-
Why is it not a moral issue?
Think the argument is that from a conservation perspective it's better the state to hold the responsibility as it's generally centrally and democratically accountable – in terms of there is a clearer line of sight on policy and action/intervention. In my mind thats better than relying on civillians who are pretty much purely motivated by taking part in the blood sport rather than anything else.
🅑🅐🅣🅣-
I agree that the morality of who pulls the trigger is debatable. My perspective is that I would rather the government have more money and resources to pursue other conservation work.
I wouldn't frame all hunters as being bloodthirsty killers. Some of them, absolutely yes: there is a population of middle-aged dudes with lots of disposable income that go out with 4x4s and excessive firepower. But the hunters I know have a lot of respect for what they're participating in and are very modest about what they do.
There are guardrails that mitigate abuse of the system. The state issues a certain number of permits. Anyone hunting without a permit is severely prosecuted if they're caught. Hunting lions in particular is highly regulated and requires training that your average meathead will likely fail.
placebomeplease
It's true, we've bungled this in the past. Personally, I think animal populations are presently well maintained in Colorado, including our big cats.
I shared the ballot issue because it's an example of Democrats causing more expense to the government with no real effect on the moral aspect of the issue they were fighting for.