If you are not a hunter, I’m writing to you. And I do it with the utmost respect. Not everyone can, wants to, or should hunt. And that’s totally fine.
While the realities of life and death are impossible to ignore, even many nonhunters subsist on a system that requires the taking of life. Just because you may not see it take place does not mean your food was derived kindly or ethically. Still, choosing not to hunt or taking a moral stance against consuming meat can be respectable and coexist with those who do choose to hunt and eat what they take.
Where this potential to coexist ends, though, is when either side dictates what someone can and can’t eat. It is also crucial to heed decades of effective science and wildlife management. Above all, it is imperative we all speak truth when making choices that can — and will — have massive impacts on others’ way of life.
If you are a hunter, you probably already know about the proposed hunting ban in Colorado, though you may be missing a huge component of the conversation: food.
For those unfamiliar, let me fill you in from the beginning.
Colorado Hunting Ban: How We Got Here
The state of Colorado has a law that allows any citizen to place a measure on the ballot if they collect enough signatures. Want to outlaw walking while chewing gum? In theory, you could put it to a vote if you get enough signatures. And if you sway voters that walking and chewing gum shouldn’t be legal, boom, it’s not.
For those keeping track, that’s also how the state ended up with a pack of wolves. Proposition 114, now state statute 33-2-105.8, passed on Nov. 3, 2020, by less than 2%. It was strongly opposed by those who live in the area where wolves were introduced, and polarized many rural against urban voters. Many of the counties in which the wolves were introduced opposed the proposition by more than 80%.
Ten wolves were introduced to the state in 2023 as part of the plan.
In a similar vein, this spring, a group of animal rights activists launched a campaign to collect signatures to put a specific hunting ban on the ballot. This ban would prohibit the hunting of mountain lions, lynx, and bobcats in the state. (Side note: Lynx are already protected by both state and federal law, with hunting and trapping prohibited.)
This is their right. But where I take issue is with the methods this group used. Their messaging was loaded with propaganda falsehoods. The group’s language lies, and will eventually build a playbook that attacks all hunters.
Here’s how.
‘Trophy’ Hunting Is Ill-Defined, Already Illegal
The organization attacking hunters is called Cats Aren’t Trophies (or, “CAT”). It cooks this deceptive name right into the title of its organization.
Trophy.
While the term incites emotions in both hunters and non-hunters alike, its use here is purely manipulative. That’s because, in the case of mountain lions, the organization is insinuating that trophy hunting is currently legal. That’s simply not true. It’s already illegal.
As noted in the Colorado mountain lion hunting regulations below, verbatim, to do so is a felony.
FELONY OFFENSES:
If convicted of a felony violation, you can face a lifetime license suspension:
▶ To kill and abandon big game. It is illegal to remove only the hide, antlers, or
other trophy parts and leave the carcass in the field.
I’ll say it again: If you define trophy hunting as killing an animal for its “trophy parts,” it is both illegal and unethical.
What About Trophy Elk, Deer, Pronghorn, Sheep, and More?
Here is why this bill is so nefarious. I hunt and eat elk and deer. Even many nonhunters enjoy the meat. Elk and deer live a wild, natural life. They are never penned or farmed — and there isn’t a feedlot in sight. And venison is packed with nutrients.

The Deliberate Choice of Wild Game Meat

“Anyone who says they recreationally hunt mountain lions or bobcats to fill their freezer and feed a family is being disingenuous.”
“When someone says they’re eating cats, they are attempting to justify a behavior the public finds unacceptable.“