Here are 19 statements that I believe to be untrue and/or misleading, in order, as I read through the article (this list originally ended with 22 items, but I removed the ones that I felt were most strongly based in opinion from one side or another):
- Hunting is unscientific abuse and exploitation of wild cats
- Cat hunting in no way contributes to ethical outdoor recreation
- Cats are hunted by dogs, not humans
- Hunters use drones to aid them
- Wildlife has nowhere to run and no chance to survive
- Success is 100% guaranteed for a "trophy Tom"
- Cats are not involved in any human conflict
- Trapping exposes bobcats to brutal, sub-zero weather...implying they don't live in those conditions if not trapped
- Trappers choke caged animals to death slowly
- Cat hunting is a state-sanctioned act of cruelty
- Cat hunting does more harm than good
- Supporters of lion hunting are the "loudest, extreme voices"
- Lions target mule deer with CWD
- Lions can make a meaningful impact in removing CWD from the environment
- Mountain lion hunting serves mountain lion hunters alone
- Cat hunting is not managing populations
- Hunting lions increases human-lion conflict
- Livestock depredations are strongly associated with lion hunting
- Lion populations will not increase without hunting
I think most of the factual information one would need to dispute most of these claims can be found in this release from CPW:
CPW Bobcats, Mountain Lions, and Lynx
The regs will show that use of drones is illegal, and that traps must be checked at least daily. If lions are making a meaningful impact against CWD, why has a stable lion population allowed CWD to increase and spread rather than the opposite? If cat hunting is not managing populations, why does the tag quota change based upon prior years harvest and population statistics, and why are populations stable under this practice?
Many of the statements and claims are the opinions of the authors, and providing a dissenting opinion does not necessarily remove all doubt and disprove them. The people in support of proposition 127 are largely a group of outsiders making judgements about people who participate in activities they don't, and don't care to understand.
I posted about prop 127 on NextDoor. My post was very similar to OP's ad, including CPW, HOWL, and CRWM links. I got many replies from people simply stating "I am voting yes" who weren't willing to engage or debate, one person that told me my sources weren't reputable, one person saying hunting is for subsistence and you can't eat cat, and one person saying we need to protect the poor innocent kitties. The comments I got agreeing to vote no were largely "damn liberals" and stuff like that...not helping to change any minds.
Hunters and outdoorsman must take on the opposition's willingness and enthusiasm to share our beliefs and inform those outsiders as to what these activities actually entail and provide the scientific data that shows the facts that we do have. Talking about it in our own circles isn't enough.