A weak argument for sport hunting
Andrew Carpenter (“In defense of big cat hunting,” Telegraph, May 16) says Coloradans aren’t smart enough to have an opinion about recreational killing of mountain lions or bobcats.
It’s too “complicated,” he says, too “highly technical” for mere citizens. Leave it to the big boys: government agency biologists and game wardens.
Actually, it’s not at all complicated, Coloradans are smart and deserve a voice because our wildlife is not private property and deserves better.
It may surprise this author to hear that decades ago, voters similarly banned the baiting and hunting of bears using dogs in spring when moms have dependent cubs and one of the loudest supporters was Tom Beck, a DOW bear biologist.
CPW has stated its neutrality on the Cats Aren’t Trophies (CATs) Measure, noting its job is to carry out the will of the citizens. CATs supports CPW.
Carpenter admits his dislike for Coloradans exercising democratic freedoms, but that doesn’t give him an excuse to confuse voters. Or maybe that’s the goal.
He does this by failing to point out that CATs’ measure bans recreational trophy hunting of lions to keep heads and hides, which has nothing to do with modern, science-based wildlife management.
Colorado’s statute is clear, mountain lion hunting is a “wildlife-related recreational opportunity” and nothing else.
Carpenter tells us to respect biology yet fails to provide any biology to support his litany of excuses to sport kill lions, including: “biology requires some predators to be hunted” and lion sport hunting “prevents overpopulation of lions” plus “overhunting of prey species.”
There’s good reason for this key failure to cite evidence: there isn’t any.
There is, however, a half-century of peer-reviewed, published science to show us that recreational killing of lions is not managing anything besides sport.
Leading lion ecologists from across the West have tested a series of hypotheses to evaluate benefits to humans from increased lion-killing. From 1971-2023, scientists killed predators to test artificially drawing down lion populations, as well as to test giving us more deer and elk for our freezers, or to test protecting our dogs and our livestock. (Read the peer-reviewed and published studies at catsarenttrophies.org.)
The conclusions are consistent: Killing has never worked. (In fact, studies show recreational mountain lion hunting increases risk to domestic animals.)
Colorado Parks and Wildlife reports that after killing half the population of mountain lions in Colorado’s Arkansas Valley, the slaughter had no remarkable effect on deer populations. Researchers for the Hornocker Wildlife Research Institute found that after increased killing of lions to lower their number, populations rebounded back to nature’s normal without human interference and without overpopulation.
“Our research (10 years) in New Mexico indicates that mountain lion populations will stabilize at a level depending on available habitat and food resources,” the experts concluded.
There is no overpopulation in California, where lions have not been sport hunted for 50 years.
“Anyone familiar with population ecology knows that killing lions for sport is a social decision, based on attitudes and what is considered acceptable as recreation,” Rick Hopkins, a lion population ecologist of 45 years, said.
Last year, lion hunters killed 500 lions (296 males, 204 females) in the name of sport. These were native wildlife existing as nature prescribes, not in conflict with humans.
But you will never hear from trophy hunters about the actual details, including that outfitters charge up to $8,000 and “guarantee” a kill. Packs of dogs wearing GPS collars chase and corner sentient mountain lions up a tree. The shooter then walks up to a tree, where the lion has no escape, takes aim and shoots.
This is shooting, not hunting, and disregards ethical hunting principles of “fair chase” in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Sometimes lions are pushed out onto cliffs and fall; there is ample video online showing dogs in bloody battles with lions. It is undeniable kittens are orphaned when nearly half of lions killed are females.
Carpenter does not want you to hear these realities, because it’s all a losing argument. So he must rely on false statements, hoping our journalists won’t fact-check or ask about ethics. It’s a well-oiled misinformation campaign that could certainly benefit from a reality check.
– Samantha Miller, Campaign Manager for Cats Aren’t Trophies (CATs), Grand Lake