Proposition 127 would ban the hunting of big cats in Colorado, but experts can't agree on the potential impact

For nearly 60 years, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has used hunting to manage mountain lion and bobcat populations. That could end if Proposition 127 passes this year, which would ban the hunting of big cats.

First gray wolves, now big cats: how Colorado manages -- or doesn't manage -- its wildlife is once again a hot-button issue this election. Supporters of a "yes" vote on Proposition 127 argue that it protects mountain lions from trophy hunting while still allowing for game management to protect people, pets and livestock.

Supporters like Dan Ashe, former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, support Proposition 127, saying it "preserves the balance of nature."

The measure defines trophy hunting as intentionally killing, wounding, pursuing or entrapping big cats unless it's necessary to defend people, property or livestock.

Here's what you need to know: lynxes are already protected by state and federal law and hunting mountain lions and bobcats in the state requires a license from Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

The agency reports that licensed hunters kill about 1,400 big cats each year, which they claim helps keep populations stable. However, a group of wildlife experts who wrote a letter in support of Proposition 127 disagree, arguing that food availability, territorial behavior and a slow reproduction rate naturally keep mountain lion numbers in check. Ashe says that hunting big cats is not only unnecessary; it's unethical.

"Wealthy, out-of-state trophy hunters take Colorado mountain lions and bobcats for their heads and hides, using packs of dogs and high-tech gadgetry," Ashe says.

State law prohibits hunters from taking only the head or hide and requires that the meat be prepared for human consumption. But based on some hunting experiences offered by guides in the state, it's clear that not all hunters are killing mountain lions and bobcats for their meat.

As for hunters using dogs with tracking devices to pursue lions, CPW explains that this allows them to evaluate the age and sex of a lion and release any females who may be pregnant or have cubs. Opponents of Proposition 127, including many wildlife experts, argue that a hunting ban would have a ripple effect on other wildlife populations.

"Unless they're kept in check, mountain lions will continue to decimate Colorado's deer population, killing more than 200,000 deer each year," one ad claims.

That's speculation. While Colorado's mule deer population has decreased over the last 20 years as its mountain lion population has increased, it's unclear if there's a direct cause-effect relationship.

Supporters of the measure argue that mountain lions help control chronic wasting disease by preying on sick deer. In California, however, which banned mountain lion hunting 50 years ago, Sierra bighorn sheep are now endangered and state biologists report a decline in the black-tailed deer population. They cite mountain lion predation as the main cause of mortality, although studies show the lion population there has remained stable.

The bottom line: supporters of Proposition 127 say it's about ending a barbaric form of hunting. Opponents argue it's a step toward ending all hunting by defining trophy hunting the same as general hunting in state law. But the truth is, no one knows exactly what will happen if it passes. 

Even wildlife experts disagree -- and that may be the most troubling aspect.