This year, three ballot measures pushed by animal rights activists and organizations in Denver and across the state failed on Election Day. The statewide measure sought to ban hunting of big cats, while the measures in Denver asked voters to ban the sale of furs and close a local slaughterhouse.

Proposition 127, a statewide measure that would ban trophy hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynxes, was passed by more than 267,000 votes, or 10 percentage points.

Trophy hunting is illegal in Colorado under Colorado Revised Statute 33-6-117 and Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations. Lynx are a federally protected species and cannot be hunted or trapped.

Supporters said voters would a “moral decision” about hunting big cats, claiming that hunters hunt them in trees, then shoot them out of trees and then hang them on walls.

But state regulation require that mountain lions be eaten, stating that “all edible parts of lions must be properly prepared for human consumption, excluding internal organs.” At a minimum, that means all four quarters, fillets and straps. »

Those who opposed the measure pointed to the state’s botched reintroduction of wolves, tied to Proposition 114, which passed by 1.82% in 2020. The ballot measure required wolves to be reintroduced to the west of the Continental Divide, and the counties where wolves were reintroduced voted overwhelmingly against. the proposal. Most support for the measure came from voters across the Front Range, particularly in Boulder and Denver counties.

Based on unofficial results, only five counties voted to support Proposition 127, and all but a few thousand of its 1.8 million “yes” votes came from Boulder, Denver and Arapahoe counties.

Opponents called the measure another effort at “ballot box biology” and cited regret over voting for Proposition 114 as a reason not to take the same path again. Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado Let’s define it as “the practice of using public votes to decide wildlife management policies, rather than relying on the expertise of wildlife biologists and scientists.” Colorado’s history shows that decisions made through emotional appeals, rather than scientific expertise, often lead to unintended and harmful consequences. consequences.”

The board of directors of the Colorado Wildlife Employees Protective Association, which represents 230 current and former Colorado Parks and Wildlife employees, passed a resolution last month saying it “goes without saying that all of Colorado’s wildlife is better off protected, enhanced, and managed through the scientific wildlife management professionals employed by the State of Colorado for these purposes. In particular, the group said the scientific approach is “consistent with the mission of Colorado Parks and Wildlife” and prescribed by the principles of the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.”

While not formally opposed to Proposition 127, the board president told Colorado Politics that if it were a trend, “we would like to take the lead.”

The other two ballot measures supported by animal rights groups took place in Denver, including Ordinances 308 and 309.

The first asked voters to ban fur products and, effective July 1, 2025, to prohibit the manufacturing, distribution, exhibition, sale or trade of certain animal fur products.

But it would have gone beyond just fur. The request for measurement included “animal skin or any part of hair, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto, whether in raw or processed state; or such hair fleeces or fur fibers detached from any animal skin and attached to another material. This could ban certain fly fishing lures or cowboy hats made from animal skins, such as beaver. This angered the National Western Stock Show, which invested $45,000 in the anti-308 Hands Off My Hat committee. The committee raised nearly $730,000, more than double the amount raised by the promoters.

Unofficial results show the measure failing by more than 15 percentage points.

Ordinance 309 called for a ban on slaughterhouses in Denver. But there’s only one in Denver, and supporters highlighted this facility in their efforts to pass the measure.

Superior Farms in Globeville processes lambs and is employee-owned, and closing its doors would put 160 employees out of work. The installation processes about 15% to 20% of all lambs processed in the United States.

As for lost jobs, supporters of the plan said a business closure would allow employees, including undocumented workers, to receive unemployment aid. The measure also called for these workers to be “prioritized” for workforce training or employment assistance programs run by Denver, including so-called “green jobs” provided by the City climate protection fund.

The move was seen as a salvo in the battle to ban slaughterhouses nationwide.

Unofficial results showed the measure losing nearly 30 percentage points. The measure drew opposition from the Denver Democratic Party central committee, citing the impact on workers. They were joined in this opposition by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, Service Employees International Union Local 105, Denver Area Federation of Labor, Denver Pipefitters and the Teamsters Union.

The measure generated more than $2.7 million in spending, heavily tilted toward the opposition, raising $2.4 million to fight it. This included $175,000 from Superior Farms.

Jennifer Martin, associate professor of animal sciences at Colorado State University, recently wrote about a study on the effects of Executive Order 309, which found that Colorado’s rugged environment is well suited to sheep farming and that the state is the third largest producer in the country. Closing Superior Farms would mean that “sheep producers who historically sent their lambs to Denver for harvest would be unable, or unwilling, to ship them to other states due to increasing costs and concerns about effects on animal welfare.

Furthermore, “the effects, which were observed after the closure of meat processing facilities in other regions, would have included a decrease in sheep production and a decline in the economic value of live sheep… the closure would have resulted in a loss of livestock employment opportunities and a shift from sheep production to other businesses.

It is not just the size of Superior Farms that makes it important to the supply chain, it is also its ability to access consumers in a variety of markets that is crucial to the sheep industry,” he said. -she writes.

The study also said “The most pessimistic potential economic impact on Colorado’s economy is a reduction of $861 million in current economic activity and 2,787 jobs after factoring in multiplier effects.”