Peer-reviewed AHPC Study Highlights the Power of Misleading “Ballot Box Biology” Narratives

A new study published in the journal Conservation Science and Practice by researchers at the Animal Human Policy Center and the Center for Human Carnivore Coexistence explored what led voters to reject a 2024 wildlife protection ballot initiative. The study involved conducting intercept interviews with 314 Colorado residents to examine what drove Coloradans to vote against Proposition 127, an initiative that would have banned the hunting and trapping of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx in the state. 

Key Findings

• We found that the most common reasons why residents voted in opposition to the initiative were beliefs that wildlife management decisions should be left to the experts and “ballot box biology” should be avoided. 
• However, the “ballot box biology” narrative is misleading, because historically, most wildlife management decisions have reflected the domination values of more traditional stakeholders. Citizen-led initiatives can be a way for other public values (e.g., mutualism) to be considered in decision-making.
• Our results suggest a need for critical public discourse on differentiating between the moral or value-based components of wildlife management decisions that the public should weigh in on, and the biological components of decisions that should be left to the experts.
• Our results also highlight the need for more inclusive models of wildlife governance that incoroporate all public values in decision-making.