Ballot box biology the wrong approach for wildlife management

While I lack the scientific and career pedigree of Dan Ashe, I’m fully capable of researching topics and making informed decisions. He, and the proponents of Prop. 127 drag out the ugliest, nastiest videos (from the days of VHS) to pull at our heartstrings to influence us. Some locals here in the valley have hunted their mountain lions in the traditional hunting technique, which is to track them on foot. No dogs, no GPS. Fair chase.

His argument that lions will help us solve chronic wasting disease sounds intuitive, but intuition isn’t always right. He states, erroneously, that the prions that cause this disease “are deactivated in the digestive systems of predators like lions and wolves”. Intuitively, predators like lions and wolves should take out the weakest, slowest animals. The reality is that lions are typically ambush hunters. No chasing, so the logic of ‘weakest, slowest’ is neutered. Over and above that, studies have indicated that the prions are NOT deactivated in the digestive tracts of predators. Quite the opposite. Prions are remarkably stable, able to survive the high temperatures of medicinal autoclave units. As the study above points out, some prions DO survive the digestive tract journey of predators. So… in truth, predators actually can contribute to the spread of CWD with their droppings.

Mr. Ashe’s television commercial supporting Prop. 127 decries the thousands of dollars of out of state money coming in from hunters wanting to hunt lions. Ironically, Prop. 127 itself is funded primarily by out of state moneys from organizations intent on limiting or ending hunting altogether. Of the top 5 contributors to the proponents of Prop. 127, only one comes from Colorado. 

---

---

Ballot box biology tries to make the voter an armchair biologist. With most voters too busy to research claims, these outfits prey on our ‘heartstrings’, ignoring all the facets and potential unintended consequences of their own legislation. I’m voting NO on Prop. 127.

Bob Shettel, Carbondale

---

---

2A helps Glenwood Springs keep up streets and infrastructure

Dear Glenwood voters,

I encourage you to vote yes on Ballot Measure 2A.

The existing Streets half cent sales tax expires in 2026. The existing tax has been beneficial funding source but with construction costs rising at double digit rates and sales taxes increasing only at single digit rates, it simply does not keep pace with the demands of aging infrastructure. With the current tax expiring and costs multiplying, we need a new and fortified revenue stream.

The current half cent tax language limits the expenditure of revenues to street work only. The 2A expands the allowed expenditure to include additional upgrades include water, sewer, sidewalks, bike paths, etc. related to the street work. Doing utility work concurrently with streets repairs is far more cost effective.

Community on the Move developed this tax concept working with City staff and their capital improvement plans. City staff has consistently demonstrated their responsible and efficient use of the current streets tax despite funding limitations.

Without a dedicated Street Tax, our streets will fall further into disrepair, and we will increasingly stress our General Fund which would likely result in programmatic cutbacks. Since sales taxes are paid by residents, tourists and our regional neighbors, those people who use our streets and utilities share in the costs of maintenance and upgrades.

Let’s seize the opportunity to expand our street and utility maintenance program and keep the backbone of Glenwood strong.

Andrew McGregor, Glenwood Springs

Republican candidates ‘looking backwards’

Our Republican candidates for Garfield County Commissioner both state their commitment to preserving Western Slope values and our rural lifestyle. While this sounds like an admirable goal, it is obvious that they are oblivious to the fact that their values might not be those of Garfield County’s changing demographics and economy. I, too, mourn the days gone by when Garfield County was truly rural. Just take a drive along I70 and Highway 82 and visit the communities along the way—it’s obvious that things have changed and our governance needs to change with it. 

While they are looking backwards and wishing for what once was, our two Democratic candidates are, instead, looking forward to a future where diversity is embraced, collaboration is encouraged, and our county’s energy revenue portfolio is modified to wean ourselves from the uncertainties of a budget based on boom and bust energy extraction to one that embraces the abundant solar resource that shines every day. 

If we continue to elect and re-elect commissioners who are mired in the past, we will continue to have a commission that is primarily reactive instead of proactive. We need commissioners who are proactive problem solvers. Please cast your votes for Steve Arauza and Caitlin Carey.

Susy Ellison

Get informed on Proposition 127

As an outdoor enthusiast, I do not engage in hunting or trapping of cats. However, I found the inaccuracies in the articles regarding cat hunting to be disappointing, especially coming from someone who has worked in Wildlife services. It appears that neither side is presenting fair information for voters to make an informed decision. Let us set the record straight.

There is evidence that the harvesting of mountain lions and bobcats in the state has a negligible impact on the populations of Elk, Deer, and cats themselves. The proposed legislation seems to be driven by people’s emotions rather than being based on actual science. It would only restrict rights without providing any tangible benefit to animal populations.

Contrary to hunter concerns, there is no evidence that cat management is impacting herd numbers or that hunters are impacting cat numbers. A balance has been established in the system. It’s important to remember that every day, something must die to sustain life.

While I personally do not engage in trophy hunting, as I believe it is not a respectable way to harvest animals, I can understand the empathy one could have towards the cats. Like most hunters, I consume what I take, regularly eating wild meats such as raccoon, muskrat, beaver, rabbit, squirrel, marmot, and snapping turtle. The science indicates that wild meat is more natural, nutrient-dense, sustainable (particularly for small game), and better than farmed meat.

If the goal is to address trophy hunting, this legislation may not be the appropriate approach. If the aim is to outlaw hunting piece by piece, then this could be a starting point. However, one should be cautious, as such actions could lead to the restriction of other personal rights and activities that some may find objectionable.

I implore you to make an informed, rational decision that preserves citizen rights and maintains species balance, including the role of humans as hunters. We have been hunting for 1.2 million years and have a right to be included in the conversation about species management.

David Spies, Rifle

Consider ‘approval voting’

I have voted in every election since I became eligible in 1966. I was once an active moderate Republican — before being ostracized as a “RINO” — and have followed the way in which the two major parties have become dominated by their respective extremists. Never has this been more evident in the Presidential election this year. 

A plurality of voters claim to have a negative opinion of both major candidates. My reason for doing so can be summarized in their endorsement of rioting that supports their respective agendas. Harris and Walz were overtly sympathetic to the 2020 leftist rioters in Minneapolis in particular, because it was “only property that they were destroying in the name of social justice.” Then, Trump has claimed that the right-wing rioters at the National Capitol that he encouraged were “true patriots” who should be pardoned for their violent attack on the Constitutional election process. (Although subsequent credible investigations established that Biden won the election, past Democratic election rigging has given Republicans and independents like me a valid concern for election integrity.)

Based on polling conducted to the point of voter abuse, the front range of Colorado will dominate the voting here and give our 9 electoral votes to Harris/Walz. Knowing that, I will decline to vote for the “lesser of evils” foisted on us by the major parties and will vote for a centrist alternative. In doing so, I will not be “throwing away my vote” as the activists in both major parties would have you believe, but rather casting a vote for a future in which centrists like me will have a real choice. 

Colorado Proposition 131 — establishing ranked choice voting — is a positive step in that direction.

But a worthwhile alternative is “approval voting.” There is a little-known “Approval Voting Party” having a presidential candidate on the Colorado ballot. I will vote for him — understanding that he will not be elected –but that I am “showing the flag” for the centrism that major reforms in voting can restore the true “Middle America.”

Carl Ted Stude, Carbondale

Proposition 129 threat to quality veterinarian care

I am compelled to speak out against Proposition 129 as a threat to the standard of care my patients deserve. 

This proposal offers a pathway for insufficiently educated folks to practice veterinary medicine as a solution to a shortage of veterinarians. As a second generation veterinarian and board certified veterinary surgeon, I am qualified to speak on both the risks of this proposal and the reasons for the shortage. 

Over the years I’ve seen numerous colleagues leave equine practice or the veterinary field entirely. Reasons vary including debt, poor work/life balance, and stress. Each of these three examples is not helped by allowing people into veterinary medicine without a 4 year veterinary medical degree, USDA accreditation, state licensure, national boards exam, etc. Even with the currently required education, new practitioners need mentorship and guidance to be proficient. The shortage could be fixed by supporting the existing profession so people could afford the financial and personal investments to stay in practice. Shortcuts only worsen those issues causing the shortage and put animals at risk. Please don’t legalize a shortcut. 

Thank you for considering.

Megan Lamb, Silt

Increasing taxes increases costs

Who is the city trying to fool?

I’m sitting here filling out my ballot and reading through the Tabor Notice. The city wants to increase the sales tax by 1/2% “to address inflation and rising costs.”

Do the math! Inflation and rising costs increase the cost of consumer goods. The sales tax is a percentage of those costs. As prices increase so does the sales tax. People are struggling with rising prices. We don’t need an additional 1/2% on top of everything else. Absurdly high sales tax will discourage tourism and will drive locals to do more shopping in Gypsum, Rifle and Grand Junction.

If the city just wanted to continue the current tax I would vote for it. I’ve seen a lot of improvements thanks to these funds. But to try and double it is just plain greedy.

Virginia Gera, Glenwood Springs