11 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
michaelflutist's avatar

There's bail now for people charged with 1st-degree murder in CO? On trophy hunting, what's the argument for it!?

Expand full comment
DM's avatar

Technically there is in California, but the judge has wide discretion on flight risk, public safety, and if charged with special circumstances that could allow for the death penalty.

Expand full comment
Avedee Eikew's avatar

On Amendment I:

"Ballot title

The ballot question is as follows:

“ Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning creating an exception to the right to bail for cases of murder in the first degree when proof is evident or presumption is great?[5]"

"Arguments in favor:

State Sen. Rhonda Fields (D-29): "This is a fix that the Colorado Supreme Court has asked us to do to be able to make sure that we have a balanced approach for those who have access to bail."

State Sen. Mike Lynch (R-65): "This was clearly an unintended consequence of repealing the death penalty that puts the safety of the community at risk, and nearly 500 first-degree murder cases have been impacted since 2020, and courts have set bond in some of those cases."

State Rep. Monica Duran (D): "It’s really just going back to the way Colorado was — it’s nothing new. We’re not creating a new penalty at all, we’re just going back to the way… it’s been all along except for this little loophole when we removed the death penalty."

State Sen. Tom Sullivan: "This is the least that we could do. This is by far the least we can do is to make sure that these killers do not have the ability to see the light of the day until their trial has been completely adjudicated."

Argument opposed:

State Rep. Javier Mabrey (D): "I felt that it could impact the principle of innocence until proven guilty. If a judge makes a determination that someone is likely guilty before the trial, I worry about the signal that could send to the jury, the prosecution and the defense."

My concern is with the standard of "proof is evident or presumption is great." What criteria meets this standard?

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Amendment_I,_Remove_Right_to_Bail_in_First_Degree_Murder_Cases_Amendment_(2024)

Proposition 127:

Arguments in favor:

Cats Aren't Trophies: "The value of having three species of wild cats in Colorado should not solely be measured in the dollars they bring as fur for trappers, or a head, hide or a mount for a trophy hunter. Mountain lions occupy a unique place in Colorado as an apex predator bringing vast benefits to Colorado’s deer and elk herds by keeping them healthy from the deadly neurological Chronic Wasting Disease; mountain lions are key to whole ecosystem health, and public safety because they reduce vehicle collisions with deer that are becoming much more common and deadly. By allowing inhumane and unnecessary trophy hunting and trapping of wild cats in modern times when we face climate change and biodiversity losses, we should be working hard to invest in our wildlife, rather than offer such easy shooting opportunities for no public good. Especially when we truly do not know how many of these species exist in our state."

Arguments in Opposition:

Gaspar Perricone, chair of Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project: "The future of Colorado’s wildlife management is at a crossroads. The underpinnings of science-based wildlife management administered by wildlife professionals may be on the ballot this November, and the stakes couldn’t be higher."

State Sen. Perry Will: "Ballot box biology is the absolute worst way you can manage wildlife. Our capable wildlife professionals are put in charge to manage our wildlife. But they feel the power to do this because that's how reintroducing wolves was passed. They would have done it with wolverines if I wouldn't have put a bill in place, which is a better way to do these things."

Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better: “According to Colorado Parks & Wildlife, regulated hunting is a management tool to maintain more stable populations. This ballot measure is an attempt to upend science-based wildlife management strategies that have been used by Colorado Parks & Wildlife to maintain abundant and stable mountain lion and bobcat populations for decades. Without regulated hunting and trapping, these animal populations may increase dramatically, posing an increased safety risk to people, pets, property, livestock, and other wildlife populations across the state. This ballot measure would have a disproportionate impact on rural communities in Colorado and would no longer allow farmers to be reimbursed for any livestock losses caused by mountain lions. This ballot measure would have a significant negative impact on Colorado’s economy, resulting in over $60 million in lost economic output. This ballot measure is dangerous, reckless, and based on absolutely zero scientific research. Irresponsible ballot measures such as these have no place in Colorado.”

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_127,_Prohibit_Hunting_of_Mountain_Lion,_Bobcat,_and_Lynx_Initiative_(2024)

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I don't like the pro-death penalty arguments, but if people charged with first-degree murder can't be held without bail, that's absurd to me.

Expand full comment
S Kolb's avatar

absolutely agree!!

Expand full comment
Avedee Eikew's avatar

Yeah I'm not rooting for murderers to run amuck I just want some clarification on how uniform the standard of "proof is evident or presumption is great" so it's not used as a constitutionally protected presumption of guilt or catch-all for anyone facing the charges.

Expand full comment
the lurking ecologist's avatar

I guess the arguments for trophy hunting would be that it brings in a s-load of money. Trophy hunters tend to spend tons, but it's fairly concentrated. Also perhaps to maintain balance if predator populations get too big, but that can be handled through nuisance wildlife statutes. Finally, so Fifi or Patches don't get eaten when let out. Which I presume affects less than 10 pets/yr.

I'd vote to ban.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I think it's fine to have special hunting seasons to control populations, but no need to have non-food hunting every year, in my opinion.

Expand full comment
Avedee Eikew's avatar

In principle, I'd like to see trophy hunting banned I do worry/wonder if the ballot is the best place to do it, if the statutes you mention might be hindered by it. My hesitancy to most of the amendments/propositions I listed are unintended consequences & that maybe the state legislature is the more appropriate place to hash these changes out. I'm all for enshrining abortion rights and some of the other amendments that are cut and dry.

By your username assuming you have a background in ecology what is your take on the population control arguments? Thanks.

Expand full comment
the lurking ecologist's avatar

I don't know the situation real well in Colorado, but you can control populations just fine without trophy hunting. I doubt any of those cats are overpopulated. Probably only coyotes are. If there are nuisance animals they can be selectively culled. Your DNR can make the determination and issue the permits.

Expand full comment
the lurking ecologist's avatar

Also, assuming the ballot language is pretty clean, I don't think it would impact existing nuisance control statutes much.

It's an unusual issue to have on the ballot. I wonder what spurred it? Some dumb dentist's hero shot with DJT Jr in the background?

Expand full comment