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.

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.

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.