Current CPW commissioners promoting proposition 127 with lies.

[CouesFlagAZ]

I've been busy... Letters to the Editors of the major state papers, every single CPW commissioner. I'm pissed off and have free time..

Thank you, sir. I’m an AZ resident, any chance out of state letters, emails, etc. are warranted? Not sure how that would be received by Commissioners. If not I’ll stick with monetary support and outreach to friends in CO.

 

[street]

Thank you, sir. I’m an AZ resident, any chance out of state letters, emails, etc. are warranted? Not sure how that would be received by Commissioners. If not I’ll stick with monetary support and outreach to friends in CO.

Send an email. It is beneficial

 

[Beendare]

Terrible...and those hacks are on the commission?

Any members of Co SCI chapters here? they will sue them

 

[Sykes]

Fellas, Colorado is a lost cause. It's the new California. Wolverines are next on the reintroduction list. What do you suppose that'll do to hunting the high country wilderness, logging, snowmobiling, ranchers running cattle in the high country. It ain't gunna end until they have thier way. Liberals come up with the money to get thier way

 

[CouesFlagAZ]

Fellas, Colorado is a lost cause. It's the new California. Wolverines are next on the reintroduction list. What do you suppose that'll do to hunting the high country wilderness, logging, snowmobiling, ranchers running cattle in the high country. It ain't gunna end until they have thier way. Liberals come up with the money to get thier way

Not lost yet but it’s getting close. The Commissioners who came out to publicly support the ban must know they are taking a serious risk but they’ll certainly be protected by the Governor. Seems like this could be a desperate, last ditch move to stop our momentum? Probably wishful thinking on my part.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Current CPW commissioners wrote an opinion piece published in the Durango Herald and I suspect elsewhere. The pro prop 127 piece by the commissioners is a disgrace and should disqualify them from public service. The piece is filled with false, intentionally misleading information, and blatant lies (19 by my count, plus implying they represent the whole commission). The second picture is an ad members here helped pay for and was published in the same paper.

We already know how this will go down…

AG - you can’t do that.

Commission POS - oh sorry, I won’t do it again

 

[Whaledriver]

Any legal experts? This seems almost like election interference!

 

[accountantsanonymous]

OP, thanks for calling this out. You mentioned there were 19 lies in the article. It would be a real big help if someone could call out which parts are false so that people like myself can start to understand the facts.

Yelling “this is all a lie” without providing any more detail doesn’t help us decipher between facts and propaganda.

 

[intunegp]

OP, thanks for calling this out. You mentioned there were 19 lies in the article. It would be a real big help if someone could call out which parts are false so that people like myself can start to understand the facts.

Yelling “this is all a lie” without providing any more detail doesn’t help us decipher between facts and propaganda.

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):

1. Hunting is unscientific abuse and exploitation of wild cats
2. Cat hunting in no way contributes to ethical outdoor recreation
3. Cats are hunted by dogs, not humans
4. Hunters use drones to aid them
5. Wildlife has nowhere to run and no chance to survive
6. Success is 100% guaranteed for a "trophy Tom"
7. Cats are not involved in any human conflict
8. Trapping exposes bobcats to brutal, sub-zero weather...implying they don't live in those conditions if not trapped
9. Trappers choke caged animals to death slowly
10. Cat hunting is a state-sanctioned act of cruelty
11. Cat hunting does more harm than good
12. Supporters of lion hunting are the "loudest, extreme voices"
13. Lions target mule deer with CWD
14. Lions can make a meaningful impact in removing CWD from the environment
15. Mountain lion hunting serves mountain lion hunters alone
16. Cat hunting is not managing populations
17. Hunting lions increases human-lion conflict
18. Livestock depredations are strongly associated with lion hunting
19. 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.

 

[Bluumoon]

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):

1. Hunting is unscientific abuse and exploitation of wild cats
2. Cat hunting in no way contributes to ethical outdoor recreation
3. Cats are hunted by dogs, not humans
4. Hunters use drones to aid them
5. Wildlife has nowhere to run and no chance to survive
6. Success is 100% guaranteed for a "trophy Tom"
7. Cats are not involved in any human conflict
8. Trapping exposes bobcats to brutal, sub-zero weather...implying they don't live in those conditions if not trapped
9. Trappers choke caged animals to death slowly
10. Cat hunting is a state-sanctioned act of cruelty
11. Cat hunting does more harm than good
12. Supporters of lion hunting are the "loudest, extreme voices"
13. Lions target mule deer with CWD
14. Lions can make a meaningful impact in removing CWD from the environment
15. Mountain lion hunting serves mountain lion hunters alone
16. Cat hunting is not managing populations
17. Hunting lions increases human-lion conflict
18. Livestock depredations are strongly associated with lion hunting
19. 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.

You hit pretty much the same 19 points I did. In addition I identified the phone app for tracking dog as I believe its mostly GPS units at this time, they are implying some how phone apps are being used to a magical advantage. I did not include that they are implying the represent the entire CPW commission, which depending on how you read it they are.