I am a former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and have hunted practically as long as I can remember, pursuing small game and waterfowl as well as deer, elk and caribou. Hunting has been a lifelong passion and helped shape my values as a career wildlife conservation professional.
But I am against hunting mountain lions in Colorado. Today, I join many wildlife professionals and hunters who support Colorado’s Proposition 127—Cats Aren’t Trophies, on the ballot this November.
I’ve never been much for so-called “trophy hunting,” especially when the animals are chased to exhaustion by commercial outfitters using dogs and GPS tracking. Once these lions are perched helplessly in a tree, they are shot by a so-called “hunter.”
This kind of hunting violates a foundational value of “fair chase” that I was taught as a child. I was also taught that hunting is a form of harvest, yielding “free-range” delicacies that reconnect us to the land and water. Part of that connection is respect for the game we hunt, not desire to dominate or eliminate them.
But hunters are predators, and as a nation, we have long harbored a bloodlust for competitors like mountain lions. We have stoked societal mythologies and fears, and despite the wisdom of mid-1900s conservation scholars like Aldo Leopold, we have continued to scapegoat these creatures in the name of game management.
Maybe we do this to hide our own inadequacies. It is much easier to blame declining elk or deer populations on mountain lions or wolves than to grapple with habitat loss and fragmentation, drought and water scarcity or changing climates. Acknowledging those would require that we deal with our ever-expanding desires for more and cheaper and easier.
Yet here’s what’s important to know now: Emerging science tells us that these apex predators aren’t the enemy, they’re allies. They are likely providing an important ecosystem service in checking the spread of chronic wasting disease, CWD, an existential threat to healthy deer and elk populations, by targeting animals weakened by the disease.
Forty-two of Colorado’s 51 deer herds and 17 of 42 elk herds are infected with this 100 percent fatal, brain-wasting malady. The disease started in Colorado and spread across the Midwest and Rockies. It has killed hundreds of thousands of elk, deer and moose and it is getting worse.
The pathogen is not a virus or bacteria but a “prion”—a protein that slowly and painfully destroys brain tissue in deer and elk. There is no evidence that these CWD prions are “zoonotic” and can infect humans, but public health officials warn against eating CWD-infected game as a precaution.
Prions aren’t living things, so they can’t be killed with antibiotic or antiviral medications. They can only be “deactivated”, and amazingly, science is telling us that they are deactivated in the digestive systems of predators like lions and wolves. That is why these animals are our natural allies.
As a scientist, I know that correlation is not causation, but sometimes it can be a powerful indicator. There is good science showing that lions will selectively prey on CWD-infected animals because infected animals are likely easier to kill. Where there are no lions, there are higher rates of CWD-infected animals; where healthy lion population exists, there are low levels of CWD infection or none at all.
Killing 500 lions, every year, in Colorado is not simply unscientific and unethical, it is interrupting the animals’ vital work as a bulwark against CWD. In Colorado, 2,000 residents will buy a license to kill a Colorado lion (0.3% of nearly 6 million citizens, and 0.6% of state hunters), and 500 non-residents come into the state to buy a license for lions.
For as long as there have been hunters, and as long as hunters have been managing wildlife, we have scapegoated and persecuted apex predators, like mountain lions. It’s time we change. Mountain lions are our allies, so let’s start treating them that way. We need them to flourish.
Voting yes in support of Proposition 127 is a great beginning.
Dan Ashe is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He was the 16th director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, serving for nearly six years.
This column was published in the following newspapers:
| 10/07/2024 | Vail Daily | Vail | CO |
| 10/08/2024 | Denver Post | Denver | CO |
| 10/08/2024 | Yellowstonian | Livingston | MT |
| 10/10/2024 | Conejos County Citizen | Monte Vista | CO |
| 10/09/2024 | Center Post Dispatch | Center | CO |
| 10/09/2024 | Glendive Ranger Review | Glendive | MT |
| 10/10/2024 | Aspen Daily News | Aspen | CO |
| 10/09/2024 | Del Norte Prospector | Del Norte | CO |
| 10/09/2024 | Monte Vista Journal | Monte Vista | CO |
| 10/11/2024 | Taos News | Taos | NM |
| 10/11/2024 | Durango Telegraph | Durango | CO |
| 10/10/2024 | Durango Telegraph | Durango | CO |
| 10/10/2024 | Mineral County Miner | Monte Vista | CO |
| 10/15/2024 | Idaho Mountain Express | Ketchum | ID |
| 10/14/2024 | Glenwood Post Independent | Glenwood Springs | CO |
| 11/02/2024 | Park Record | Park City | UT |
After reading Andrew Carpenter’s commentary on this issue in Writers on the Range, I am pleased to see another point of view and I am more persuaded by the experience and expertise that informs this commentary by Dan Ashe. When I read Andrew Carpenter’s piece, it occurred to me that he should read Aldo Leopold, and I asked him in my comment what is wrong with mountain lions killing elk, which he had written was a problem.
The science is clear – ecosystems benefit from apex predators like mountain lions. Vote YES on Colorado Proposition 127!
Dan,
So if we ban “trophy” hunting, how will the population of lions be kept under control? Trophy is just a hot topic word used to get sympathy from kitten owners. As a biologist Dan, shouldn’t biology be left to P&W and not sympathetic voters. There is not conclusive way to know how many lions are living in an area. California relies on scat counts??? In 30 years of living in cat country I have seen over 30 lions(80% at night) and never seen lion scat on my ranch. My dog was killed a short distance from my back door and neighbors have had foals, calves and pigs killed by lions. Hunters tag fees support wildlife management and harvesting cats aides in population control where humans live in their habitat. If you ever shot an elk or deer with antlers, then you are also a trophy hunter Dan. Vote no on Prop 127 and let the biologists regulate animals not voters. Science before politics.
How quickly Dan has forgotten that hunters paid his salary. I hope the anti-hunters completely succeed in eliminating all hunting. Once the 39 billion per year goes away, there will be no biologists, no foresters, no wardens. I can hunt anytime I want and take what I please. Liberalism is a mental disease.
Your last sentence slams the door behind your right-wing cult prison. Everyone else is wrong and diseased. But let’s be clear. Trophy-hunting for apex predators is a tiny sliver of hunting revenue.
[…] director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dan Ashe has also supported the effort. He wrote in an opinion article in Writers on the Range, “For as long as there have been hunters, […]
Thank you Dan Ashe for your thoughtful editorial. The majority of Colorado people do not support trophy hunting of Mt lions with packs of dogs, drones, GPS collars, chased to exhaustion and shot out of a tree and fur trapping of bobcats .whose hides then are sent to China and Russia. NOT FAIR HUNTING , CRUEL , UNSPORTING AND JUST PLAIN WRONG . VOTE YES ON CATS ARENT TROPHIES, PROP 127
Wonderful articulate explanation! Thank you so much! Vote yes on proposition 127 for mountain lions!
Thank You Dan Ashe for sharing your knowledge and expertise.
This cruel and inhumane killing of our Mountain Lions and Bobcats for trophies and fur sales needs to stop now. These Cats are vital to Colorado in many ways and should not be subjected to trophy hunting anywhere.
I am Voting YES on Prop 127.
The CWD prion that can’t be eliminated in an autoclave Dan states can be neutralized by lions and wolves. Show us the science behind that Dan?!? Lion populations are huge with more and more lion and people encounters and attacks. 126 isn’t science based. This is ballot box biology. The reason lion populations are booming is because of the CPW management based on true science which included hunting. Don’t take that away from the group that created lion population success due to slight of hand anti-hunter attempts at removing hunting. Vote NO to 127.
The logical and scientific errors in Dan Ashe’s article regarding why mountain lion hunting should be banned, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraph #2: He positions ALL mountain lion hunting as trophy hunting. 100% of all trophy mountain lion hunting is already illegal. He is proposing to make something that is already illegal more illegal. This is like the scene in Animal House where the University Dean puts the fraternity on double blind probation.
Paragraphs #3 & 4: Dogs have been used by hunters for a few thousand years. Was it not “fair chase” hunting 1,000 years ago to use dogs?
Paragraph #5: Humans have stoked mythologies about fellow competitors since at least the time Little Red Riding Hood was written. The Apache had all kinds of myths and beliefs regarding predators. Is Mr. Ashe suggesting the Apache were wrong with their societal mythologies regarding predators?
Paragraph #6: He advises that “we,” which is such a “Royal We,” do this to hide our own inadequacies. Maybe he does this to hide his inadequacies but to suggest that 100% of humans do it to hide their inadequacies is quite the generalization.
Paragraph #6: “It is much easier to blame declining elk… populations on mountain lions…than to grapple with habitat loss and fragmentation….” That is the argument I hear made by city people. 100% of the people I know who live in the country argue the issue is habitat loss created by all the city and rich, out-of-state people building trophy homes. If he really wants to help mountain lions, then ban trophy homes in prime mule deer country.
Paragraph #7: “Emerging science tells us that these apex predators aren’t the enemy, they’re allies. They are likely providing an important ecosystem service in checking the spread of chronic wasting disease, CWD, … by targeting animals weakened by the disease.” Emerging? For a wildlife “scientist” (his term, not mine), the former head of U.S. Fish and Wildlife, to figure out just now that lions like to eat the animals least likely to put up a fight suggests a seriously poor education. I think this was taught in hunters education classes at least as far back as the 1970’s! There’s nothing “emerging” about this point.
Paragraph #11: “As a scientist, I know that correlation is not causation…. There is good science showing that lions will selectively prey on CWD-infected animals because infected animals are likely easier to kill. Where there are no lions, there are higher rates of CWD-infected animals: where healthy lion population exists, there are low levels of CWD infection or none at all.”
Then in Paragraph #12 he states that, “Killing 500 lions… is interrupting the animals’ vital work as a bulwark against CWD…” He must have missed his statistics class or his ethics class because his correlations are wrong, in addition to his causations. His statement fails using correct statistical measures. What he does not say is that where CWD rates are high, and lions don’t exist, is because those areas are not good lion habitats. It’s not as if hunters killed all the lions in those areas. Furthermore, no proof is offered that other habitat can support more lions even if hunting lions is banned.
The proper correlation study is to take two areas with good lion habitat and study the difference in CWD rates given different populations for lions.
His point is a bait and switch, completely disingenuous, or incompetent set of statements. As a scientist, he fails in statistics, and his point should be totally disregarded.
Also, it was “science” that started CWD in a laboratory in Ft. Collins. It had never been found prior.
Paragraph #12: “Killing 500 lions… is not simply unscientific and unethical…” The Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists who study lion populations likely have true scientific evidence that killing 500 lions does not disrupt the environment or biosphere. In my 50 years living in Colorado, Colorado wildlife biologists have always seemed to take their jobs seriously and often cut the number of licenses in the face of huge public outcries because they do their jobs scientifically. I wonder how they feel having Mr. Ashe stating they have failed to do their jobs.
Paragraph #12: Mr. Ashe notes that 2,500 licenses are sold annually. These licenses generate around $370,000 in fees to pay for biologists and environmental enhancements to offset trophy home developments. Mr. Ashe does not offer in his article to make up this $370,000 out of his pocket. I’m always suspicious of people who won’t put their money where their mouth is.
Paragraph #13: “We need them [lions] to flourish.” What Mr. Ashe is obviously wanting but has hidden behind his bad statistics and poor logic and is that he wants to ban mountain lion hunting because he does not like mountain lion hunting. As the money person behind this movement has publicly stated, he wants to eliminate hunting of these periphery animals so that anti-hunters can then build the case for eliminating all hunting.
Mountain lion hunting is highly, highly regulated. All lions must be reported to Parks and Wildlife. All hunters must have passed general AND specialized hunters education courses. No trophy hunting is allowed. Hunters pay the salaries for a lot of good people helping the environment, wildlife, and helping figure out how to deal with CWD. Maybe Mr. Ashe should contribute $300,000 annually to the study of CWD because those prions stay in the dirt for a long time even after a lion might eat the deer. In other words, lions eating infected deer won’t solve the problem.
Hiding behind spurious and poor arguments does not solve the CWD problem. He makes up trophy hunting as an excuse even though trophy hunting is already illegal. He ties some Royal We cultural values he’s made up to 100% of humans, kind of a cancel society approach. And he ignores the financial impact. In other words, he does not seem to like lion hunting, and it seems to me he makes up stuff to make people think he has a case. It seems to me he is hoping too few people think through or research the true situation.