Colorado Lion and Bobcat Ballot Initiative Update

[seeth07]

Not in Colorado, here it's the average Front Range metro liberal led by the Aspen/Vail socialites...

It is amazing to me that things aren't moving faster in CO when you just look at how centrally located the population in CO is to the huge urban Denver area.





19/20 of those cities are located in that Denver suburbia and account for a total of 65% of the states population. This number is continuing to grow and with it, the support for anti-hunting.

Discovering this wasn't exactly rocket science. What is more of a challenge is how do we address this market and promote hunting? Last week we had a regional DU meeting here in our state where we looked at what DU in Denver does because its impressive. The amount of money they raise and the attendance they get is fantastic. Not sure how true the number is but it was presented to us that in the Denver metro area, only about 40% of the population supports hunting (which is well below the national norm) and less than 5% of the population actually hunts (this is more on par with the national norm but actually high given its an urban area). So how do these events draw such support?

 

[LuketheDog]

It is amazing to me that things aren't moving faster in CO when you just look at how centrally located the population in CO is to the huge urban Denver area.

1. Stooooop saying things like this, it depresses me

Last week we had a regional DU meeting here in our state where we looked at what DU in Denver does because its impressive. The amount of money they raise and the attendance they get is fantastic. Not sure how true the number is but it was presented to us that in the Denver metro area, only about 40% of the population supports hunting (which is well below the national norm) and less than 5% of the population actually hunts (this is more on par with the national norm but actually high given its an urban area). So how do these events draw such support?

2. Waterfowl and upland bird hunting anywhere near Denver is a very gentrified pursuit, i.e. that DU chapter is loaded with white collar people from the city with big checkbooks to open at their fundraisers. Lots disposable income, lots of leased-up hunting ground, lots of members-only bird clubs.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Bird hunting the front range is just depressing if you are from here and remember the pre every field is leased by a club or outfitter days…

I think if we look to what happened with the wolf initiative, it can be defeated. The wolf bill squeaked by, there was little to no defense and honestly many hunters were tricked into believing it would be adding another game animal into the mix. This is clear cut, really suits should be happening about wording. Trophy hunting is a blatant attempt to cause a reaction or rise and is a subjective term. Should have no place on the ballot it is very inflammatory language. I think the groups fighting are moving to head that off, but really we are dealing with the public that is largely ignorant on the matter. They need to know that more cats will die at the hand of the state if passed, and that cats have and will attacked people, children, pets. It’s going to be a tough fight but hopefully it can be defeated. Hell last year a monster Tom killed double digit dogs just to the west of me in the foothills over the span of a couple months… kitty learned to hang out on the back porch roof and the owners were releasing him meals…

 

[WapitiBob]

Have you ever seen a hunting org or hunters start a ballot initiative to protect what they have?

Me neither, and admit I'm part of the problem. We're reactionary and always two steps behind.

 

[JDH]

Have you ever seen a hunting org or hunters start a ballot initiative to protect what they have?

Me neither, and admit I'm part of the problem. We're reactionary and always two steps behind.

Indiana Right to Hunt and Fish, Public Question 1 (2016)

 

[seeth07]

Indiana Right to Hunt and Fish, Public Question 1 (2016)

Wisconsin did the same thing back in 2003:

 

[seeth07]

Actually lots of states have this now in their state constitution:

 

[375H&H]

I hope the "average" Colorado hunter sees the writing on the wall. Its the average hunter that allows these ballots measures to get past. Thinking this doesn't affect me, I don't hunt mountain lions.

I deal with this all the time in Montana, I go to work and talk about things Fwp or the legislature is trying to do and no one has a clue.
I hope this doesn't get past.

It’s very tough reading on HT people who are blatantly against trapping or against the increase in hound hunting opportunity in Montana. Certainly does not help the cause when fellow hunters are opposed.

 

[WapitiBob]

Does the "right to hunt" legislation prevent the banning of trapping, or hunting/baiting of lions/bears/etc, or the use of hunting lions with dogs?

 

[Hnthrdr]

Does the "right to hunt" legislation prevent the banning of trapping, or hunting/baiting of lions/bears/etc, or the use of hunting lions with dogs?

Good question, I’m not sure that it would unless it was specifically outlined in the bill… but is a big step in the right direction

 

[TOGIE]

Does the "right to hunt" legislation prevent the banning of trapping, or hunting/baiting of lions/bears/etc, or the use of hunting lions with dogs?

makes ya wonder.

probably only questions that can be answered by a state supreme court, depending on how the legislation is written

 

[seeth07]

Does the "right to hunt" legislation prevent the banning of trapping, or hunting/baiting of lions/bears/etc, or the use of hunting lions with dogs?

To a degree yes.

For Wisconsin: When something comes up, such as "hey we want to ban running black bears with hounds", the very first line of defense is as hunters and those politicians representing us we can point directly to the state constitution. There are only 26 defined rights in WI and hunting being one of them.



"...subject only to reasonable restrictions" is then what will get fought. The group trying to ban running black bears with hounds will have to prove their cause that it is a reasonable restriction which is very hard to do.

I'll have to research exact cases but I remember this happening once about a decade ago where they tried to make it illegal to run black bears with dogs and I remember the fight didn't last long.

 

[Werty]

Not in Colorado, here it's the average Front Range metro liberal led by the Aspen/Vail socialites...

If thats your thoughts, then why fight this?

 

[Nameless Range]

In the recent legislative session in Montana, it was attempted to put the right to hunt, fish and trap on the ballot for a constitutional amendment.

HB 372 Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap

I've seen this floating around on social media quite a bit and was just wondering if anyone else has heard anything. Does this just add trapping to the constitution since the right to hunting and fishing are already there (it think)? I'm still trying to figure out the interpretation of this...

www.hunttalk.com

It didn't make it, but I'd expect it to be back in a year. It used the language, "current means and methods", and I heard a lot of assertions about what this could potentially mean. Lawyers use language down the line to support things one may not like. I asked a lot of questions about it that I couldn't get clear answers to, which personally made me uncertain about it.

It’s very tough reading on HT people who are blatantly against trapping or against the increase in hound hunting opportunity in Montana. Certainly does not help the cause when fellow hunters are opposed.

One can hunt and trap and support it as I do. I think one could support hound hunting as I do, and yet be perfectly valid and sound in a position of not wanting to increase hound hunting opportunity in Montana. I suppose there's a lotta nuance in it.

I hope Colorado keeps their cat hunting.

 

[seeth07]

In the recent legislative session in Montana, it was attempted to put the right to hunt, fish and trap on the ballot for a constitutional amendment.

HB 372 Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap

I've seen this floating around on social media quite a bit and was just wondering if anyone else has heard anything. Does this just add trapping to the constitution since the right to hunting and fishing are already there (it think)? I'm still trying to figure out the interpretation of this...

www.hunttalk.com

It didn't make it, but I'd expect it to be back in a year. It used the language, "current means and methods", and I heard a lot of assertions about what this could potentially mean. Lawyers use language down the line to support things one may not like. I asked a lot of questions about it that I couldn't get clear answers to, which personally made me uncertain about it.




One can hunt and trap and support it as I do. I think one could support hound hunting as I do, and yet be perfectly valid and sound in a position of not wanting to increase hound hunting opportunity in Montana. I suppose there's a lotta nuance in it.

I hope Colorado keeps their cat hunting.

Is it not in there already per C-41?

Montana Right to Wild Game Hunting and Fishing, C-41 (2004)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[LuketheDog]

If thats your thoughts, then why fight this?

It's not my thoughts, it's facts. We lost the wolf initiative by a very slim margin, 50.9%:49.1%, these things can be defeated but they are an uphill battle with the voting demographics of this state.

 

[Hnthrdr]

It's not my thoughts, it's facts. We lost the wolf initiative by a very slim margin, 50.9%:49.1%, these things can be defeated but they are an uphill battle with the voting demographics of this state.

Exactly. There were a lot of uninformed hunters that voted for it, thinking they would get a crack at them down the road or they would be managed. Heck there are members on the hunting forums who are big wolf lovers. Yet it seems they never live in Co or in any place where wolf hunting is outlawed and the population runs rampant.

 

[seeth07]

We lost the wolf initiative by a very slim margin, 50.9%:49.1%, these things can be defeated but they are an uphill battle with the voting demographics of this state

Sadly, in your state its likely to only get worse with the uphill battle getting steeper as the urban populations there continue to skyrocket. I'm rooting for you guys and have tried to help where I could.

 

[Desk Pop]

Well, given your apparent lack of knowledge about the effort Colorado sportsmen are giving to fight this attempt to ban cat hunting, I think your blanket statement is BS. What are you doing for Colorado? If you'd like to do something from Idaho, here's a link where you can put your money where your mouth is.
Donate today

Frame.io

f.io

When we were dealing with an attack on hound hunting in Idaho, I was pretty active. My comments were read at the Boise commissioner meeting (although not heeded), I was vocal in meetings, and when I felt the hound community was doing an inadequate job of getting the information to the general public (who I thought could be valuable allies) I wrote the attached press release and sent it to media all over the state. It was followed with several interviews and articles (some of the links are below) which would not have happened had I not taken action. I probably did more to bring the lunacy of the IDFG proposals to the public than perhaps anyone else in my state. Non-hunters often agreed with me, but our battle was against deer hunters...and we lost. I can't do every state though, as much as I wish I could.

Lion kill in my region went from 22 females and perhaps that many males on a normal year to about 140 lions last year if I recall.

Anyway, do whatever you want for your state. It sounds like you are plenty happy with the participation of hunters in defending hound hunting. Great to hear.

My suspicion from past experiences that I've either been involved in, or watched from afar, is that the majority of hunters do not care about speaking up for hound hunting because they don't personally participate. If you think that assumption is BS, that's fine. I disagree.

Interestingly, this new Colorado proposal is even more dangerous than the initial. First it was "stop hunting cats," and now it has morphed to, "stop trophy hunting, and we will start with cats."

And thank God those geniuses included the lynx, because it is not like those already have federal protection...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/hunting/article249785778.html

Idaho houndsmen say Fish and Game has declared war on mountain lions with plan to eliminate quotas statewide

A group of Southeast Idaho houndsmen are upset with a proposal from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to remove all statewide mountain lion harvest quotas, saying the plan

www.hjnews.com

 

[Desk Pop]

This reminds me of how most hound hunters hate trappers and refuse to support them.

I’ve watched trapping rights be taken away over the last several decades. The average hunter doesn’t really care because it doesn’t affect them.

Hopefully the measure is stopped before it makes it to the polls. The last thing we need is more ballot box biology.

In my experience, almost every hound hunter I know has trapped, and probably 1/4 to 1/3 actively trap regularly.

I don't think houndsmen are the worst enemy of alternate means of take.