“Carnivore Crisis” or Fund-Raising Fiction?
A Reality Check on Animal Wellness Action’s Latest Anti-Predator-Management Blast

Animal Wellness Action (AWA) is circulating an alert titled “Carnivore Crisis in Colorado.”
It claims we’ve returned to a “Persecution Era,” that hound pursuit and any hunting serve “no purpose,” and that “trophy hunters” backed by “misinformation” threaten entire ecosystems. The e-mail cites a Colorado State University (CSU) poll, pushes a webinar, and—of course—asks for donations.

Here’s what the message leaves out.

1. “Persecution” vs. Regulated Conservation

• Voter reality. Last November, Coloradans rejected Proposition 127, a ballot ban on lion & bobcat hunting (56 % “No”). Voters understood that management—not prohibition—protects both wildlife and people.

• Agency reality. Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) uses quotas, age-sex harvest limits, and mandatory checks; annual lion harvest is < 13 % of the adult population—well within North-American‐wide sustainability thresholds.

• Conflict reality. Where proactive tools are stripped away, cats still die. California banned lion hunting in 1990 yet was forced to kill the animal that fatally mauled Taylen Brooks and injured his brother Wyatt in 2024.

“Persecution” is a fundraising buzzword that ignores modern, science-based lethal and non-lethal management.

2. Why BOTH Non-Lethal and Lethal Tools Matter

AWA paints all lethal take as barbaric “trophy hunting.” In truth, state wildlife plans endorse a full toolbox:

• Non-lethal hazing (e.g., Washington’s pursuit-pass program) teaches bold cats to avoid people.

• Targeted lethal removal of specific problem lions immediately stops livestock depredations or repeated threats to human safety—an action endorsed by every western wildlife agency and backed by decades of research on predator-prey dynamics, public safety, and ungulate recruitment.

• Regulated harvest spreads pressure across a landscape, keeps populations within carrying capacity, and funds 100 % of CPW’s lion research and conflict-response budget through license fees and excise taxes.

Management science is unequivocal: when non-lethal tactics fail (or when lion density outstrips prey supply), selective lethal take protects prey herds, reduces illicit “shoot-shovel-shut-up” killing, and preserves the public’s tolerance for large carnivores.

3. The Skewed CSU Poll

AWA spotlights one data point—opposition to “trophy” motives. The same survey shows:

• 63 % of Coloradans support killing a lion to protect human safety.

• 56 % support lethal take to protect livestock.

• Respondents split 41 / 41 % on lion hunting in general—hardly the anti-hunting mandate AWA implies.

Word the question to emphasize “trophy” and you’ll tilt the answers. Word it around safety or food security and support for lethal action climbs fast.

4. Arizona Shows What Happens When Activists Overreach

In April 2025, the Arizona Game & Fish Commission unanimously rejected two activist petitions to ban hound use. Commissioners cited the need for flexible tools—non-lethal conditioning and lethal removal—to address rising conflicts.

AWA’s allies called the decision “persecution,” but rural residents and wildlife biologists called it common sense.

5. Ecosystems Need Predators—But Predators Need Management

Unchecked lion densities can halve mule-deer fawn survival and suppress elk calf ratios, shrinking food for bears, eagles, and even lions themselves. CPW’s predator-prey studies show localized harvests can rebound ungulate herds without threatening statewide cougar viability. Predators and prey matter; pretending lethal control is never needed ignores complex food-web math.

6. Follow the Money, Follow the Language

“None of the carnage helps wildlife,” AWA claims—while urging readers to “reserve your spot” in a webinar and donate. The pitch trades on outrage but offers no plan for when hazing fails, livestock dies, or another Brooks-family tragedy looms.

Groups on the ground—state agencies, houndsmen who collar cats for research, conservation NGOs that embrace regulated hunting—foot the bill for real management. AWA bankrolls press releases.

Bottom Line

Twenty-first-century predator management uses a continuum: education → non-lethal deterrence → selective lethal removal → regulated harvest. Science and experience show this mix keeps ecosystems healthy and people safe.

AWA’s “Carnivore Crisis” narrative cherry-picks polls, demonizes every lethal tool, and funnels anger into donations. That may pay fund-raising dividends, but it risks more dead livestock, declining ungulates, and—in worst cases—dead lions and people.

If you truly care about mountain lions, bobcats, wolves, bears, and the communities that share their range, support comprehensive, data-driven management—not one-note campaigns built on half-truths and hyperbole.

Balanced stewardship beats fundraising fiction every time.