Colorado's ballot measures continue to be divisive, with Front Range residents and rural residents often finding themselves at odds.

Can you express your dislike for rural Coloradans without actually saying it? That's the challenge facing two initiatives on the upcoming November ballot, which will ask the urban and suburban majority to essentially tell rural residents that they are not welcome in their own state and that their way of life is outdated, particularly when it comes to ranching and hunting.

One of these initiatives, known as Initiative 91, seeks to outlaw the hunting of bobcats and mountain lions. But many argue that this initiative is completely unnecessary and a direct insult to the rural communities who live alongside these predators and have been managing their populations through hunting. After all, these animals are already well-managed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife department in partnership with hunters, many of whom come from the rural Western Slope.

Despite what advocates may claim, Colorado law already prohibits hunting mountain lions for sport - the meat must be harvested for consumption. So not only does Initiative 91 reject science-based wildlife management, but it also shows a blatant disregard for the rural way of life, which for many includes hunting and fishing.

Unfortunately, Colorado has had a negative experience with these types of "ballot box biology" tactics before, especially for the rural communities. In a recent taste test, veal was chosen over venison, and thanks to Proposition 114, wolves were reintroduced to western Colorado in 2023. However, this has resulted in several instances of wolves killing livestock - 16 in Grand County alone. Ranchers have appealed to the state for help, and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife department is now planning to trap and relocate the depredating wolves. But as seen in similar efforts in Montana, this can lead to mated pairs separating and abandoning their pups. The scientists at CPW were well aware of the potential consequences of reintroducing this apex predator, but they were forced to do so by a narrow majority of voters. If urban voters had known the true impact of wolf reintroduction, would they have voted differently?

But wolves are not the only threat to ranchers' livelihoods. Another initiative on the Denver ballot this November seeks to shut down the 70-year-old employee-owned Superior Farm slaughterhouse near the National Western Stock Show complex. This would not only result in employees losing their jobs, but it would also have a significant negative impact on sheep ranchers and the state's economy.

According to a study by the Colorado State University Regional Economic Development Institute, this business generates around $861 million in economic activity and supports 3,000 jobs. The Denver facility also accounts for about 20% of all U.S. sheep processing capacity. If the slaughterhouse is not rebuilt elsewhere in Colorado, ranchers will have fewer options and may go out of business. This loss of processing capacity could also lead to markets importing meat instead of relying on domestic supply. And not all countries have the same humane regulations and standards as the U.S.

It's concerning that a small minority of voters could have such a significant impact on the majority, not just in Colorado, but nationwide. The individuals behind this initiative represent an even smaller minority who believe that humans should not eat meat. And this is their way of trying to impose their lifestyle on the rest of us. Only 2% of registered voters in Denver were needed to push this ballot question, which would result in a business being singled out for closure, employees losing their jobs, and harm being done to ranchers throughout the state. It would also cost the state millions of dollars in economic activity, force markets to import meat, and limit choices for those who prefer locally-sourced products. It's hard to imagine a worse idea.

Before urban and suburban voters are tempted to support these "feel-good" initiatives, perhaps they should visit their rural neighbors on either side of the Front Range and try to understand their perspective. A little empathy for rural Colorado is much needed.

[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]