By Elaine Leslie, David Jennings, Delia Malone and Julie Marshall
The science of mountain lions related to Prop 127 has been well put to bed by our most trusted public and private conservation biologists of Colorado, alongside our best and brightest independent higher education carnivore researchers.
A “yes” on Prop 127 protects mountain lions and bobcats from trophy hunti and fur trapping.
Opposition is suggesting that we need to kill unoffending wild cats as population control. But last week, retired state carnivore biologist Jerry Apker reported to NPR and The Denver Post that once we approve Prop 127, mountain lion populations will be stable and not increase. He called fears of lions running amok to decimate deer “far-fetched.”
We appreciate Apker’s commitment to science, which is precisely what proponents of Prop 127 support.
There is no research or evidence to suggest killing hundreds of lions — animals who have done nothing wrong — solves any true management need. It neither reduces human-lion conflict nor prevents depredations, and it will not make humans wandering in the woods or pets at home any safer than they already are.
It’s what 22 wildlife scientists — including Dr. Barry R. Noon, Ph.D., professor emeritus of the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology at Colorado State University, and three former top scientists with the National Park Service — say: The choice to kill mountain lions as recreation primarily for collecting heads and hides (trophies) is managing the resource (lions) for trophy collections, a vastly different paradigm than managing lions for ecological value and broad public benefit.
Ample evidence exists that killing unoffending lions can and does exacerbate depredation incidents by removing trophy lions who have coexisted without conflict.
Trophy hunting native wild cats is both “unscientific and unethical,” explains Dan Ashe, the former director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife in his recent expert analysis of Prop 127 published in Colorado Newsline.
According to state data, trophy hunters kill 500 mountain lions each year in Colorado, on average. Last year, fur trappers killed more than 900 bobcats.
It is a fringe activity, as just 2,000 (0.3%) Coloradans and 500 non-residents ever buy a license, and 700 (0.1%) buy a fur trapping permit.
Outfitters charge $8,000 to wealthy clients, chauffeuring them as they follow a phone app connected to GPS dog collars to where the cat is pinned, for a widely advertised guaranteed kill. This unfair, high-tech commercial advantage is far afield from anything resembling ethical hunting.
Opponents claim trophy hunting is illegal — but it’s a term the industry itself uses. A 2025 hunt in Colorado advertises use of GPS-collared dogs to “catch your cat” and precisely locate where the dogs “treed your trophy.”
Remember, these are not animals in conflict, but living as nature prescribes to keep our herds and habitats healthy from disease and ensure equilibrium.
Prop 127 puts professionals in charge to handle individual lions posing risk — the only proven effective way to prevent conflict.
More evidence is in California, where trophy hunting has been banned for over 52 years. Lion populations are stable, not increasing, and just 15 lions are killed each year for livestock predation. That’s remarkably low given the 40 million people who live in the No. 1 agriculture-producing state.
It’s difficult for agency staff to admit when an unpopular form of recreation clearly crosses the line into cruelty, due to pressure from outfitters to place their commercial profits ahead of science and welfare standards for wildlife.
About 30 years ago, Colorado Division of Wildlife lead predator biologist, Tom Beck, an avid ethical hunter, spoke out bravely against baiting and hounding of Colorado bears, which orphaned cubs. Together, we voted to affirm our ethical values and ended these practices.
Today, we have this same opportunity to recommit to what is right. As Beck said, most — but not all — hunting can be defended.
A Colorado State University independent academic study shows 88% of us do not approve of hounding or trophy hunting lions. If we follow the science and our moral compass to vote “yes” on Prop 127, we will end state-sanctioned cruelty before it restarts around Thanksgiving, which is when the trophy hunting season begins.
Visit catsarenttrophies.org to learn more.
Elaine Leslie, PhD, is former chief of biological resources for the U.S. National Park Service.
David Jennings, PhD, is a working conservation biologist and coexistence advocate.
Delia Malone works as an ecologist with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. She serves as wildlife chair for the Colorado Chapter of the Sierra Club and is a member of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Wildlife and Habitat Roundtable.
Julie Marshall previously worked as a public information officer for Colorado Division of Wildlife. She works for Animal Wellness Action, a core member among 100 organizations supporting Prop 127.
This opinion does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.
Got another take? Send it to [email protected]
Read more Election 2024 content