Big cat hunting in Colorado is not for meat
I write to shed light on a subject that is often overlooked in discussions about trophy hunting and trapping of mountain lions and bobcats in Colorado — consumption of their meat. Proponents of these activities may argue that the meat is used, but the reality is far from it. Mountain lion and bobcat meat is not inspected by the USDA, posing a potential public health risk. The meat could harbor zoonotic diseases, which can transfer from animals to humans, creating untold health risks.
Further, you won’t find mountain lion or bobcat meat on the menu in any restaurant that considers itself part of a civilized society. The very notion evokes a sense of disgust because it’s fundamentally at odds with our ethical and social norms. The primary motivations for hunting these animals are not for food but for sport and profit, often leaving families of these beautiful creatures orphaned and vulnerable.
The absence of mountain lion and bobcat meat in our food system isn’t a mere coincidence; it’s a reflection of both the potential dangers and a societal consensus that recognizes the grim implications of such consumption. Colorado’s ballot initiative to ban trophy hunting and trapping of wild cats offers an opportunity to align our laws with both public health interests and ethical standards. Let’s make the choice that benefits us all, including the wildlife we share our state with.
For the cats,
Carole Baskin, Tampa
Editor’s note: Baskin is CEO of Big Cat Rescue.
Use license plate readers to enforce registration
Re: “40,000 drivers caught on camera using express lanes to pass others,” Sept. 29 news story
OK, so we’ve got this whiz-bang system that can read license plates on a car as it flashes past at 70 mph in the toll lanes. It can even read the state it came from and can track the driver down, send him a bill for his toll fee, and follow up if he doesn’t pay it. All completely automated.
So, why can’t we use those plate readers to read expired temporary tags and send those drivers a bill for their registration fees? Maybe it’s because there are so many it would overload the system.
Richard Webb, Littleton
Another end run on TABOR
I have never known a politician who could not find a way to spend every tax dollar collected.
This Will Rogers-type statement clearly reflects the attitude of Colorado legislators as they continually try to whittle down the TABOR amendment. What is wrong with giving a refund to taxpayers instead of perpetually creating some new entity for unsustainable spending?
Propositions HH and II are the current attempts to shrink TABOR. The recently mailed information booklet summarizes HH as to “allow the state to retain and spend excess state revenue.” It is easy to create excesses every year by intentional overtaxation. Another nebulous comment states property taxes would be lower than they would be “otherwise.” How comforting! TABOR refunds are guaranteed on excess revenue. Imagined property tax savings from constantly increasing assessments are not.
Proposition II is a bit more difficult. It would spend excess revenue of a nicotine tax on a good cause, enhancing preschool programs. Unfortunately, it is based on revenues over some estimate and there is nothing that would make sure the estimate is fair value. The windfall is $23 million, and that similar revenues will be available for subsequent years cannot be assured. For a critical preschool program, success depends on well-defined revenues, and there is no guarantee that the revenue will project comparably in the future nor provide a guarantee that other currently dedicated revenues for preschools will remain the same and not be diverted to pet projects.
Think carefully before you vote on these TABOR-rescinding propositions.
Mike Reimer, Arvada
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
