Crying Wolf
What critics of so-called "ballot box biology" get wrong about citizen initiatives

Since the passage of Proposition 114, which mandated the restoration of gray wolves to Colorado, there has been a steady stream of condemnation of what critics, including some members of the Legislature, call “ballot box biology.” They use that term to argue that the public lacks the expertise to make wildlife management decisions and characterize them as “biological” decisions.  

The question of whether wolves should be restored to Colorado was a policy decision, not a biological one. There are of course biological questions around wolf restoration that must be addressed, and Proposition 114 ensured that those biological choices were left to the experts in Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW, our state wildlife agency) and the CPW Commission, the agency’s governor-appointed oversight board. For example, the initiative requires the establishment of a self-sustaining population of wolves, but what that means in terms of the number of wolves in Colorado was left to agency experts. Whether wolves should return to Colorado was an ethical and social question, and public desires are the right framework for deciding such issues. 

The reality is that very few, if any, wildlife management decisions are directed solely by biology; most must consider social and economic issues as well. Biology can inform wildlife-management decisions, but it doesn’t make the decisions. As an example, CPW sets objectives for elk numbers in each of 38 geographic areas called “Data Analysis Units” (DAUs). CPW notes that the objective number integrates the “plans and intentions of Colorado Parks and Wildlife with the concerns and ideas of land management agencies and interested public to determine how a big game herd in a DAU should be managed.” While biological information may determine a maximum number of animals that can be supported in an area, the objective number is appropriately set through the interplay of public values and desires within scientifically determined biological constraints. 

Ballot initiatives are a last resort, used only when citizens feel that their elected representatives are not addressing public desires. Citizens persistently lobbied the CPW Commission to restore wolves to Colorado, but they declined to do so, despite strong support demonstrated in scientific surveys. Proponents of restoration saw the initiative process as the only alternative to implement the will of Colorado’s citizens. One reason for the Commission’s lack of action is that the agricultural and hunting sectors in Colorado, while deserving respect and a role in decision-making, have an outsized level of influence on the CPW Commission. Hunters, the Commission and CPW need to recognize that fewer than 6% of Coloradans hold a hunting license, and many more Coloradans have an interest in wildlife outside of hunting. As a result, wildlife-management issues are particularly prone to citizen initiatives.

That dynamic played out in the two previous wildlife issues that ended up as Colorado ballot initiatives: Amendment 10 in 1992, which outlawed some bear- hunting methods; and Amendment 14 in 1996, which prohibited many forms of trapping. In both instances, activists made multiple attempts to have the CPW Commission or the Legislature address their concerns; the lack of any attempt to substantively address those issues led to ballot initiatives that were approved by the voters, amending the State Constitution.  

Colorado’s demographics are continuing to change; by 2050, 82% of the state’s residents are expected to live in the Front Range corridor from Fort Collins to Pueblo. While rural residents have legitimate reasons to feel that their views are not given enough weight, they’re struggling against an inexorable trend. Rather than fight that trend, they can seize the opportunity to work collaboratively with urban residents to foster understanding of rural needs.  

State legislators who criticize the process, and who are elected via the ballot box, have crafted a hypocritical view that while voters are informed enough to elect them to office, they lack the knowledge to make policy decisions about wildlife. These legislators, who on the whole have no particular biological knowledge, created a law (C.R.S. 33-2-105.5) that requires their approval for the restoration of extirpated species, wresting such decisions from the biological experts in CPW.  Such decisions arguably are policy decisions, and as such, are appropriate for legislative action, as they are for the general public when official action isn’t forthcoming. 

Rather than creating a divisive and false narrative about the public’s ability to make thoughtful and rational decisions, critics of the ballot initiative process might be better served by considering why ballot initiatives are undertaken. 

 Gary Skiba is the Wildlife Program Manager for the San Juan Citizens Alliance and a member of the board of directors of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project.