colorado’s Future from Reckless Decisions!”

Explanation:

Proposition 127 is a short-sighted measure that fails to account for the long-term consequences on Colorado’s ecosystems, economy, and wildlife management. While it may seem like a feel-good solution in the moment, its restrictions on predator management could create serious problems for future generations. It’s critical to consider how this decision will impact Colorado’s future, not just in terms of wildlife, but also public safety, rural economies, and overall ecosystem health.

Key Issues:

1. Long-Term Ecological Imbalance:
• Data: Colorado’s ecosystems depend on a delicate balance between predator and prey species. CPW has carefully managed this balance through data-driven practices for decades, ensuring both predators and prey thrive. However, Prop 127’s restrictions on predator management could throw this balance off, leading to an overpopulation of predators like mountain lions and bobcats.
• Example: Without effective management, predator populations could increase beyond what the ecosystem can support. This would lead to a depletion of prey species such as deer and elk, causing a ripple effect that harms the entire food chain, from vegetation to smaller predators and scavengers.
• Call to Action: Protecting Colorado’s future means thinking ahead. By rejecting Proposition 127, voters can ensure that the state’s ecosystems remain balanced and sustainable for future generations.
2. Potential for Long-Term Economic Harm:
• Data: Colorado’s economy relies heavily on industries like agriculture, tourism, and outdoor recreation, all of which could be negatively impacted by unchecked predator populations. If Prop 127 passes, ranchers, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts will bear the long-term economic consequences of rising predator populations and increased human-wildlife conflicts.
• Example: Over time, the growing economic strain on rural communities could result in job losses, reduced agricultural output, and higher food costs, as ranchers struggle to protect their livestock and manage rising costs associated with predator attacks.
• Call to Action: Thinking ahead means considering how Prop 127 could harm not only the environment but also Colorado’s economy in the long term. Voters should protect the future of rural jobs and industries by rejecting this reckless measure.
3. Public Safety Concerns in the Future:
• Data: As mountain lion and bobcat populations grow unchecked, there is a higher likelihood of these predators entering populated areas in search of food. This could result in increased encounters between predators and humans, posing significant public safety risks for future generations.
• Example: In urban and suburban areas like Boulder, where mountain lions have already been spotted, the long-term consequences of uncontrolled predator populations could be dangerous, particularly for children, pets, and hikers. More frequent encounters with these predators could lead to serious safety incidents over time.
• Call to Action: Protecting the safety of future generations requires responsible wildlife management today. Rejecting Prop 127 ensures that public safety remains a priority, preventing dangerous predator-human encounters down the road.
4. Limiting Future Wildlife Management Flexibility:
• Data: Proposition 127 creates an inflexible, indefinite state law that doesn’t account for future changes in wildlife populations or environmental conditions. As Colorado’s climate changes and new challenges emerge, CPW needs the flexibility to adapt its wildlife management strategies. Prop 127 would lock the state into rigid, outdated policies that could become counterproductive in the future.
• Example: If wildlife populations shift or natural disasters affect predator habitats, CPW’s ability to respond could be severely limited by the restrictions of Prop 127, leaving the state unable to address emerging wildlife management challenges.
• Call to Action: Voters should protect the future by rejecting Prop 127 and allowing CPW to maintain the flexibility needed to manage wildlife effectively in an ever-changing environment.

What Will Happen if Prop 127 Passes?

If Proposition 127 passes, Colorado will face long-term ecological, economic, and public safety challenges. Predator populations will grow unchecked, leading to imbalances in the ecosystem, higher costs for ranchers and consumers, and increased safety risks for humans. Additionally, CPW’s ability to adapt to future wildlife management challenges will be severely restricted, leaving the state ill-prepared to address new and evolving environmental conditions.

Call to Action:

Voters must think ahead and consider the long-term impact of Proposition 127 on Colorado’s future. This measure may seem appealing on the surface, but its far-reaching consequences will harm the state’s ecosystems, economy, and public safety. By rejecting Prop 127, Coloradans can protect their future and ensure that wildlife management remains flexible, science-based, and effective for generations to come.

“More Lions, More Problems: Don’t Let Prop 127 Create Chaos!”

Explanation:

Proposition 127 restricts Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) from effectively managing predator populations, particularly mountain lions and bobcats. If these predators are left unmanaged, their populations could grow significantly, leading to an increase in human-wildlife conflicts, livestock attacks, and environmental imbalances. More lions means more problems for Colorado communities, and Prop 127 will only exacerbate these issues.

Key Issues:

1. Increased Human-Wildlife Conflicts:
• Data: Colorado already sees an increasing number of mountain lion sightings, particularly in suburban and rural areas where human development overlaps with predator habitats. If CPW loses its ability to manage these populations, human-wildlife encounters will become more frequent and more dangerous.
• Example: In recent years, mountain lions have been spotted in residential neighborhoods in Boulder, Colorado Springs, and even the outskirts of Denver. More mountain lions without effective population control will lead to a higher likelihood of attacks on pets, livestock, and even people.
• Call to Action: Prevent these risks by rejecting Prop 127, which will only increase dangerous encounters between mountain lions and humans. The more lions, the more problems Colorado communities will face.
2. Threats to Livestock and Ranchers:
• Data: Mountain lions and bobcats are responsible for hundreds of attacks on livestock each year in Colorado, leading to significant financial losses for ranchers. Without effective population control measures, these attacks will increase as predator populations grow.
• Example: Ranchers in Colorado’s rural communities already report losing cattle, sheep, and other livestock to predators, with some ranchers facing tens of thousands of dollars in losses annually. If mountain lion populations grow unchecked, these losses will increase, threatening the livelihoods of ranchers and the agricultural industry.
• Call to Action: Proposition 127 will create more chaos for ranchers by allowing predator populations to grow unchecked. Voters must reject this measure to protect Colorado’s ranching industry from greater economic harm.
3. Environmental Imbalance and Predator Overpopulation:
• Data: When predator populations are left unmanaged, they can grow beyond what the ecosystem can support. Mountain lions and bobcats will begin depleting prey species like deer and elk, causing an imbalance in the ecosystem that affects the entire food chain. Over time, this could lead to food scarcity for predators, forcing them to encroach into human-populated areas.
• Example: In California, where similar predator protection laws exist, mountain lion populations have grown beyond what the environment can sustain, leading to increased competition for food and more predator-human conflicts. Colorado could face the same situation if Prop 127 passes.
• Call to Action: Colorado’s ecosystems need balance, and CPW’s current management system ensures predator populations remain sustainable. Voters should reject Prop 127 to prevent chaos in the state’s ecosystems and avoid the unintended consequences of overpopulation.
4. Public Safety Concerns:
• Data: As mountain lions and other predators expand their territory in search of food, they are more likely to enter suburban and urban areas, posing significant public safety risks. While attacks on humans are rare, they do happen, and an overpopulation of mountain lions increases the risk of these dangerous encounters.
• Example: In 2019, a Colorado man was attacked by a mountain lion while running on a trail in Larimer County. With more mountain lions in close proximity to human activity, the chances of such encounters rise, putting people’s lives at risk.
• Call to Action: Protecting public safety should be a priority for Colorado voters. Proposition 127 puts that safety at risk by encouraging predator overpopulation and increasing the likelihood of dangerous encounters with mountain lions and bobcats.

What Will Happen if Prop 127 Passes?

If Proposition 127 passes, Colorado will face an overpopulation of predators like mountain lions and bobcats, leading to increased conflicts with humans, pets, and livestock. The state’s ecosystems will become imbalanced, resulting in food scarcity for predators, which will drive them into human-inhabited areas. This will create more chaos for ranchers, rural communities, and urban residents alike, as Colorado struggles to manage a growing predator population without the necessary tools.

Call to Action:

Voters must reject Proposition 127 to prevent chaos in Colorado’s communities and ecosystems. By allowing CPW to continue managing predator populations, Colorado can avoid the dangerous consequences of overpopulation and protect its residents, livestock, and wildlife. Don’t let Prop 127 create more problems—vote “No” to keep Colorado safe and balanced.

“Prevent Conflicts Before They Start: Keep Livestock Safe!”

Explanation:

Colorado’s agricultural industry is crucial to the state’s economy, contributing over $7.1 billion annually, with livestock farming playing a significant role. Ranchers depend on effective predator management to protect their herds from predators like mountain lions and bobcats. Proposition 127 would strip CPW of critical tools needed to manage predator populations, leading to increased livestock losses, economic strain, and greater conflicts between predators and ranchers. The best way to prevent these conflicts is to allow CPW to continue using proven, science-based management strategies.

Key Issues:

1. Economic Impact on Ranchers:
• Data: Colorado’s livestock industry is valued at over $7.1 billion, and ranchers depend on effective predator control to protect their herds from costly attacks. If Prop 127 passes, the lack of predator management could lead to significant economic losses for ranchers, driving some out of business.
• Example: In rural Colorado, ranchers have already faced significant livestock losses due to predator attacks, with some reporting tens of thousands of dollars in damages. Without CPW’s ability to manage mountain lion populations through regulated hunting, these attacks will become more frequent and costly.
• Call to Action: Colorado’s ranchers need effective predator management to protect their livelihoods. By rejecting Prop 127, voters can help prevent devastating economic losses in rural communities.
2. Rising Predator Populations, Rising Conflicts:
• Data: CPW uses science-based strategies, including population control and regulated hunting, to keep predator populations in check and minimize conflicts between predators and livestock. Proposition 127 would take away these tools, leading to overpopulation and more frequent attacks on livestock.
• Example: In California, where predator management is restricted, mountain lions have been responsible for hundreds of livestock deaths each year. Colorado ranchers could face similar problems if CPW is no longer allowed to manage predator populations.
• Call to Action: To keep livestock safe and prevent predator overpopulation, voters should reject Proposition 127 and support CPW’s proven management practices.
3. Increased Costs to Consumers:
• Data: As livestock losses increase due to predator attacks, ranchers will be forced to raise prices to cover their losses, which will lead to higher food costs for consumers. These rising costs will be felt by Coloradans across the state, particularly in rural communities.
• Example: Ranchers in areas with high predator activity have reported increased costs associated with protecting their herds, such as hiring additional staff for nighttime surveillance, reinforcing fences, and using non-lethal deterrents. These costs are often passed on to consumers, driving up the prices of meat, dairy, and other agricultural products.
• Call to Action: Colorado consumers will pay the price if ranchers are forced to cover the costs of increased livestock losses. Voting “No” on Prop 127 is a vote to keep food prices stable and protect Colorado’s agricultural economy.
4. Preventing Unnecessary Suffering:
• Data: When predator populations are left unchecked, conflicts between predators and livestock become inevitable, often resulting in the death of livestock and harm to predators. Prop 127 would create a scenario in which predators are more likely to kill livestock, leading to suffering on both sides.
• Example: Ranchers have shared heartbreaking stories of livestock mutilated by predators, with some losing large portions of their herds to mountain lions and bobcats. At the same time, predators involved in these conflicts are often killed as a last resort, which could have been avoided through proactive management.
• Call to Action: To prevent unnecessary suffering for both livestock and predators, voters should reject Prop 127 and allow CPW to continue managing predator populations in a humane, responsible way.

What Will Happen if Prop 127 Passes?

If Proposition 127 passes, Colorado’s livestock industry will be at greater risk from unchecked predator populations. Ranchers will face increased losses due to attacks on their herds, driving up the cost of livestock production and, ultimately, food prices for consumers. These rising conflicts will not only hurt Colorado’s agricultural economy but also lead to unnecessary suffering for both livestock and predators. CPW will lose its ability to prevent these conflicts before they start, creating a scenario where both animals and people are at greater risk.

Call to Action:

Voters should reject Proposition 127 to protect Colorado’s livestock industry, keep food prices affordable, and prevent conflicts between predators and ranchers. By voting “No,” Coloradans can support proven, humane management strategies that keep both livestock and wildlife safe. Prevent conflicts before they start—say “No” to Prop 127!

“Predators Eat, Ranchers Pay: Prop 127 Steals Compensation from Rural Colorado!”

Explanation:

Proposition 127 not only threatens wildlife management but also takes away critical support for ranchers who lose livestock to mountain lions and bobcats. Under current wildlife management, ranchers can apply for state compensation when predators kill livestock. However, Prop 127 offers no compensation for these losses, leaving ranchers without any financial relief. This unfairly places the entire economic burden on rural communities already struggling to coexist with predators.

Key Issues:

1. Uncompensated Financial Losses:
• Data: Livestock losses from mountain lion and bobcat attacks can cost ranchers thousands to tens of thousands of dollars annually. Each cow lost to a predator can be valued between $1,000 and $2,500. Statewide, predator-related livestock losses in Colorado are estimated at approximately $3 million annually, with costs expected to rise if predator populations grow unchecked under Prop 127.
• Example: Colorado ranchers, especially in rural areas, rely on compensation programs to recoup some of the costs of livestock killed by predators. Without this support, many will face significant financial challenges that could threaten their operations.
• Call to Action: By rejecting Prop 127, voters can protect ranchers from unjust financial hardship and ensure that the state continues to offer compensation for predator attacks.
2. Increased Livestock Losses Without Predator Management:
• Data: Without regulated predator management, mountain lion and bobcat populations could grow unchecked, leading to increased depredation incidents. Ranchers would face more frequent and costly livestock losses, with some projecting that these losses could double or triple, reaching into the millions.
• Example: States like California have seen significant rises in predator attacks on livestock following similar laws. Colorado ranchers could face similar financial impacts without proper predator population control and compensation.
• Call to Action: Rejecting Prop 127 allows CPW to continue its science-based predator management practices, reducing the likelihood of increased livestock depredation and financial losses for ranchers.
3. Economic Impact on Rural Communities:
• Data: Colorado’s rural communities, many of which rely on agriculture, would suffer financially without state support for livestock losses. Without compensation, ranchers are forced to cover these losses themselves, potentially harming rural economies.
• Example: With livestock accounting for significant income in rural areas, ranchers facing large-scale predator attacks without compensation could be forced out of business, taking jobs and local economic stability with them.
• Call to Action: Voters should protect Colorado’s rural economy by rejecting Proposition 127 and keeping necessary compensation in place for ranchers.
4. Small Ranchers May Be Forced to Close:
• Data: Small ranching operations are especially vulnerable to predator attacks, and without compensation for livestock losses, they may face financial difficulties too severe to overcome. Smaller herds and thinner profit margins leave them with little room to absorb such losses.
• Example: In areas with high predator activity, some small ranchers report losing significant portions of their herds in a single year. Without compensation and with increasing predator numbers, these ranchers may be forced to downsize or even shut down their operations entirely.
• Call to Action: Voters must protect Colorado’s small ranchers from the financial devastation that Prop 127 could cause. Without compensation, many small ranchers could be forced out of business, threatening rural economies and communities.

What Will Happen if Prop 127 Passes?

If Proposition 127 passes, ranchers across Colorado will face several serious consequences:

1. Unmanaged Predator Populations:
• Mountain lion and bobcat populations will grow unchecked since Proposition 127 restricts CPW’s ability to manage these predators effectively. Without regulated hunting or population control, the number of predators will increase significantly, leading to more frequent attacks on livestock.
2. Increased Livestock Losses:
• As predator populations grow, ranchers will face rising depredation incidents, resulting in greater financial losses. With each cow valued between $1,000 and $2,500, even a small increase in predator attacks could cost ranchers tens of thousands of dollars per year. The current estimated $3 million in livestock losses could easily double or triple without proper management.
3. No Compensation for Losses:
• Unlike some other predator-related compensation programs, Prop 127 offers no financial relief for ranchers who lose livestock to mountain lion and bobcat attacks. Ranchers will have to absorb these costs entirely on their own, putting even more strain on rural economies.
4. Economic Impact on Rural Communities:
• Rural economies heavily reliant on agriculture will suffer. When ranchers lose livestock to predators without compensation, they may have to cut back on operations, lay off workers, or even go out of business. The ripple effect will harm not just ranchers but also local businesses and rural jobs.
5. Small Ranchers at Risk of Closure:
• Small ranchers are especially vulnerable. Many rely on state compensation to offset livestock losses. Without it, they could be forced to close their operations altogether, leading to lost jobs and weakened rural economies.
6. Potential Increase in Food Prices:
• As ranchers experience higher costs due to predator attacks, they may pass those costs along to consumers in the form of higher food prices. Colorado consumers could see the price of meat and dairy products rise as ranchers try to cover their losses.
7. Escalating Human-Wildlife Conflicts:
• With growing predator populations and fewer management tools, mountain lions and bobcats will increasingly encroach into human-populated areas in search of food. This could lead to more conflicts with pets, livestock, and even humans, increasing public safety risks.

Call to Action:

If Proposition 127 passes, Colorado’s ranchers—especially small ranchers—will be left to shoulder the full financial burden of predator attacks, with no state compensation or relief. Rising predator populations will lead to more livestock losses, economic hardship, and conflicts with wildlife. Many small ranchers could be forced to close, which would ripple through rural economies. To protect Colorado’s agricultural industry and rural economy, voters must reject Proposition 127 and ensure that proper wildlife management remains in place.