On Friday, debate at the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting on the East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan, heard a former employee that led the state’s mountain lion program for years admit that hunting mountain lions isn’t necessary. The debate around this milestone decision highlights the ongoing clash of values around wildlife management in Colorado and beyond.
The science behind mountain lions’ ability to self-regulate their populations is not up for debate. In fact, during the discussion of the plan on Friday, former CPW carnivore biologist Jerry Apker agreed that mountain lion populations are “self-regulating.” He stated that, as apex predators, mountain lions naturally control their own numbers through habitat, prey availability, and social structures without the need for human intervention via hunting (right around 5:18 in the video for day 2). He went on to say that hunting mountain lions is more about cultural preferences, e.g. for sport, than ecological necessity.
Despite this, management plans, including the East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan that was unanimously adopted, often focus on setting hunting quotas under the guise of “conservation.” This plan details the hunting limits and population management plan for mountain lions across the eastern half of the state.
State wildlife agencies often rely on science that defines “conservation” simply as maintaining enough individuals to ensure the species does not face extinction. That’s not how we define conservation.
Wildlife for All applauds some of the steps taken to modernize mountain lion management within the plan, including:
- The consolidation of data analysis units (DAUs) into ones sized appropriately to monitor mountain lion movement,
- The removal of population suppression goals, a reduction in the number of lions hunted in the next two years
- A limit on female lions that can be killed
- The two trigger mechanisms which, if reached, would automatically initiate a conversation to lower the hunt, or harvest, number for the following year
However, if CPW was truly concerned about the perpetuation of mountain lions in their state, their plan wouldn’t have glaring holes in protecting genetic diversity through counting subadult female lions (under age 3) who, if they are killed, don’t count towards the female quota as a whole, and in habitat connectivity. Mountain lions need true refuge corridors from hunting as they traverse the state, not just areas of low take. And given the likelihood of a lion hunt orphaning kittens (who will most likely starve and die without their mother), the quota for female lions should simply be zero.
The staff at Colorado Parks and Wildlife are public servants who are likely overburdened and under-resourced. They deserve our help, not our vitriol. And while we commend their efforts to center science, we take issue with their conclusions.
It’s crucial to recognize that science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Science can tell us how to hunt mountain lions to avoid wiping out a state’s population, sure. It can analyze population dynamics, habitat use, and the effects of hunting on ecosystems. The passage of the East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan reflects this worldview, guided by the idea that regulated hunting is a tool to manage populations and prevent human-wildlife conflicts.
But science alone cannot decide whether we should hunt mountain lions. That decision is deeply rooted in ethics and values.
This moment underscores a vital truth: science can answer technical questions, but it can’t decide moral ones. You can design a scientific study to prove almost anything—from how to maximize harvest quotas to ensure a species’ population doesn’t collapse, to how many apex predators can be removed before ecosystems show measurable impacts, or even to determine the “acceptable” loss of non-target species in commercial trapping programs.
Yet whether we should implement those findings hinges on our values. Killing mountain lions for sport or perceived control reflects a human-centered view of nature, not an ecological one. The ethical principle of non-maleficence (“do no harm”) should outweigh the desire for recreational hunting or even perceived management needs.
The intrinsic value of apex carnivores as well as their critical ecological roles informs our values that any hunting of these animals is unethical and unnecessary, and by definition trophy hunting.
The comments to the commission about the East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan are a microcosm of a broader national conversation about the role of apex predators in our ecosystems and the values driving wildlife policy. Advocates for coexistence face an uphill battle against entrenched norms that prioritize consumptive uses of wildlife. But this clash of values is a necessary and vital discussion.
The CPW Commission’s decision to pass the plan without editing highlights why it’s essential to keep challenging the status quo. Wildlife advocates must push for policies that reflect ecological and ethical principles rather than outdated notions of dominance over nature.
If you’re concerned about wildlife management in Colorado or your state, now is the time to get involved. Whether it’s attending commission meetings, submitting comments, or building grassroots support, your voice matters.
Let’s continue working toward a world where our policies reflect not just what science can do, but what our shared values say we should do.