Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists captured the wolf on Aug. 30 and it died on Sept. 3, the agency announced Monday. Biologists had found the wolf, identified as 2309-OR, in poor condition, with several injuries to a hind leg and severely underweight, according to CPW.

“CPW staff believes that it was unlikely the wolf would have survived for very long in the wild,” the agency said in a news release.

State wildlife officials decided in August to capture the Copper Creek pack after the male wolf killed and maimed multiple cattle and sheep in the Middle Park area. The removal of the wolves from the wild was a setback for the voter-mandated effort to reintroduce the apex predator to the state’s landscape, beginning with the release of 10 wolves in the state in December.

Another of the reintroduced wolves died this spring. The state’s known wolf population now stands at 14: eight survivors among the reintroduced adults, plus the four pups from the Copper Creek pack and two adult wolves remaining from a pack established earlier by wolves that migrated from Wyoming.

The decision to recapture the pack came with risk and uncertainty, CPW Director Jeff Davis said in an interview. Wildlife officials did not want to remove the male wolf while the pups and the female wolf relied on his hunting for survival.

“We’re trying to balance the fact that we have so few animals on the landscape, and (we have) our mandate to restore a sustainable population of wolves while avoiding and minimizing impacts to the ranching industry,” he said. “There was an opportunity to remove the animals from the area of conflict, kind of reassess what the next steps are.”

An outside agency will investigate the cause of death of the male wolf and release a report, Davis said. He expected the investigation to take between 45 and 60 days.

The rest of the recaptured Copper Creek pack — a female wolf and four pups, one more than previously known — were captured and will be held in a facility for eventual rerelease.

The pups were underweight but otherwise healthy and taken with their mother to a “large, secure enclosure with limited human interaction,” according to CPW.

Citing a concern for the safety of the wolves, Davis declined to provide more details about the facility — including whether the facility is public or private and whether it is in Colorado.

Rerelease planned later in fall

The agency plans to release the remaining pack together between mid-November and December, once the pups have reached adult size, Davis said. Biologists will collar the pups before release, he said.

The pack will be released within the same broad area where the wolves were set loose in December, Davis said. The zone stretches north to south between Kremmling and Aspen, and east to west between Loveland Pass and Rifle.

CPW officials will speak with local elected officials and landowners in possible release areas before it occurs, according to the agency.

Davis and other CPW officials began discussing the possibility of removing and relocating the Copper Creek pack in early August, he said. The agency announced its decision to capture the pack five days after the operation was underway.

CPW began attempts to capture the pack on Aug. 22. Its biologists captured the wolves using leg-hold traps over the next two weeks, in this order:

• Aug. 24: adult female, 2312-OR
• Aug. 30: adult male, 2309-OR
• Tuesday: male pup, 2401
• Wednesday: male pups, 2403 and 2405
• Thursday: female pup, 2402

Wildlife officials continued to work in the area until Sunday to ensure all pups were captured.

“After three more days of operations, CPW felt confident there were no additional pups on the landscape,” according to the agency’s news release.

CPW veterinarians do not believe the leg-hold trap caused the injury to the now-deceased male wolf’s leg, Davis said.

The leg had puncture wounds high on the inside of the back right leg, which a leg-hold trap could not inflict on an adult wolf, Davis said. That leg was atrophied and the hair on the paw had grown long, indicating that the foot had not been used regularly for a long time, Davis said. Veterinarians administered antibiotics to the captured wolf to treat infection from the wound.

State deviated from its own plan

CPW’s wolf management plan states that relocating wolves to halt depredations “has little technical merit,” since the wolves could return to their previous territory or simply start killing livestock in their new area.

Davis acknowledged that the relocation decision strayed from the plan, but he said it was a necessary choice when trying to balance the mandate to restore wolves and also “take a little bit of steam or temperature out of the ranching community by removing the conflict.”

The majority of the 24 cattle and sheep killed and maimed by wolves since reintroduction were attacked by the paired wolves that formed the Copper Creek pack, CPW officials previously said.

“This isn’t necessarily exactly what our plan says, but this is a little bit of a perfect storm event, so it requires some flexibility and unique solutions going forward,” Davis said.

The four pups had not been involved with the livestock but were approaching the age when they would begin hunting with the adults, Davis said. It’s unclear whether the female wolf has killed or injured any cattle or sheep, he said.

Had the male wolf survived, he would have been held in captivity permanently, CPW officials said at news conference Monday afternoon.

While it is difficult to digest the death of the male wolf, the relocation was the best option for CPW at the time, said Rob Edward, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project, which supported reintroduction. Now that the pack has been relocated, CPW can pivot to focusing more on preventing depredation by coordinating earlier with ranches that have a wolf presence nearby.

CPW also can make sure ranchers have easy access to nonlethal deterrents, he said.

“Now we can turn our attention to why CPW had to relocate these wolves — and what they can do better as they implement the will of the voters,” Edward said.

Despite the death of two of the 10 animals released in December, CPW officials remain optimistic that the reintroduction program will succeed.

“I’m not concerned about the overall success of the program,” Eric Odell, CPW’s wolf conservation program manager, said during the news conference.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

Voters in November will decide whether to ban the practice, along with the trapping of bobcats. That prospect has set off a deluge of competing claims about what will happen if big-cat hunting ceases.

People supporting the ban say that mountain lion populations are self-regulating and will stabilize at a level supported by their available habitat and food resources. Those opposed to Initiative 91, meanwhile, say a hunting ban would induce a rapid increase in the number of big cats, which in turn would pose a significant threat to deer and elk herds.

The truth is likely a mix of the two, according to studies and experts.

But beyond biology, the statewide ballot measure is asking Coloradans to consider deeper questions about the future of Colorado’s wildlife, both opponents and supporters said.

State wildlife managers now set hunting limits on the number of mountain lions that can be killed while still maintaining a lion population, said Samantha Miller, the manager of the Cats Aren’t Trophies campaign. The ballot initiative’s proponents want wildlife managers to focus instead on how to foster the best and healthiest population possible for the intrinsic value of having the animal roam the landscape.

“I think it’s a fundamentally different question that we’re asking,” Miller said.

Mountain lion hunters represent about 1% of the more than 200,000 big-game hunting licenses the state sells every year. But hunters opposed to the measure fear it’s the first step in a slippery slope toward banning all hunting.

“You start taking out pieces of the puzzle and soon you don’t have a puzzle,” said Dan Gates, executive director and co-founder of the Colorado Trappers and Predator Hunters Association. He’s a leader in a number of groups opposing the ban, including Colorado Wildlife Deserves Better, Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project and Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management.

Self-regulation or out-of-control growth?

The number of mountain lions in Colorado is difficult to determine because of their elusive and solitary nature. Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists estimate between 3,800 and 4,400 adult lions live in the state and say the population has grown since the species was classified as a big game species in 1965.

State biologists do not have an estimate for how many bobcats live in Colorado, but they believe the population is healthy and may be increasing in some areas.

Neither mountain lions nor bobcats are listed as federally threatened or endangered species. An estimated 20,000 to 40,000 mountain lions live in the U.S., as do more than 1.4 million bobcats.

“Both informal and recently collected empirical data suggest Colorado’s lion population is strong and lions are abundant in appropriate habitat,” states a Colorado Parks and Wildlife pamphlet on the species.

In the 2022-2023 hunting season — the most recent for which CPW data is publicly available — 2,599 people bought mountain lion hunting licenses and hunters killed 502 lions, making for a 19% success rate.

Those with opposing views of the ballot initiative posit different futures should mountain lion hunting be banned. But the truth is likely a mix of the two, said Jerry Apker, a retired CPW wildlife biologist who worked as the statewide carnivore biologist for 17 years before his 2017 retirement.

Populations would likely spike in the first years after hunting ends before increased mortality rates temper that growth, Apker said. Eventually, mountain lion populations tend to reach a stasis and fluctuate based on what food and habitat is available.

The felines have larger litters with higher survival rates when more resources are available, but in times of stress, they have smaller litters and more mortalities.

A cessation in hunting would also likely increase human interactions and conflicts with lions, he said. The most hunted lions are typically subadults and young adults — the same lions still working to establish home ranges. More young lions on the landscape means they will eventually be pushed to subprime habitats as well as more populated areas.

There’s no way of knowing how many mountain lions would live in Colorado should hunting stop — there’s never been a statewide research study done on the question, Apker said.

“I think the statements of doom and gloom that they’re going to take over are a convenient argument, but that’s not true,” he said.

Apker opposes the effort to ban mountain lion hunting, but he said other opponents’ argument that the ban would decimate elk and deer herds is far fetched. While predation might increase, the largest impacts to deer and elk populations would come from human alteration of the landscape. Less habitat, the degradation of existing habitat and brutal winters are significantly larger factors that determine population change.

California comparison

Colorado and other western states have enacted various levels of restrictions on mountain lion hunting.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission earlier this year ended the state’s spring mountain lion season, instead restricting legal hunting to a single season that runs from November through March. The commission also banned hunters from using electronic recordings of other lions or distressed prey to lure mountain lions to an area.

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in July voted in favor of stricter limits and shorter seasons for cougar hunting. It acted on a petition filed by a number of local and national conservation and animal rights groups.

California voters in 1990 chose to ban mountain lion hunting in the state permanently, though hunting of the felines had not been permitted since 1972 — when then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a moratorium. California is the only state with a full ban on hunting pumas, and it officially states that its aim is to instead conserve the species “for their ecological and intrinsic values,” according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

A study published in 2020 compared California’s lion population with those in 10 western states where hunting is legal, including Colorado. The authors found that California had similar cougar population densities and similar average deer densities as the other states.

California also had the third-lowest rate of cougar-human conflicts per capita, similar rates of cattle depredation and lower rates of sheep depredations.

“In sum, our analysis of the records obtained from state and federal wildlife agencies found no evidence that sport hunting of pumas has produced the management outcomes sought by wildlife managers aside from providing a sport hunting opportunity,” the authors wrote.

Charges of “ballot-box biology”

Proponents of the hunting ban say it is a way to address unethical hunting methods, like the use of dogs, and whether hunting is necessary to manage lion populations. Opponents say it is another example of “ballot-box biology” that lets the majority make decisions often left to wildlife managers.

Apker disagrees the initiative is “ballot-box biology” — he doesn’t think it’s about biology at all. Instead, the question is a broader referendum on hunting as a whole, he said.

“The bottom line is that there are people who think hunting is wrong,” said Apker, who has voiced his opposition to the ballot measure publicly.

Proponents of the ban say hunting for mountain lions is trophy hunting because hunters are allegedly seeking the thrill of the hunt as well as the skins and heads of lions — not the meat. The ballot measure, if passed, would ban trophy hunting, defined as hunting “practiced primarily for the display of an animal’s head, fur, or other body parts, rather than for utilization of the meat.”

Cougar hunters have said repeatedly that while they do often pose with their kill — just like elk and deer hunters — they also eat the meat and are not hunting solely for a trophy. Colorado law requires that mountain lion meat be prepared for consumption by hunters. Gates, from the hunters association, has made steaks, tacos and burritos from lion meat.

“Not only do people eat mountain lion, but they also cherish mountain lion,” he said.

But ballot initiative supporters express doubt — Miller, for one, says there’s no way to know whether meat is eaten. The campaign is not against hunting, she said, but opposes unethical hunting.

“There are plenty of other species to hunt that aren’t so problematic under hunting ethics,” said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project and a lifelong hunter, during a news conference last month in support of the ban.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

Nitrogen and ammonia, largely generated by heavy traffic along the Front Range and by agriculture in Larimer and Weld counties, are carried by air currents to the highest elevations of the treasured national park and deposited by rain and snow onto sensitive alpine tundra, where thin soil and delicate plants struggle to buffer the pollution.

If the contamination worsens, wildflowers could disappear and algae could bloom in alpine lakes, changing the waters’ look and endangering fish, scientists told The Denver Post.

“This issue gets worse as you go up in elevation as the sensitivity gets higher,” Jim Cheatham, an environmental protection specialist with the National Park Service’s air resource division, said during a recent meeting with Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission.

Over time, the excess nitrogen — largely from vehicle exhaust — acts as a fertilizer to plants and changes the ecosystem, said Jill Baron, a research ecologist for the U.S. Geological Survey and senior research scientist at Colorado State University.

“You’re fertilizing Rocky Mountain National Park,” Baron said. “But you don’t really want to fertilize a national park.”

Baron, who has spent her career studying excess nitrogen’s effect on the park, said she has seen the beginnings of algae growing in mountain lakes because they are getting nutrients from increased nitrogen in the air.

“It’s a change from pristine conditions,” she said. “We are not at the bright green and stinky stage yet, but we are at the beginning.”

The point of creating national parks was to preserve pristine land across the United States, so scientists want to protect Rocky Mountain’s natural beauty and prevent as much human-caused change as possible, Cheatham said.

“The tundra is the primary resource the park was created to protect,” he said.

Over the years, state and federal air quality regulators have managed to reduce the amount of wet nitrogen — how the main pollutant is identified once it becomes trapped in rain or snow — that drifts into the park. But the amount of wet nitrogen falling in the park is 0.6 kilograms short of a 2022 goal of 2.2 kilograms per hectare per year, according to an Aug. 15 milestone report presented to the Air Quality Control Commission.

Ammonia pollution exceeds nitrogen

One component of wet nitrogen — nitrogen oxides — has been reduced since the project began nearly 20 years ago.

However, ammonia — which is also a form of nitrogen — has increased, according to the Rocky Mountain National Park Initiative’s 2022 Nitrogen Deposition Milestone Report. In fact, ammonia is now a bigger pollutant in the park, exceeding nitrogen deposits since 2013.

The push to clean the air in the Rocky Mountain National Park began in 2004 when the Environmental Defense Fund and Trout Unlimited petitioned the federal government for improvement. Over the years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment have created plans to reduce air pollution that damages the park’s ecosystem.

This project is different than another effort to reduce the haze that is visible from Rocky Mountain National Park and other federally protected areas. That haze is created by severe ozone pollution in the region. And Rocky Mountain National Park isn’t the only Colorado park impacted by the haze.

Every five years, scientists from the National Park Service and the state health department present a report to the Air Quality Control Commission, which establishes rules to regulate air pollution in the state. The most recent report was presented in August, and the next one is due in 2029. The latest Rocky Mountain National Park Initiative report is open to public comment until Sept. 23.

In between reports, scientists monitor the park’s air quality and work with various partners, including the Colorado Livestock Association and Colorado Dairy Farmers, to figure out ways to reduce pollutants flowing into the park.

The bulk of the nitrogen pollution comes from the nitrogen oxides produced by burning fossil fuels through driving gasoline-powered cars and trucks, as well as oil and gas production.

Rocky Mountain suffers from the same severe ozone pollution seen in metro Denver and the northern Front Range, Cheatham said. So any attempts to improve air quality through emissions reductions in lower elevations will help the park.

Scientists have recorded a 15% reduction in nitrogen pollution in the past five years, Cheatham said.

However, ammonia pollution has increased, with the highest recorded levels occurring in 2021, according to the presentation given to the air commission.

That pollution is generated by agriculture, primarily in Weld and Larimer counties. Cattle waste, particularly from feed lots, contains ammonia and fertilizer poured onto crops contains nitrogen. Overall, the number of beef cattle in the region increased between 2018 and 2022, which was the period studied, and the number of dairy cattle reached maximum capacity in 2021, according to the latest report.

In the spring and fall when upslope weather patterns carry air from the south and southeast into the park, the ammonia from the cows is swept into the mountains, said Jeffrey Collett Jr., a CSU professor of atmospheric science.

“All of these things get pushed up the slope of the mountains,” Collett said. “As that happens, the air is expanding and cooling and you often form clouds, and that results in heavy precipitation.”

Agriculture in Larimer and Weld counties generates more than $2.5 billion annually for Colorado’s economy, according to an Aug. 15 presentation by Bonnie Laws of the Colorado Livestock Association.

Preserving “icons of pristine national beauty”

Beef producers and dairy farmers want to do their part in reducing emissions and protecting the national park, but it’s a tricky balance, Laws said during her presentation.

“Sometimes when you control air emissions you could end up creating a water quality problem or you could end up with practices that increase greenhouse gasses,” she said.

Farmers and ranchers try to reduce pollutants by being more efficient with food or fertilizer that contains nitrogen. The more difficult challenge is finding ways to minimize it on the back end.

One of the tools available is an early warning system for agriculture producers that notifies them when an upslope storm is in the forecast. The producers receive emails and text messages days ahead of the predicted storm so they can change how they manage their livestock.

For example, a feedlot manager could hold off on cleaning big manure piles, which kicks up ammonia, or change their pen cleaning schedules until the storm passes, Collett said.

Some are testing whether wetting a pen’s surface ahead of a storm reduces the amount of pollutants lifted into the air. Others are looking at whether changing the nitrogen and protein in animal feed would make a difference.

“There are people working on trying to test these different practices to find ways to reduce these ammonia emissions without impacting their ability to produce beef or milk or whatever their goal is in the operation,” Collett said.

Megan McCarthy, a senior air quality planner with the state health department, said the combined efforts are slowing the potential damage to the park and the various agencies and organizations involved are a one-of-a-kind effort in the country.

Baron, the ecologist, said there are some things, such as large-scale global warming, that cannot be controlled by people in Colorado. But efforts to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions statewide not only help the park but also people who suffer from respiratory ailments.

“Catching it early rather than waiting until it’s a crisis has been very helpful,” she said. “These parks are important to the American people as well as all over the world. The lakes themselves are icons of pristine national beauty. It’s one of the few places on Earth where things are protected.

“Those things are fixable if we have the social and political willpower to do so.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

Several people called 911 just after 9 p.m. Tuesday to report someone harassing bear cubs near the 1300 block of Greene Street, the sheriff’s office said Thursday.

A deputy arrived to find a crowd of people in a narrow alley with a mama bear and her two cubs and directed the bystanders to leave the area before using a beanbag round to get the sow off the roof.

As the bear headed down the block with her cubs, the officer used a second beanbag round to keep her moving out of downtown. The second shot penetrated the bear’s lower abdomen and killed her, the sheriff’s office said.

Sheriff’s officials contacted Colorado Parks and Wildlife officers, who removed the bear and captured, tagged and relocated the two cubs.

“The officer involved was acting accordingly, using commonly practiced methods, and attempting to save this bear’s life, not cause any serious harm. This is a most unfortunate incident, and our entire office is saddened by the outcome,” agency officials said in a statement.

While orphaned bear cubs can be taken to a wildlife rehabilitation center in Del Norte, wildlife officers determined the two cubs could be released immediately, said CPW spokesperson John Livingston.

“These cubs were in good body condition, at a great weight for this time of year and released to a place with ample natural forage to continue to pack on weight ahead of denning this winter,” Livingston said.

While bear sightings are not uncommon in town, Silverton Mayor Dayna Kranker issued a statement calling for community members to form a coalition to reduce harm from human-wildlife interactions.

Sign up to get crime news sent straight to your inbox each day.

Because of their love for the area and their impact on Glacier Basin – to improve the fishing in the area for his guests, Abner dammed the creek to create the lake – the lake now bears their surname. And because of the busy Sprague Lake Lodge they operated from 1910 to 1940, there are many trails to explore in the vicinity, which became Rocky Mountain National Park in 1915.

One of those trails is the Glacier Creek Trail.

This trail isn’t so much a single trail but a network of paths through the forests surrounding Sprague Lake. Adventurous hikers may want to take the long way around, starting at Sprague Lake, Glacier Basin Campground (if camping) or the Storm Pass Trailhead.

Shorter hikes can be done as a loop around Sprague Lake, up onto the moraine above the lake and down into the forest, taking the turn off to the right rather than heading to Storm Pass Trailhead.

A really wonderful option for a full-day hike is to start at Sprague Lake, pick up the Glacier Creek Trail at the east end of the lake, follow it east into the forest and then turn right to follow it back west again towards Bear Lake.

The network of trails parallel Bear Lake Corridor, navigating past many meadows in this valley, and up to Bear Lake. At Bear Lake, follow the eastern side of the lake to pick up the Bear Lake – Bierstadt Lake Trail, following it to Bierstadt Lake and then down to the Bierstadt Lake Trailhead. From this point, cross the road to the Storm Pass Trailhead and pick the Glacier Creek Trail back up on the forest and head east to Sprague Lake.

At about 8 miles, this loop provides some astonishing views plus many opportunities to see wildlife, like mule deer, snowshoe hare, elk, pine squirrels, northern flickers, Stellar’s jays, dark-eye juncos and many other species of forest-loving birds.

For a shorter trek, take the two-mile loop that starts at the east end of Sprague Lake. Near the bridge, the trail heads down into the forest, snaking through ponderosa pine and past a lush green meadow.

At about a half mile, the trail reaches a junction, where hikers turn right. Follow this trail as it begins to climb up the moraine. In about 500 feet, the trail reaches the Glacier Creek Trail, which runs northeast and southwest. Turn right at this junction to head towards Boulder Brook and Bear Lake.

Follow the trail, which is now the Glacier Creek Trail, for 1.1 miles as it stays along a level path on the moraine through thick forest and above meadows.

At slightly more than one mile, the trail reaches another junction, connecting with the Storm Pass Trail. Make a right at this junction.

Interestingly, the trail crosses the Alva B. Adams Tunnel at this point. This 13-mile cement-lined tunnel passes underneath Rocky Mountain National Park to deliver water from Lake Granby to East Portal on the west side of Estes Park. There are no markers or indicators of what lies beneath the ground but using the COTrex app will show you the path of the tunnel below the trail.

In 0.3 miles, the trail reaches a four-way junction, with connections to Glacier Creek, Storm Pass, Bear Lake, Bierstadt Lake and Glacier Gorge trails. Take a right and follow the trail through the thinner forest.

At 0.2 miles, the trail reaches the Sprague Lake parking lot on the west end of Sprague Lake.

This section of RMNP requires a timed entry reservation from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. until October 20. The hiker shuttle bus takes hikers into the Bear Lake Corridor but does not stop at Sprague Lake. A park pass is also required to enter Rocky Mountain National Park.

For more information about timed entry or hiking in RMNP, visit https://www.nps.gov/romo/index.htm.

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, The Adventurist, to get outdoors news sent straight to your inbox.

A critically endangered species, condors flying in the wild and rugged canyons of northern Arizona and southern Utah number only 85 – a population hard hit in 2023 by avian influenza. They’re seldom seen in Colorado. But in late March this year, somebody killed one in a remote area northeast of Lewis and west of McPhee Reservoir in Montezuma County, Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials said in a news release.

This massive dead bird was discovered about 24 hours after it was killed, CPW officials stated.

“Previous leads have not yielded results,” the officials said, so CPW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials are asking for any information regarding the killing and those who are responsible.

California condors are protected under the Endangered Species Act, which means it is illegal for anyone to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect them. Anyone involved in killing this condor could face a third-degree felony charge of wanton destruction of protected wildlife, with a maximum fine of $5,000, restitution of $1,500, and a five-year prison sentence, CPW officials said.

In 1987, the California condor population had declined to just 22 birds in the wild. A federally led recovery program has relied on captive breeding and release of condors. The total world population numbers more than 560, officials said. More than half are flying free in Arizona, Utah, California, and Mexico.

Anybody with information about the bird’s killing can call the Colorado Operation Game Thief hotline at 1-877-265-6648, send an email to game.thief@state.co.us, notify federal authorities by calling 844-397-8477, or submit it via cpw.state.co.us/hunting/poaching-and-operation-game-thief. Anybody providing information that leads to a successful prosecution may be eligible for a reward, CPW and USFWS officials said, adding that any requests for confidentiality will be respected.

Our coalition held a press conference Friday at The Wild Animal Sanctuary, the perfect venue, given that founder Pat Craig is renowned for saving big cats from horrific cruelty at the hands of mankind.

On this cool August morning, we saw a mountain lion, her sweet butterfly-patterned face hiding in the grass before she walked away, which is quintessential lion behavior when humans are present. We saw two lynx and a bobcat, making up all three of the wild cats that will be spared from trophy hunting and fur trapping with a “yes” vote.

Among the cats were CATs supporters: A powerful display of serious-minded voices for true wildlife conservation.

The room was silent, however, when shown raw footage of packs of dogs chasing lions and bobcats into trees, where they were shot as trophies.

Our campaign follows the journalistic virtue of “show, don’t tell” and this film shows the lion trophy hunting outfitters, who sell our wild cat as “your trophy” for upwards of $8,000 (the exact price for a lesser-maned African lion). In their own words, Colorado lion trophy hunters and fur trappers told the crowd that they were after their personal big trophy lion, a bucket list item, a thrill-kill.

Watch the video, “This is NOT Conservation,” on YouTube.

Veterinarian, Dr. Valerie Johnson, who holds a PhD from Colorado State University, connected the dots. “Mountain lion trophy hunters of Colorado are in the same vein as the people who pay big money to go to Africa and cut the tusks off elephants, or heads off lions,” she told the crowd.

Erik Molvar spoke as a hunter, although he’s a well-published biologist in wildlife conservation.

“Hunters are like me, they subscribe to hunting ethics … Hunting for big cats is trophy hunting, pure and simple. It’s not to fill the freezer, it’s to bring home a trophy … to brag about and impress your friends,” Molvar said. “That doesn’t respect the quarry, so it doesn’t deserve any particular respect from the general public, either.”

Perhaps the most well-received voice was that of J Dallas Gudgell, an experienced environmental scientist and member of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes.

“As an Indigenous person concerned with and raised in a framework of right relationship with the natural world, I find trophy hunting and egocentric activity upends nature’s natural balance,” explained Gudgell, who is Wildlife and Tribal Policy Director for the International Wildlife Coexistence Network, one of the 100 groups endorsing CATs. “I support the people’s right to participate in the Democratic process to protect wild cats from senseless use.”

Dr. Christine Capaldo, a specialist in feline medicine, spoke of the bobcat in her southwestern Colorado community who was fur-trapped and strangled to death just to sell its fur on the lucrative Chinese fur market.

“Allowing unlimited numbers of bobcats to be killed isn’t about wildlife biology or management, it’s about greed, trophies, the despicable fur trade to China, and a complete disregard for the welfare of wildlife …Colorado’s native wild cats should not ever be for sale.”

Dr. Mickey Pardo, PhD, a wildlife biologist in Fort Collins, recently featured in the New York Times and National Geographic for his work, explained,

“As a biologist, I support the CATs ballot measure to ban trophy hunting and trapping of wild cats in Colorado. The scientific evidence is clear that hunting these animals is completely unnecessary and the methods used to hunt them are exceptionally cruel.”

Deanna Meyer, born and raised in Colorado, runs a rural family farm in lion country, abutting National Forest Lands, and she will vote “yes” to CATs based on her personal experience.

“One Christmas Day two years ago, I followed the sounds, finding six dogs who treed a terrified bobcat on my land,” Meyer said. “I was infuriated when I found out that there was nothing I could do. When this initiative passes, it will end this harassment and protect lions and bobcats who aren’t causing conflicts with humans.”

Delia Malone closed the event, speaking as a West Slope field ecologist, and Wildlife Chair for the Colorado Sierra Club, which endorses CATs. She’s vice chair of Roaring Fork Audubon, which is one of six Audubon Societies of Colorado that endorses CATs as well.

“At my home in Redstone which borders roadless area, we’re lucky enough to have a cougar family that has lived in the forest above us for generations — we’ve never had a negative encounter with the cougar family,” Malone said. “Trophy killing of lions contradicts the science, it is ethically wrong and should be outlawed.”

Every speaker at this event shows Colorado voters who we are: A vast coalition of wildlife experts, conservationists and diverse citizens, statewide including the most rural citizens living with lions, who all agree that this kind of fringe hunting for heads and fur has no place in the great state of Colorado, where we respect ethical outdoor activities, including ethical hunting of deer and elk for food.

As Pat Craig said so well: “Let’s be clear: Mountain lions and bobcats are not a food source as many callous individuals like to suggest. Instead, they are hunted solely for their heads and beautiful coats.”

Julie Marshall is the director of communications for Cats Aren’t Trophies.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Roger Hill hiked across federally managed public land to enter the river, donned his straw hat, and cast his dry-fly line along that privately owned stretch last weekend without incident. This week, he urged other anglers statewide to replicate his civil disobedience and assert a public right to fish and float on navigable rivers  — a freedom established in other western states.

It’s the latest twist in a fight that began in the summer of 2012 on this same stretch of the Arkansas River, just upriver from the confluence with Texas Creek near Cotopaxi. A landowner threw baseball-sized rocks at Hill, forcing him to leave.  A few years later, her husband fired shots at Hill’s friend. A retired physicist from Colorado Springs, Hill filed a lawsuit claiming a public right to wade on riverbeds — and won — until landowners, with support from Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. High court judges in June 2023 dismissed Hill’s case, ruling that he lacked legal standing to proactively sue to establish a public right to wade in streams and rivers.

The ruling means Hill cannot advance his legal case unless he can raise the public access issue as a defense.

He had notified the Fremont County sheriff before he went fishing last Saturday, assuming an arrest or ticket for trespassing would give him the legal standing the state Supreme Court has required to have the core of his case heard.

“I didn’t catch a single fish and I’m pissed off that I wasn’t arrested,” Hill said. “Somebody’s got to do it…. Strength in numbers would help.”

“He needs to stop or suffer the consequences,” said James Gibson, an owner of property where Hill fished. “If he’s not breaking the law, there’s nothing to be done. I hope this gets settled.”

Fremont County Sheriff’s Cpl. Caleb Chase said the county would leave any enforcement to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, part of the state government. At CPW, a spokesman said the agency oversees fish but lacks jurisdiction over water and land adjacent to Colorado’s streams and rivers.

Colorado’s AG Weiser declined to comment.

Colorado authorities allow private ownership of riverbeds while other states, including Montana, New Mexico, and Nevada, treat rivers deemed “navigable” at statehood as public. But recreational activities, including fishing and whitewater rafting, increasingly play a primary role in the state’s economy and strain Colorado’s position as an outlier. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states hold ownership of navigable riverbeds in trust for the public. Public access has become a vexing issue as wealthy landowners purchase more property along the West’s mountain streams and rivers.

This time, Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers co-chairman Don Holmstrom joined Hill in fishing along the Arkansas, where trappers and railroad companies in the 1870s used the river for the commercial purposes of transporting pelts and tens of thousands of railroad ties.

“Roger Hill is a hero,” said Holmstrom, who has helped lobby for an intervention by Gov. Jared Polis to designate public-access waterways. The increasing buy-ups of riverside property in the West “makes it a fight for the public interest versus those wealthy landowners who are fighting against the public interest,” he said. “These are public pathways throughout the state that people should be able to enjoy — to fish, float and run the whitewater. ”

University of Colorado law professor Mark Squillace, who has helped represent Hill, said the state Supreme Court dismissal over legal standing misinterpreted well-established principles. “You don’t have to put yourself in harm’s way in order to test your legal rights.” He has criticized state leaders for siding with riverside landowners.

“People should exercise their right to use the beds of navigable streams,” Squillace said. “Unless we can get somebody arrested or ticketed, or something, we don’t have a way to get into court.”

Landowners said they were aware of Hill’s defiant fishing last weekend. They’d assumed the Supreme Court dismissal ended the fight.

“We own the river bottom,” said Earl Pfeiffer, a resident since 2010. “Essentially, what these guys are asking is that the state takes ownership of the land. If the government wants to take it, we have to figure out a way to be compensated for that. I would rather not deed it over to the state,” he said.

He and his wife enjoy sitting at their house just 35 feet above the water as it flows.

“It is entertaining for us to sit up on our deck and watch people fishing,” Pfeiffer said. “If people want to fish, we are not going to stop them – unless they are really rowdy, making a mess, throwing garbage. It would be great if they’d ask permission. We are not here to give anybody a hard time.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

Initiative 91 would outlaw the hunting of bobcats and mountain lions. The initiative is both unnecessary and a slap in the face to rural populations who live with these predators and take part in their management through hunting. These animals are plentiful and well managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife in partnership with hunters, many of whom hail from the rural Western Slope.

Contrary to advocates’ assertions, Colorado law already prohibits hunting mountain lions for sport; the meat must be harvested for consumption. Initiative 91 not only rejects science-based wildlife management, it is a deliberate affront to the rural way of life which for many includes hunting and fishing.

Not surprisingly, Colorado’s most recent experience with ballot box biology hasn’t gone well for rural Coloradans. Veal beat venison in a wolf taste test. Thanks to Proposition 114, wolves were reintroduced to western Colorado in December 2023. Soon after, several of them decided to ditch swift deer for slow livestock. They’ve killed 16 calves, cows, and sheep in Grand County alone.

Ranchers appealed to the state for relief. CPW is planning to trap the depredating wolves to relocate them. During similar trap and relocation efforts in Montana, mated pairs separated and abandoned their pups. Scientists over at CPW knew the potential consequences of bringing back this apex predator and resisted it until a narrow majority of voters forced their hand. If urban voters had known that the romantic notion of wolf reintroduction meant eviscerated livestock and dead puppies, would they have voted differently?

Wolves won’t be the only ones going after ranchers’ livelihoods if another initiative passes. Denver voters will be asked in November to shut down the 70-year-old employee-owned Superior Farm slaughterhouse near the National Western Stock Show complex. Not only would the employees lose their jobs, the closure will adversely impact sheep ranchers and the state’s economy.

According to a study by the Colorado State University Regional Economic Development Institute, the business generates around $861 million in economic activity and supports some 3,000 jobs. The Denver facility carries about a fifth of all U.S. sheep processing capacity. If it is not rebuilt elsewhere in Colorado, Colorado ranchers will have fewer options and could go out of business for want of places to send their livestock.

According to the study, the loss of U.S. processing capacity will prompt markets to replace domestic supply with imports. Consumers will likely pay more for meat. Also, not every country that raises and slaughters sheep has same humane livestock regulations and standards as the U.S.

A minority of voters could negatively impact the majority not just in Colorado. The people pushing this initiative represent an even smaller minority. They don’t believe humans should eat meat, according to their website, and this is their way to take a bite out of the age-old practice.

Most vegetarians and vegans are live and let live but a small percentage would like to foist their lifestyle on the rest of us. It only took 2% of registered voters in Denver to push this ballot question that would single out a business for closure, toss its employees out of work, harm ranchers throughout the state, cost the state millions of dollars in economic activity, force markets to import meat, and reduce choices for those who want locally-sourced products.  It’s hard to imagine a worse idea.

If urban and suburban voters are tempted to support these no-good, feel-good initiatives, they should first visit their neighbors on either side of the Front Range who will be impacted.  A little empathy for rural Colorado is wanting.

Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on X: @kristakafer.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

While the phenomenon sounds straight out of a cartoon, it’s actually more common than you’d think, experts said. It’s a big enough problem that electric utility companies brainstorm efforts to mitigate bird electrocution, said Taylor Barnes, a Fort Collins-based biologist and geographic information systems specialist who co-authored a 2022 study entitled “Wildland Fires Ignited by Avian Electrocutions.”

Researchers found no coordinated records or data illustrating how frequently electrocuted birds dropping off power lines spark wildfires, so they sifted through Google searches of avian-induced fires in the United States from 2014 to 2018 and found 44 reported cases.

California had the highest number of incidents at 15. Colorado had two in 2016 — one in Littleton and one in Berthoud, the study found.

However, in July and August of this year, Colorado’s Front Range has been the scene of at least three reported bird combustions resulting in wildfires.

Investigators determined the flaming carcass of an incinerated bird sparked a July 13 brush fire in Arapahoe County that burned more than 1,100 acres and destroyed property southeast of Byers.

On July 31, the West Metro Fire District responded to a small brush fire in Jefferson County near Morrison after a bird was electrocuted by overhead power lines, caught on fire and fell to the ground, igniting the grass and brush below, the fire district said.

And on Tuesday, firefighters from West Metro and South Metro Fire Rescue responded to a 35-acre brush fire burning near a Denver Water treatment plant and Roxborough Park in Douglas County. Officials said the cause appeared to be a bird that hit a power line and fell to the ground, catching the grass on fire.

No humans were injured in these brush fires, and they were all contained.

“We’re getting more grassland or wildland fires from birds than we normally do,” said Mark Jurgemeyer, interim chief operating officer of CORE Electric Cooperative, which services more than 375,000 Coloradans with electricity.

CORE, which serves areas in Adams, Elbert and Douglas counties, was the provider for at least two of the recent avian electrocution incidents, in Byers and Roxborough Park.

Xcel Energy and CORE both serve the Morrison area, so that one is trickier to determine, Jurgemeyer said.

Xcel was the first utility in the country to enter into an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to proactively address issues involving birds and powerline structures, said Michelle Aguayo, Xcel media relations representative.

“We understand our infrastructure can be attractive to birds for roosting and building nests and can pose a collision or electrocution hazard to birds,” Aguayo said. “Our facilities are designed to meet industry standards that prevent or reduce the likelihood of avian incidents.”

Jonathan Ashford, fire investigator with the West Metro Fire Protection District, said that, during Tuesday’s fire investigation, they found four birds with varying degrees of burn damage in the area of the fire’s origin near an electrical line. Normally, a bird in the path of fire would fly away, Ashford said, so this was a good clue that the burned birds started the fire.

Ashford said he believed the birds likely would have been close enough together to face joint electrocution.

There are a couple of reasons why birds are increasingly meeting an end better suited for the “Final Destination” films.

It’s partially because of climate change, Barnes said.

An electrocuted bird is more likely to ignite a fire if conditions are dry, he said. Nearly half of Colorado is now in drought or has near-drought conditions, according to the most recent report from the U.S. Drought Monitor.

In July, a series of wildfires burning along the Front Range foothills killed one person, destroyed structures, caused the governor to activate the Colorado National Guard and enveloped sweltering metro Denver in a heavy cloud of smoke.

In addition to climate, there is the human introduction of electrical utility equipment into the environment, Barnes said.

Birds can sit on one wire, no problem. But if a bird touches a second wire, it opens a path of electricity right through the bird’s body, with a resulting zap that can be potent enough to send the bird up in flames.

Larger birds like hawks and eagles can be more at risk of electrocution, Barnes said, because their wider wingspans put them at greater risk of touching two different wires simultaneously.

There are ways to design power poles and their accompanying structures to make them less susceptible to bird electrocution, Barnes said.

Barnes works at EDM International, an electrical utilities consulting company, where the biologist tackles this very issue.

For new electrical poles, Barnes said designers can ensure enough space between “energized components” to allow birds to exist without touching two electrical components at once.

However, many utility companies can’t rip out and replace all their infrastructure, Barnes said, so there are ways to retrofit existing equipment to make it safer for birds. For example, utility companies can cover problematic wires or exposed electrical equipment with insulating material or put cages around pieces they don’t want birds coming into contact with.

“It’s amazing how resourceful birds can be when they want to be,” Jurgemeyer said. “We are constantly trying different products and different ways of working with vendors to come up with stuff that doesn’t exist to figure out ways to keep animals away from those energized parts.”

Sometimes smaller birds on the hunt for bugs will drive their beaks under insulated coverings in hopes of a snack, only to find an electrical jolt instead, CORE’s Jurgemeyer said.

“Every utility in the country that has overhead power lines has the same, exact problem,” he said.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.