Does the rejection of a ban on mountain lion hunting signal a step toward bridging Colorado’s urban-rural divide?

In 2020, voters in 13 Colorado counties supported Proposition 114, which required Colorado Parks and Wildlife to reintroduce gray wolves to western Colorado. Four years later, only six counties supported Proposition 127, which would have banned mountain lion hunting.

The wolf reintroduction measure narrowly passed, due to urban voters. (A majority of support for wolf reintroduction came from eight densely populated Front Range counties, which accounted for 73% — 1.2 million —  of the 1.5 million yes votes for Prop. 114.)

The mountain lion hunting ban did not pass, partly due to urban voters who rejected the proposal in formerly pro-wolf Adams, El Paso, Jefferson and Larimer counties. As of Friday, with about 73% of the vote counted, there were 1.55 million “no votes cast for Prop. 127, compared to 1.26 million yes votes. 

It’s the first of four wildlife ballot questions since 1992 that voters turned down.

Rural communities overwhelmingly rejected the lion hunting ban this year. In places where wolves have been hunting livestock, the margins were huge, with, for example, 90% of voters in Jackson County and 76% of voters in Grand County voting no. 

But it’s the urban voters along the Front Range who tend to carry the most influence in statewide elections. After the troubled rollout of wolf reintroduction in Colorado in the past year, with ranchers struggling to deal with wolves, could urban voters finally be listening to their rural neighbors? 

Sen. Dylan Roberts, a Democrat from Avon, said part of the reason Prop. 127 failed is that rural voices were more vocal this year. Opponents of the mountain lion ban were much better funded and organized this year compared to the wolf reintroduction vote in 2020, which did not include a cohesive opposition campaign. 

“I think there was a recognition that maybe if we work a little bit harder, raise a little money and work together we can beat this,” Roberts said. 

And the well-publicized issues with the wolf reintroduction helped everyone in Colorado realize the challenges of imposing voter mandates on rural communities and wildlife officials, Roberts said. 

“There is no question the rocky and rushed rollout of the wolf measure and the negative impacts has clearly resonated across the state,” Roberts said.

Lauren Truitt is the former head of education and information for Colorado Parks and Wildlife who worked with the 200-member Colorado Wildlife Employees Protective Association to oppose the lion hunting ban. She said her groups’ work with urban voters after the 2020 wolf vote indicates “they didn’t really understand the impact of that yes vote.”

“Having had a couple years of experience with what that vote has meant for Colorado Parks and Wildlife and our rural neighbors, I think that played a big role this time around,” Truitt said. “What I see from this vote is the voter base putting its trust back where it belongs, with the science and the wildlife experts. I hope this is a step in the right direction to help rebuild that trust between the Front Range and the Western Slope.”

Roberts said the vote could be a sign that urban and rural voters are ready to work together. 

“There was clearly an understanding by voters in all parts of the state that this was something best left to scientists at CPW and the communities where this would be particularly impactful,” Roberts said. “I hope it shows that wildlife issues and scientific issues that are very complicated and very nuanced are maybe not best decided with a ballot question.”

Roberts said he was impressed with “how respectful the discussions around 127 were.”

“I’m hopeful we are learning some lessons from this,” he said. 

“A need for change in Colorado” 

Supporters of Prop. 127 said the vote’s results should not be seen as widespread support for hunting mountain lions. Instead, they said, voters on both sides revealed that Colorado Parks and Wildlife, not voters, should reform hunting regulations around mountain lions and bobcats. 

Michelle Lute with the Wildlife For All group that backed Prop. 127 said in a statement that the measure’s failure was “in large part due to the misinformation machine of monied trophy hunting special interests.”

The Cats Aren’t Trophies group that funded the Prop. 127 campaign raised $2.8 million, including $731,000 from the D.C.-based Animal Wellness Action group. The opposition campaign led by Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better, raised $1.9 million, with $600,000 from the Virginia-based conservative advocacy Concord Fund.

Lute said the ballot measure happened because Colorado Park and Wildlife leaders “aren’t listening.”

“Because our viewpoints aren’t part of the status quo decision-making, voters are stepping up to say something isn’t working,” Lute said in the statement. “Bottom line: The momentum Prop 127 created signals a need for change in Colorado.”

Sam Miller, who directed the Cat’s Aren’t Trophies campaign that gathered signatures to get the ban on the ballot, said even some of the voters who rejected Prop. 127 support “serious-minded wildlife protection reforms … with a hand off of the ball to Colorado Parks and Wildlife.”

Three Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners — Jessica Beaulieu, Jack Murphy and Rich Reading, all appointed by Gov. Jared Polis — voiced support for Prop. 127, indicating a contingency on the board that is inclined toward an overhaul of lion hunting rules.

“The agency operates at its peril by stonewalling on obvious reforms to protect wild cats,” Miller said in a statement. “The vote was anything but a mandate on baiting, trapping and hounding — it was a vote of deference to the agency to take action itself.”