Some years back, an old elk-hunting friend related the account of one spring evening when he was walking back to his truck after an afternoon of looking for shed antlers. It was growing dark, and he was walking down a trail with a 5-point elk antler in one hand and a small pocketknife as his only possible weapon. Suddenly, as he told the tale, the hairs on the back of his neck stood up, and he turned around to find a big tom mountain lion crouched on the trail about fifty feet away, watching him, its tail lashing.

My friend yelled, waved the elk antler over his head, and generally made himself look big. The mountain lion watched him briefly, then turned and walked casually away. Now, there's no evidence that the lion would have attacked him had he not turned around — but there's no evidence it wouldn't have, either. Big apex predators tend to see any other creatures as either a threat or food, and in areas where they aren't hunted much, well, they don't see humans as threats.

This is why it's a good thing that Colorado voters retain enough good sense to overwhelmingly reject a ballot initiative that would have banned the hunting and trapping of mountain lions and bobcats.

Colorado voters rejected a ballot question that would have banned big cat hunting. The no side led the yes side 55.5% to 45.5%, with 78% of the vote counted, according to The Associated Press.

If the measure passed, the measure would have issued various penalties to those caught hunting protected species, including jail time, fines, and loss of hunting licenses.

Yeah, here's the thing: States have fish and game departments — Alaska calls it the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Colorado calls theirs Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Those state agencies hire wildlife biologists, who are paid by tax dollars to manage game species and pests — to determine harvest levels, to maintain populations at a stable level, and to maintain that balance of population and carrying capacity while allowing the harvest of wildlife for human use.

Animal rights groups, though, think they know better.

An organization called Cats Aren't Trophies spearheaded the ballot initiative.

Sam Miller, the organization's campaign director, called for more modest big cat protections amid Proposition 127's defeat.

He called on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife to ban the use of dogs in mountain lion hunting, plus the use of baited traps on bobcats.

Colorado banned the use of dogs in bear hunting by a similar ballot initiative way back in the early '90s — another bad idea, but it passed. Expect a toned-down measure, like the one Sam Miller describes here, to be pushed in the next cycle.

See Related: Hunters and Anglers For Harris-Walz? Don't Make Me Laugh.

Kamala Harris in 2006: 'Would Be Great' to Ban All Gun Ownership

The initiative had its opponents as well.

The Sportsmen's Alliance strongly opposed Proposition 127 and celebrated its defeat.

“We’re celebrating the rejection of animal extremist ideologies in Colorado and the clear recognition of the fundamental rights to hunt and fish in Florida,” Evan Heusinkveld, President and Chief Executive Officer at the Sportsmen’s Alliance, said in a statement posted to the organization's website. “Voters have made it clear that our traditions are scientifically-sound and fully supported by the public."

So, a win for Colorado sportsmen — but more importantly, it's a win for modern, scientific wildlife management. The animal rights people will be back to try again, of course, and it's probably inevitable that nowadays, in our increasingly urbanized population, they will see some successes. 

Even so, no reason not to smile and enjoy this win. Way to go, Colorado. Y'all did good — not only in this but in slam-dunking ranked-choice voting as well. I have a little more faith in the people of that beautiful state where I lived for almost half my life.