Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I have gone through my voter guide all of the
statewide ballot measures. Again, statewide does not mean every ballot
measure in the state. It means the ballot measures that
everybody that are on everybody's ballot right, no matter where
you live in the state, you will see such and
such a ballot measure that is a statewide ballot measure.
(00:20):
One of them is Proposition one twenty seven, and this
would ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and links
in the state of Colorado. Links, of course already cannot
be hunted because they are federally protected. But in any case,
I spent a little bit of time yesterday talking about
(00:41):
why I am against Proposition one twenty seven, and I
got an email from Dan Gates, who I've been talking
with about this issue for quite some time, including on
the air, and.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Dan had, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Asked about coming back to talk about one twenty seven,
and I said, well, maybe do you have some arguments
about one twenty seven that I haven't thought of and
that I hadn't talked about before. And it turns out
he does some stuff I really hadn't thought of, more
arguments against one twenty seven and they're very good arguments.
(01:16):
So so we've got Dan Gates back on the show.
He's chair of Colorado Wildlife Deserve Better.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
And Luke Wheedle, who.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Is a policy analyst at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. So, gentlemen,
thank you so much for making time for us. I
appreciate it. And let's let's jump in. I think I'll
start with Dan and then and Luke you can you
can jump in. We're doing this by zoom, so sometimes
a little bit difficult to kind of interrupt somebody. But Dan,
I wanted to ask you about a very specific thing,
(01:48):
and then you can. You guys can both add any
other issues you want to add. But Dan, you said
something to me yesterday that I did not understood. That
I had not known that if one twenty seven passes
is it will reduce or eliminate the ability of ranchers
or farmers to get compensation from the state when their
livestock is killed by a mountain lion. Is that what
(02:09):
you said?
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Yeah, thanks again Ross for having us on. If not
what I said, it's what the proponents of one twenty
seven have said. And if you take mountain lions out
of the big game, status the power to parts of
a life managing them under then those individual agricultural producers
would not qualify for game damage compensation if they had
(02:37):
those things that came across.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Wow, how big an issue is that right now? I
mean because these days we hear about it all the
time regarding the wolves, because wolves have become very political,
and I guess mountain lions are political now, So how
is this a common thing that mountain lions predate domesticated herds?
Speaker 3 (03:04):
It is ross And what people need to understand is,
even through the conflict resolution or attempted prevention measures of
what livestock producers employee, that often doesn't work. Mountain lions,
like our current wolf situation and bears are all opportunists.
And while bears and mountain lions fall under the current
depredation components of what color departs and wildlife and the
(03:27):
Colordia Department of the Agriculture works within wolves due to
some degree, but not so much as a big game
species because there was specific provisions made for the introduction
of the wolves and the compensation. Mountainlons are classified big
game animal and that's a big game livestock depredation program.
If they're taken out, then they won't be compensated for that.
(03:50):
The landowners won't be compensated for that. But I want
to throw out a caveat too here ross that. The
proponents of one twenty seven said, oh, well, that's just
something that we're working into the legislature to get changed.
But the fact of the matter is they had about
five and a half or six months to get the
language as they wanted it, and now that they're seeing
some sort of backlash or some sort of feedback that well,
(04:12):
that's not really what people would be accepted to. Now
they're wanting to turn around and go back and revise
and change that. But the ultimate goal was to take
mountain lions out of big game, make them not be
able to be a harvested species, not be able to
be vantaged, and through that there's no reason for coward
to parks of my life to have to be responsible
for their damage to the private livestock producer as a
(04:34):
big game animal.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Okay, remarkable, And of course there are always either unintended
consequences of stuff or hidden but intended consequences of stuff,
and I don't know which. This is all right, let
me go to Luke here, and Luke again is with
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, And look, I want to talk
about some of the secondary effects here, because the secondary
(04:57):
effects are probably the the most important part of this actually,
in the sense that a modest change in the number
of mountain lions, which could happen if mountain lions are
no longer hunted, could result in large changes in the
population of elk and deer and things like that. So
(05:21):
how should we think about that and what would the
implications be for the wildlife, for the state, for tax revenue,
for tourism and that kind of thing.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
Yeah, I would say that all of what you just
pointed to indicate that this ballot initiative is an enormous problem,
one that has implications not just for mountlines and bobcats,
but in the broader sense how we manage wildlife and
how we've successfully managed wildlife for the last one hundred
and fifty years. In this state alone, we have nine
(05:56):
hundred and sixty one species in wildlife of wildlife of
nearly six million people on the landscape. And so in
no way is this Yellowstone National Park. We have a
lot of user groups, a lot of uses, a lot
of potential conflicts on the landscape and a lot of
wildlife to manage. We have nine hundred and sixty one species,
only well less than eighty of those species are game species,
(06:18):
and so to not manage any wildlife, any of those
nine hundred and sixty one species is extremely problematic. And
that's exactly what this bout initiative intends to do. It's
an activist measure which seeks to take away management, scientific
wildlife management by our expert wildlife agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
It's an attack on the agency.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
It's an attack on modern, scientific, very surgical wildlife manage
management which allows all of our wildlife to exist on
the landscape in a balanced way.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
And so you know this. It's important to note too,
based on what Dan.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Said and what we've all been what we've all been
discussing on this no campaign, is that this bound initiative
is not something that is simply pro hunting. It has
much more to do with every user who appreciates.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Wildlife in Colorado.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
It has to do with the way we manage wildlife successfully,
the reason we have wildlife on the landscape, and how
we're going to have it in perpetuity.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
All right, I want to follow up on that.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
I want to go back to Dan here now, and Dan,
I'm gonna kind of ask you partly to follow up
on what Luke said. And Dan, you might be on mute,
so make sure you unmute yourself. So, mountain lions perform
an important function keeping the populations of other species in check.
(07:48):
So I want to ask you a two part question.
What would you expect to happen to the populations of
species like deer and elk, for example, if they're there
were a lot more mountain lions or even modestly more
mountain lions because they weren't being hunted. And then what
would that mean for what would have to happen in
(08:12):
order to manage this delicate balance in our ecology that
Luke just described.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Well, I think the biggest thing Ross is to make
sure that people realize that when you start taking pieces
of the puzzle out, like what you would do with
bobcats and mountain lions, then you don't have a full puzzle.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
If you utilize the.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Nine hundred and sixty one specie example that Luke reference
was seventy eight game species and you take two of
those out, which feed off of all or a lot
of those other species, and a lot of those other
species are then you know, I guess more or less
dependent on but they're dependent on all of them to
work together through a comprehensive management plan. So I'm not
(08:56):
saying that I don't think anybody says that all lions
will eat all deer and elk and big horn sheep
and moose and everything else. However, the accumulative effect of
all of that without the ability for Parks and Wallife
to do the scientific surgical component of wildlife management is detrimental.
And so while somebody is just concentrated on mountain lions
(09:17):
and bobcats or what they will do with deer and elk,
what about foxes or malar ducks or cottontail rabbits, about
the non game spieces, or what about threatened and endangered species?
And I would just as soon prefer to leave all
of our management decision making processes with public engagement like
what has happened to the Colward of Parks and Walleife
Commission and through the General Assembly at the legislature to
(09:40):
be able to make sure that those things are done
appropriately and comprehensively and not pedestalize one thing, not bastardize
something else, and darnsure not marginalize anything in the process.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
We're talking with Dan Gates, who is share of Colorado
Wildlife Deserved Better, and also with Luke Wheedle, who is
a policy analyst at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Either
one of you can take this next question. I know
Dan you mentioned it to me in email, and obviously
you guys are paying close attention to this every day,
(10:11):
much closer than I am. But Dan, you said that
for the first time ever, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has
come out with a public statement against ecological management by
ballot box and I wonder if either of you could
elaborate on that.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Well, I'll let I'll correct you that it's not Colored
to Parks and Wildlife, okay, actually SWEEPO, which is the
Cower to Wildlife Employees Protective.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Association, Okay.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
And it's the first time since nineteen forty seven that
they've ever come out in any way, shape or form
dealing with a ballot issue or a legislative issue to
make sure that they are supporting science based wildlife management
and not supporting ballot box biology. So it's not CPW PSA,
it's the employee of CPW.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Sounds good, and Luke, do you want to add anything
to that?
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Yeah, I would also say that that that's an unprecedented
move right. I mean, we see an undercurrent there that
when people say something like you know, you'll hear reporters
say things like, well, Colorado Parks and Wildlife remains neutral
on this vaut initiative and others and will implement the
laws as you know, as they come. That's actually inaccurate.
(11:30):
They are not entirely accurate, because what it means is
that they cannot take a position on the valid initiative
unless the governor does. In this case, he's neutral, but
it's sort of an irrelevant thing. In this case, we
do see an undercurrent of you know, through the employee
employees on the wildlife side, through the association, we see
an undercurrent of movement to support what they have done,
(11:52):
what they have dedicated their lives to, which is scientific
wildlife management, which is so important for our resources.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Folks were talking about Proposition one twenty seven.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
I encourage you to vote no.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
There are many reasons, and many of them are in
my voter guide, which you can find at Rosskominsky dot com,
and I mentioned more yesterday on the show, But Dan
and Luke had other reasons that I had not thought of,
had never heard of, and particularly for me, the thing
about how if one twenty seven passes, then ranchers whose
(12:31):
herds are predated by mountain lions will no longer be
able to get compensation from the state.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
That's just outrageous.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
And Dan made the point that I think is absolutely
right that for the people who are expert on this issue,
like Dan and presumably like the people who are in
favor of this ballot measure, they knew this was an issue,
they could have done something about it, and they didn't.
One last question, and I'm gonna I'm gonna pose this
question to Dan. Dan, do you think that this ballot
(13:05):
measure is intended by its supporters as a camel's nose
under the tent to eventually ban all hunting.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
A ross. We believe that that's been the case for
quite some time, and based upon the people that are
involved as proponents in this measure, if you look at
the language of it, it's not about trophy hunting as
they continually assess or allege. It's about hunting. The ballot
title itself says that this is a ban on hunting,
(13:39):
and if you look at the language within the title,
it specifically says about intentionally killing or pursuing or stalking
or entrapping a mountain lin or a bobcat or a lynx,
even though links are state and federally protected. But then
it talks about the discharge of the release of a
deadly weapon at a mountain lion or a bobcat. If
(14:02):
you don't think that that could be a preemptive strike
or a camel those underneath the tent, I think people
need to dissect how legal interpretations and laws could be,
you know, become a precedent setting component of this. If
you take mountain lions and bobcats out, and this is
a statutory definition of what hunting is because it's a
(14:22):
ban on hunting. But the discharge of those weapons, the
pursuit and the stalking, and the intentional killing those those
are all acts of hunting. They're not trophy hunting, and
they're not just a set to mountain lions and bobcats.
It's all seventy eight games pieces in the state. If
you intentionally hunt a coyote or an elk or a duck.
(14:44):
You have to intentionally stalk and pursue with the hopes
for that hunter to be able to intentionally kill. And
you have to discharge a deadly weapon or release a
deadly weapon like a bow. Those are things that the
average person would say, Oh, they're not trying to do.
We feel differently, And the wording the proof is in
the putting and the wording of what they were happy
(15:04):
with when they moved through the title board, the Secretary
of State and the Supreme Court to get the language
that they wanted.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
And Gates's chair of Colorado Wildlife Deserve Better the website
Wildlife Deservebetter dot com.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Lukewheedl, policy analyst at.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, gentlemen, thank you for your time.
Thank you for making a very strong case against Proposition
one twenty seven. I was already against it. I'm even
more against it now if it's possible, and I appreciate
your efforts.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Thanks Ross, appreciate it. Thank you. Ross
I have gone through my voter guide all of the
statewide ballot measures. Again, statewide does not mean every ballot
measure in the state. It means the ballot measures that
everybody that are on everybody's ballot right, no matter where
you live in the state, you will see such and
such a ballot measure that is a statewide ballot measure.
(00:20):
One of them is Proposition one twenty seven, and this
would ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and links
in the state of Colorado. Links, of course already cannot
be hunted because they are federally protected. But in any case,
I spent a little bit of time yesterday talking about
(00:41):
why I am against Proposition one twenty seven, and I
got an email from Dan Gates, who I've been talking
with about this issue for quite some time, including on
the air, and.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Dan had, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Asked about coming back to talk about one twenty seven,
and I said, well, maybe do you have some arguments
about one twenty seven that I haven't thought of and
that I hadn't talked about before. And it turns out
he does some stuff I really hadn't thought of, more
arguments against one twenty seven and they're very good arguments.
(01:16):
So so we've got Dan Gates back on the show.
He's chair of Colorado Wildlife Deserve Better.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
And Luke Wheedle, who.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Is a policy analyst at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. So, gentlemen,
thank you so much for making time for us. I
appreciate it. And let's let's jump in. I think I'll
start with Dan and then and Luke you can you
can jump in. We're doing this by zoom, so sometimes
a little bit difficult to kind of interrupt somebody. But Dan,
I wanted to ask you about a very specific thing,
(01:48):
and then you can. You guys can both add any
other issues you want to add. But Dan, you said
something to me yesterday that I did not understood. That
I had not known that if one twenty seven passes
is it will reduce or eliminate the ability of ranchers
or farmers to get compensation from the state when their
livestock is killed by a mountain lion. Is that what
(02:09):
you said?
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Yeah, thanks again Ross for having us on. If not
what I said, it's what the proponents of one twenty
seven have said. And if you take mountain lions out
of the big game, status the power to parts of
a life managing them under then those individual agricultural producers
would not qualify for game damage compensation if they had
(02:37):
those things that came across.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Wow, how big an issue is that right now? I
mean because these days we hear about it all the
time regarding the wolves, because wolves have become very political,
and I guess mountain lions are political now, So how
is this a common thing that mountain lions predate domesticated herds?
Speaker 3 (03:04):
It is ross And what people need to understand is,
even through the conflict resolution or attempted prevention measures of
what livestock producers employee, that often doesn't work. Mountain lions,
like our current wolf situation and bears are all opportunists.
And while bears and mountain lions fall under the current
depredation components of what color departs and wildlife and the
(03:27):
Colordia Department of the Agriculture works within wolves due to
some degree, but not so much as a big game
species because there was specific provisions made for the introduction
of the wolves and the compensation. Mountainlons are classified big
game animal and that's a big game livestock depredation program.
If they're taken out, then they won't be compensated for that.
(03:50):
The landowners won't be compensated for that. But I want
to throw out a caveat too here ross that. The
proponents of one twenty seven said, oh, well, that's just
something that we're working into the legislature to get changed.
But the fact of the matter is they had about
five and a half or six months to get the
language as they wanted it, and now that they're seeing
some sort of backlash or some sort of feedback that well,
(04:12):
that's not really what people would be accepted to. Now
they're wanting to turn around and go back and revise
and change that. But the ultimate goal was to take
mountain lions out of big game, make them not be
able to be a harvested species, not be able to
be vantaged, and through that there's no reason for coward
to parks of my life to have to be responsible
for their damage to the private livestock producer as a
(04:34):
big game animal.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Okay, remarkable, And of course there are always either unintended
consequences of stuff or hidden but intended consequences of stuff,
and I don't know which. This is all right, let
me go to Luke here, and Luke again is with
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, And look, I want to talk
about some of the secondary effects here, because the secondary
(04:57):
effects are probably the the most important part of this actually,
in the sense that a modest change in the number
of mountain lions, which could happen if mountain lions are
no longer hunted, could result in large changes in the
population of elk and deer and things like that. So
(05:21):
how should we think about that and what would the
implications be for the wildlife, for the state, for tax revenue,
for tourism and that kind of thing.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
Yeah, I would say that all of what you just
pointed to indicate that this ballot initiative is an enormous problem,
one that has implications not just for mountlines and bobcats,
but in the broader sense how we manage wildlife and
how we've successfully managed wildlife for the last one hundred
and fifty years. In this state alone, we have nine
(05:56):
hundred and sixty one species in wildlife of wildlife of
nearly six million people on the landscape. And so in
no way is this Yellowstone National Park. We have a
lot of user groups, a lot of uses, a lot
of potential conflicts on the landscape and a lot of
wildlife to manage. We have nine hundred and sixty one species,
only well less than eighty of those species are game species,
(06:18):
and so to not manage any wildlife, any of those
nine hundred and sixty one species is extremely problematic. And
that's exactly what this bout initiative intends to do. It's
an activist measure which seeks to take away management, scientific
wildlife management by our expert wildlife agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
It's an attack on the agency.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
It's an attack on modern, scientific, very surgical wildlife manage
management which allows all of our wildlife to exist on
the landscape in a balanced way.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
And so you know this. It's important to note too,
based on what Dan.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Said and what we've all been what we've all been
discussing on this no campaign, is that this bound initiative
is not something that is simply pro hunting. It has
much more to do with every user who appreciates.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Wildlife in Colorado.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
It has to do with the way we manage wildlife successfully,
the reason we have wildlife on the landscape, and how
we're going to have it in perpetuity.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
All right, I want to follow up on that.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
I want to go back to Dan here now, and Dan,
I'm gonna kind of ask you partly to follow up
on what Luke said. And Dan, you might be on mute,
so make sure you unmute yourself. So, mountain lions perform
an important function keeping the populations of other species in check.
(07:48):
So I want to ask you a two part question.
What would you expect to happen to the populations of
species like deer and elk, for example, if they're there
were a lot more mountain lions or even modestly more
mountain lions because they weren't being hunted. And then what
would that mean for what would have to happen in
(08:12):
order to manage this delicate balance in our ecology that
Luke just described.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Well, I think the biggest thing Ross is to make
sure that people realize that when you start taking pieces
of the puzzle out, like what you would do with
bobcats and mountain lions, then you don't have a full puzzle.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
If you utilize the.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Nine hundred and sixty one specie example that Luke reference
was seventy eight game species and you take two of
those out, which feed off of all or a lot
of those other species, and a lot of those other
species are then you know, I guess more or less
dependent on but they're dependent on all of them to
work together through a comprehensive management plan. So I'm not
(08:56):
saying that I don't think anybody says that all lions
will eat all deer and elk and big horn sheep
and moose and everything else. However, the accumulative effect of
all of that without the ability for Parks and Wallife
to do the scientific surgical component of wildlife management is detrimental.
And so while somebody is just concentrated on mountain lions
(09:17):
and bobcats or what they will do with deer and elk,
what about foxes or malar ducks or cottontail rabbits, about
the non game spieces, or what about threatened and endangered species?
And I would just as soon prefer to leave all
of our management decision making processes with public engagement like
what has happened to the Colward of Parks and Walleife
Commission and through the General Assembly at the legislature to
(09:40):
be able to make sure that those things are done
appropriately and comprehensively and not pedestalize one thing, not bastardize
something else, and darnsure not marginalize anything in the process.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
We're talking with Dan Gates, who is share of Colorado
Wildlife Deserved Better, and also with Luke Wheedle, who is
a policy analyst at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Either
one of you can take this next question. I know
Dan you mentioned it to me in email, and obviously
you guys are paying close attention to this every day,
(10:11):
much closer than I am. But Dan, you said that
for the first time ever, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has
come out with a public statement against ecological management by
ballot box and I wonder if either of you could
elaborate on that.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Well, I'll let I'll correct you that it's not Colored
to Parks and Wildlife, okay, actually SWEEPO, which is the
Cower to Wildlife Employees Protective.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Association, Okay.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
And it's the first time since nineteen forty seven that
they've ever come out in any way, shape or form
dealing with a ballot issue or a legislative issue to
make sure that they are supporting science based wildlife management
and not supporting ballot box biology. So it's not CPW PSA,
it's the employee of CPW.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Sounds good, and Luke, do you want to add anything
to that?
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Yeah, I would also say that that that's an unprecedented
move right. I mean, we see an undercurrent there that
when people say something like you know, you'll hear reporters
say things like, well, Colorado Parks and Wildlife remains neutral
on this vaut initiative and others and will implement the
laws as you know, as they come. That's actually inaccurate.
(11:30):
They are not entirely accurate, because what it means is
that they cannot take a position on the valid initiative
unless the governor does. In this case, he's neutral, but
it's sort of an irrelevant thing. In this case, we
do see an undercurrent of you know, through the employee
employees on the wildlife side, through the association, we see
an undercurrent of movement to support what they have done,
(11:52):
what they have dedicated their lives to, which is scientific
wildlife management, which is so important for our resources.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Folks were talking about Proposition one twenty seven.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
I encourage you to vote no.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
There are many reasons, and many of them are in
my voter guide, which you can find at Rosskominsky dot com,
and I mentioned more yesterday on the show, But Dan
and Luke had other reasons that I had not thought of,
had never heard of, and particularly for me, the thing
about how if one twenty seven passes, then ranchers whose
(12:31):
herds are predated by mountain lions will no longer be
able to get compensation from the state.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
That's just outrageous.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
And Dan made the point that I think is absolutely
right that for the people who are expert on this issue,
like Dan and presumably like the people who are in
favor of this ballot measure, they knew this was an issue,
they could have done something about it, and they didn't.
One last question, and I'm gonna I'm gonna pose this
question to Dan. Dan, do you think that this ballot
(13:05):
measure is intended by its supporters as a camel's nose
under the tent to eventually ban all hunting.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
A ross. We believe that that's been the case for
quite some time, and based upon the people that are
involved as proponents in this measure, if you look at
the language of it, it's not about trophy hunting as
they continually assess or allege. It's about hunting. The ballot
title itself says that this is a ban on hunting,
(13:39):
and if you look at the language within the title,
it specifically says about intentionally killing or pursuing or stalking
or entrapping a mountain lin or a bobcat or a lynx,
even though links are state and federally protected. But then
it talks about the discharge of the release of a
deadly weapon at a mountain lion or a bobcat. If
(14:02):
you don't think that that could be a preemptive strike
or a camel those underneath the tent, I think people
need to dissect how legal interpretations and laws could be,
you know, become a precedent setting component of this. If
you take mountain lions and bobcats out, and this is
a statutory definition of what hunting is because it's a
(14:22):
ban on hunting. But the discharge of those weapons, the
pursuit and the stalking, and the intentional killing those those
are all acts of hunting. They're not trophy hunting, and
they're not just a set to mountain lions and bobcats.
It's all seventy eight games pieces in the state. If
you intentionally hunt a coyote or an elk or a duck.
(14:44):
You have to intentionally stalk and pursue with the hopes
for that hunter to be able to intentionally kill. And
you have to discharge a deadly weapon or release a
deadly weapon like a bow. Those are things that the
average person would say, Oh, they're not trying to do.
We feel differently, And the wording the proof is in
the putting and the wording of what they were happy
(15:04):
with when they moved through the title board, the Secretary
of State and the Supreme Court to get the language
that they wanted.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
And Gates's chair of Colorado Wildlife Deserve Better the website
Wildlife Deservebetter dot com.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Lukewheedl, policy analyst at.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, gentlemen, thank you for your time.
Thank you for making a very strong case against Proposition
one twenty seven. I was already against it. I'm even
more against it now if it's possible, and I appreciate
your efforts.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Thanks Ross, appreciate it. Thank you. Ross
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.