CO Anti-Hunters New Target: Bighorn Sheep Hunting

Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
817
We sort of saw this bubble up back in 2024 during the Proposition 127: mountain lion hunting ban debate. Trish Zornio, self-described scientist and failed Senate candidate, published an article in the Colorado Sun enthusiastically endorsing Prop 127 and encouraging Coloradans to vote in favor. Also in the article Zornio makes the case to not stop at mountain lions, why not ban bighorn sheep hunting too?

Fast forward to today and the topic came back up in public comment during the 18 July CPW Commission meeting. One prominent speaker, Rainer Gerbach (sp), criticized the current reliance on the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) model for managing ungulate populations, particularly bighorn sheep. He argued that this model is scientifically and ethically indefensible, leading to unsustainable hunting practices that threaten the ecological balance. Gerbach (sp) called for a transition to resilience-based wildlife governance, emphasizing the need for policies that prioritize ecological integrity over short-term hunting yields.

If you attend many commission meetings or watch public testimony regarding anti-hunting bills in the General Assembly, you likely know who Rainer Gerbatsch is. He is quite notable in the anti-hunting movement here in Colorado, regularly publishing articles and providing public comment bashing hunters and trappers, spreading false narratives, and advocating for the elimination of hunting and trapping. All in the name of biodiversity and coexistence, of course.

That's right, bighorn sheep hunting is "ethically indefensible". This is the strategy employed by anti-hunting groups in places like Colorado and Washington, calling into question or creating doubt regarding the agency wildlife biologists and their models. Then you make the case to eliminate harvest. Unfortunately this is unlikely to be the last heard of this.
 
Ethically indefensible...????!!!! Hunters dollars literally put them back on their native landscape and is the single funding driver for their abundancy now. The science actively monitors each herd and adjusts for sustainable growth in almost every herd. In herds that grow beyond sustainable rates, hunters dollars are used for relocation efforts to maintain dwindling herds and vary genetic footprint. CPW being at the forefront of this effort ought to tell this individual to pound sand, as this is one of the most successful programs highlighting the effectiveness of the North American Model.
 
Ethically indefensible...????!!!! Hunters dollars literally put them back on their native landscape and is the single funding driver for their abundancy now. The science actively monitors each herd and adjusts for sustainable growth in almost every herd. In herds that grow beyond sustainable rates, hunters dollars are used for relocation efforts to maintain dwindling herds and vary genetic footprint. CPW being at the forefront of this effort ought to tell this individual to pound sand, as this is one of the most successful programs highlighting the effectiveness of the North American Model.
You are 100% correct. CPW biologists absolutely understand what you just stated and could totally disprove many of Gerbatsch’s claims. However, CPW receives their guidance and direction from the Governor’s office (through DNR Director) and directly from the CPW Commission (Gov appointees). I suspect many of the CPW Commissioners are quite receptive to Gerbatsch’s claims. Which is why it is so critical for hunters to show up to commission meetings, provide public comment, push back on anti-hunting commission appointments (through your state Senator), and continue to support Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management.
 
I can see the amount of money auction tags are bringing and the number of sheep a few that buy them regularly are killing as something that will be used as an argument against sheep hunting

If they are truly concerned about sheep abundance though they need to go after domestics and not hunters
 
I would be curious as to how much these anti hunting groups donate, contribute towards the benefit of the wildlife that they are so called trying to protect. I believe that the hunting community is the mainstay for all conservation in providing programs that will enhance any species, we are the caretakers of our wildlife.
 
I would be curious as to how much these anti hunting groups donate, contribute towards the benefit of the wildlife that they are so called trying to protect. I believe that the hunting community is the mainstay for all conservation in providing programs that will enhance any species, we are the caretakers of our wildlife.
I read an article once that covered this, it was written by an outdoor publication, so take account for bias... The dollars contributed by anti's is 75% from a very few well off individuals in large dollar terms, tons of small dollar donations by the cat ladies that make up the remaining 25%. Most of the organizations spend their dollars on advertizing their agenda, and organizing fund raising events over spending diirectly on the habitat or animals themselves.
 
I would be curious as to how much these anti hunting groups donate, contribute towards the benefit of the wildlife that they are so called trying to protect. I believe that the hunting community is the mainstay for all conservation in providing programs that will enhance any species, we are the caretakers of our wildlife.
I would be curious how much these groups pay these folks that are constantly at these meetings...
 
Back
Top