The Bridge
Colorado voters weigh a ban on hunting mountain lions as attitudes toward wild predators shift
The content discusses Colorado’s Proposition 127, a proposed ban on hunting and trapping mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx. Public opinion is divided, with shifting attitudes towards conservation and non-lethal management strategies.
Last Updated on September 16, 2024 by Daily News Staff
Kevin Crooks, Colorado State University and Rebecca Niemiec, Colorado State University
Hunting large carnivores is a contentious issue in wildlife management and conservation. It’s on the ballot in fall 2024 in Colorado, where voters will consider Proposition 127, a proposed ban on hunting and trapping of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx in the state.
Wildlife agencies often use regulated hunting as a tool for controlling carnivore populations, reducing their impacts on vulnerable wildlife or minimizing the risk of conflict between carnivores and people, pets and livestock. But scientific studies have questioned how effectively recreational hunting achieves these goals. And public attitudes are shifting as participation in hunting declines.
We direct Colorado State University’s Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence and Animal-Human Policy Center. Together with our colleague Benjamin Ghasemi, we recently surveyed Colorado residents about their perceptions of hunting mountain lions and black bears in the state.
We found that support for hunting depended on the purpose, with most Coloradans disapproving of hunting for trophies or sport. Gender, age and other demographic factors also played roles.
Meet the neighbors
Mountain lions, also known as cougars or pumas, live primarily in the western U.S. and are legally hunted in all western states except California. Black bears, which live mainly in mountainous and forested regions across the continental U.S., are hunted in the majority of states in which they are found.
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife agency estimates that roughly 3,800 to 4,400 adult mountain lions and 17,000 to 20,000 black bears live in Colorado. They are found mainly in the Rocky Mountains, with the eastern edges of their ranges near more human-populated areas in the Front Range.
According to state data, hunters in Colorado killed 502 mountain lions during the 2022-2023 hunting season and 1,299 black bears during the 2023 season.
Both species come into conflict with people in the state. The most common situation is when bears wander into mountain towns in search of garbage or other foods left by humans. Mountain lions are occasionally sighted in urban areas, and on rare occasions have attacked people. https://www.youtube.com/embed/-PCc77LZW_Y?wmode=transparent&start=0 Residents of Silverton, Colo., react after a mother bear that wandered into town in September 2024 was shot with a bean bag, intended as a nonlethal hazing method, and died.
Varying views of hunting
Our study gathered responses from Colorado residents through two public mail surveys. Samples were weighted to be representative of state population demographics, including age, gender, urbanization level, geographical region and participation in hunting.
Respondents’ views on legal and regulated hunting of mountain lions were evenly split, with 41% approving and 41% disapproving. This was also true for black bears: 46% approved of hunting them, and 46% disapproved.
Large majorities disapproved of hunting either animal for trophies, hide or fur, or for recreation. For mountain lions, 78% of respondents disapproved of trophy hunting; for black bears, 86% disapproved of trophy hunting. People also generally disapproved of hunting either species for meat.
Respondents were more supportive of hunts for other reasons. They approved of hunting mountain lions and black bears to protect human safety by 63% and 57%, respectively. And 56% approved of hunting mountain lions to reduce harm to livestock.
Large majorities disapproved of hunting mountain lions with dogs (88%) or recorded electronic calls (75%). Most mountain lions hunted in Colorado are legally taken with the aid of dogs, which chase and then tree or corner the cats. Using electronic calls to attract the cats was permitted in some parts of western Colorado until 2024, when the practice was banned for hunting mountain lions. It remains legal for hunting other carnivores, such as bobcats and coyotes.
Women, younger people, urban residents and people who identified as or leaned Democratic tended to be less supportive of hunting than men, older people, rural residents and Republicans. A study we published in 2022 on the reintroduction of wolves to Colorado found a similar political split, with stronger support for restoring wolves among people who identified as Democratic than among Republicans.
How to coexist with carnivores?
Although Coloradans were generally supportive of using hunting to reduce human conflict with black bears and mountain lions, studies suggest that it might not be the most effective tool to do so.
For example, a recent experimental study in Ontario, Canada, concluded that increased hunting of black bears did not result in less conflict – particularly during years when the bear’s natural food sources, such as nuts and berries, were limited in the wild. A long-term study on bears in Durango, Colorado, also found that availability of natural foods in the wild, and the lure of human food within the city, were the main drivers of clashes with bears.
Conversely, another study in New Jersey – which is more densely developed than Colorado, so bears may be more likely to encounter people – found that well-regulated hunting of closely monitored black bear populations could help reduce conflict.
Similar to its policy with bears, Colorado uses hunting as a management tool for mountain lions. There is limited scientific evidence that hunting mountain lions may prevent conflict with them. A recent study found that juvenile mountain lions from a hunted site in Nevada tended to avoid developed areas. In contrast, young cats from a site in California without hunting did not show any preference for or against areas with people.
Yet, other correlative studies in Washington, California and Canada have suggested that hunting may make the problem worse. According to these researchers, hunting might disrupt the social dynamics and age structure of mountain lion populations, causing young cats seeking new territory to roam into populated areas, increasing their chances of encountering people.
Overall, we believe that more reliable scientific information is needed to guide carnivore management and test assumptions about how effective hunting is at addressing these problems. Continued focus on proactive, nonlethal strategies to prevent conflict is essential.
Ultimately, promoting coexistence between humans and carnivores is often much more about managing people than about managing predators. Changing human behavior is key.
For example, failing to store garbage securely attracts bears. So does filling bird feeders in spring, summer and fall, when bears are active. Steps to reduce encounters with mountain lions include hiking in groups and making noise; keeping dogs leashed in the backcountry; keeping pets indoors at home; and not landscaping with plants that attract deer, the cat’s main prey.
Big cats on the ballot
Colorado’s Proposition 127 would ban hunting and trapping of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx in the state. It would allow for lethal removal of problem animals to protect human life, property and livestock.
Hunting and trapping of bobcats, mainly to sell their pelts in the fur trade, is currently legal in Colorado. On average, hunters and trappers have killed 880 bobcats annually over the past three years, the majority of which were trapped. Hunting and trapping are currently prohibited for lynx, which are listed as endangered in Colorado and threatened nationally, but the proposed ban would protect them if their populations recover.
Coloradans have voted to limit carnivore hunting in the past. They passed a ballot initiative in 1992 to ban bait, hounds and a spring hunting season for bears, and another in 1996 to ban the use of leghold traps, poison and snares.
Our research adds to growing evidence that public views toward hunting and carnivores are shifting. An increasing share of Americans believes humans should coexist with carnivores and opposes lethal control for human benefit. Studies also suggest that ballot measures like Proposition 127 may become more common as public attitudes evolve and more diverse groups seek to influence wildlife management.
It will be challenging for wildlife managers to adapt to these changing values. Agencies may have to consider more participatory methods that engage diverse stakeholders in decision-making, develop new funding mechanisms that are less reliant on hunting and fishing license fees, and reexamine how and for whom they manage wild animals.
This article has been updated with the current number of the Colorado ballot initiative on big cat hunting.
Kevin Crooks, Professor of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology and Director, Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence, Colorado State University and Rebecca Niemiec, Assistant Professor in the Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The science section of our news blog STM Daily News provides readers with captivating and up-to-date information on the latest scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, and innovations across various fields. We offer engaging and accessible content, ensuring that readers with different levels of scientific knowledge can stay informed. Whether it’s exploring advancements in medicine, astronomy, technology, or environmental sciences, our science section strives to shed light on the intriguing world of scientific exploration and its profound impact on our daily lives. From thought-provoking articles to informative interviews with experts in the field, STM Daily News Science offers a harmonious blend of factual reporting, analysis, and exploration, making it a go-to source for science enthusiasts and curious minds alike. https://stmdailynews.com/category/science/
Unleashing the Debate: Should Colorado Outlaw Mountain Lion Hunting?
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
STM Daily News
Chinamaxxing: The Viral Trend Turning Geopolitics Into Aesthetic Fantasy
A viral social media trend called “Chinamaxxing” is turning geopolitics into aesthetic comparison—revealing more about generational frustration than China itself.
At first glance, the videos seem harmless enough.
Clean subways gliding into spotless stations. Neon skylines glowing at night. Clips of high-speed trains, cashless stores, orderly crowds. Overlaid text reads something like, “Meanwhile in China…” or “They figured it out.”
This is “Chinamaxxing,” a loosely defined but increasingly visible social media trend where mostly young users frame China as a model of efficiency, stability, and modernity—often in contrast to life in the West.
What makes the trend notable isn’t just its subject, but its tone. Chinamaxxing is rarely explicit political advocacy. It’s not a manifesto. It’s a mood. Aesthetic admiration blended with subtle critique, delivered through short, visually compelling clips that invite comparison without context.
And that’s precisely why it has sparked debate.
What Is “Chinamaxxing,” Really?
Despite the provocative name, Chinamaxxing isn’t a coordinated movement or ideology. It’s better understood as an algorithm-driven pattern—a recurring style of content that rewards certain visuals and emotional cues.
Most Chinamaxxing content emphasizes:
- Infrastructure and urban design
- Technology embedded in daily life
- Perceived order and efficiency
- Implicit contrast with Western dysfunction
What it typically omits:
- Political repression and censorship
- State surveillance
- Limits on speech and dissent
- The lived diversity of Chinese experiences
The result is a highly curated portrayal—less about China as a nation, and more about what viewers want to believe is possible somewhere else.
Why It’s Gaining Traction Now
The rise of Chinamaxxing says as much about the West as it does about China.
For many young users, particularly Gen Z, the backdrop is familiar: rising housing costs, student debt, healthcare anxiety, political polarization, and a growing sense that institutions no longer function as promised.
In that environment, visually persuasive content showing order and functionality carries emotional weight. It offers relief from chaos—real or perceived.
Social platforms amplify this effect. Short-form video rewards clarity, contrast, and immediacy. A clean subway platform communicates more in five seconds than a policy analysis ever could. Nuance does not trend well. Aesthetics do.
The Social and Political Criticism
Critics argue Chinamaxxing crosses a line from curiosity into distortion.
By focusing exclusively on infrastructure and surface-level efficiency, the trend risks:
- Normalizing authoritarian governance through lifestyle framing
- Reducing political systems to consumer experiences
- Ignoring the tradeoffs that make such systems possible
Supporters counter that Western media has long flattened China into a single negative narrative, and that admiration for specific aspects of another society is not the same as endorsing its government.
Both perspectives, however, miss something important.
What the Trend Actually Reveals
Chinamaxxing isn’t primarily about China. It’s about disillusionment.
It reflects a generation that:
- Feels let down by existing systems
- Engages politics emotionally rather than institutionally
- Uses visual culture to express dissatisfaction indirectly
In this context, China becomes a projection surface—not because it is perfect, but because it appears functional.
That distinction matters.
Why This Matters
Chinamaxxing highlights how political understanding is evolving in the digital age. Governance is increasingly consumed not through debate or civic participation, but through comparison clips, memes, and aesthetics.
The risk isn’t admiration. It’s oversimplification.
When complex societies are reduced to visuals alone, public discourse loses depth. But when those visuals resonate, they also signal real unmet needs: stability, competence, and trust in institutions.
Ignoring that signal would be a mistake.
The STM Daily News Perspective
Chinamaxxing is not an endorsement, a conspiracy, or a joke. It is a cultural artifact—one that reflects generational anxiety, algorithmic storytelling, and the widening gap between expectations and reality.
The question it raises isn’t whether China is better.
It’s why so many people feel their own systems are no longer working.
Related Reading
- BBC News: China Coverage and Global Context
- The Atlantic: Technology, Media, and Internet Culture Analysis
- Pew Research Center: Global Attitudes and Political Perception
- The New York Times: China and International Affairs
- Brookings Institution: China Policy and Global Governance
More on This Topic from STM Daily News
Stay tuned to STM Daily News for more stories exploring internet culture, social media trends, and how digital platforms shape public perception. We’ll be publishing in-depth pieces that break down the societal impact of viral phenomena like Chinamaxxing, the psychology behind online political trends, and the evolving language of Gen Z culture.
Want alerts? Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for the latest insights and analysis.
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lifestyle
A Legacy of Service: How family stories shape service
Legacy of Service: Discover how military service creates lasting family legacies across generations. Explore powerful veteran stories from the Veterans History Project, including Pearl Harbor survivors and Code Talkers, and learn how to preserve your family’s service history.
Last Updated on February 6, 2026 by Daily News Staff
A Legacy of Service: How family stories shape service
(Family Features) Major historical events like war or military service make a lasting impact on family identity, values and traditions, often reverberating across multiple generations. Veterans frequently speak about their military units as if they were family, given the unbreakable bonds that develop between comrades. However, for some veterans, “brothers in arms” is more than a figurative turn of phrase. Throughout the 20th century, entire families felt the firsthand effects of war, with multiple generations serving. Brothers enlisted together. A father’s military legacy inspired his children to join up. Sweethearts met and married while in uniform. These stories not only illustrate the experiences of individual veterans but also provide an intimate glimpse into family legacies of military service. Consider the Veterans History Project, a program overseen by the Library of Congress, which collects and preserves the firsthand remembrances of U.S. military veterans and makes them accessible for future generations to better understand veterans’ service and sacrifice. These personal stories encompass original correspondence, memoirs, diaries, photographs and oral history interviews, all offering deeper insight into the long-term impact of military service. Veterans’ narratives are collected by volunteers, and anyone who served from World War I to today can submit their personal story, regardless of whether or not they saw combat. The collections frequently shed light on the importance of family in military experiences. Whether expressed through heartfelt letters home, enduring family legacies of service or the experience of serving alongside loved ones, these stories reflect profound connections.
Family Identity During the Cold War, Jennifer McNeill rose from Army Dental Assistant to Command Sergeant Major at the Army Eisenhower Medical Center in Fort Gordon, Georgia. Her collection includes a poignant photograph of her mother sharing images of her four military daughters in uniform, underscoring how family identity and military service are closely connected. Values Military service makes a lasting impression on veterans, shaping the experiences and the values that guide them through life. Ray Chavez is one such example. He was the oldest known Pearl Harbor survivor before his passing in 2018. For most of his life, he remained silent about his experiences, but in 1991, his daughter, Kathleen Chavez, who served in the U.S. Navy during Desert Storm, convinced him to return to Pearl Harbor. That trip marked the first time he spoke openly about his service. Kathleen shared their family’s deep military legacy in her oral history for the Veterans History Project. Traditions Across Generations Serving in the military is a deeply personal journey, but for many veterans, it’s an experience that transcends generations. Bill Toledo enlisted in the Marine Corps in October 1942 at the age of 18. Along with his uncle, Frank Toledo, and cousin, Preston Toledo, he served as a Code Talker transmitting military messages through secret codes. In his oral history, Bill vividly recalled both the challenges of combat during the invasion of Iwo Jima in February 1945, and the treasured moments spent with his uncle. These and many other family stories of military service and remembrance are available to the public at loc.gov/vets. Photo courtesy of Shutterstock (men looking at scrapbook)
Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress (man and woman on park bench) Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Daily News
Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl Halftime Show Fits the NFL’s Long Game to Win Latin America
The NFL aims to expand its reach into Latin America through strategic marketing and high-profile performers like Bad Bunny at the Super Bowl halftime show. While the choice has sparked controversy, particularly among conservatives, the league sees it as a business move to attract more fans, particularly in Mexico and Brazil.
Jared Bahir Browsh, University of Colorado Boulder
Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl show is part of long play drawn up by NFL to score with Latin America
Donald Trump, it is fair to assume, will be switching channels during this year’s Super Bowl halftime show.
The U.S. president has already said that he won’t be attending Super Bowl LX in person, suggesting that the venue, Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California, was “just too far away.” But the choice of celebrity entertainment planned for the main break – Puerto Rican reggaeton star Bad Bunny and recently announced pregame addition Green Day – didn’t appeal. “I’m anti-them. I think it’s a terrible choice. All it does is sow hatred. Terrible,” Trump told the New York Post.
National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell likely didn’t have the sensibilities of the U.S. president in mind when the choice of Bad Bunny was made.
One of the top artists in the world, Bad Bunny performs primarily in Spanish and has been critical of immigration enforcement, which factored into the backlash in some conservative circles to the choice. Bad Bunny’s anti-ICE comments at this year’s Grammy Awards will have only stoked the ire of some conservatives.
But for the NFL hierarchy, this was likely a business decision, not a political one. The league has its eyes on expansion into Latin America; Bad Bunny, they hope, will be a ratings-winning means to an end. It has made such bets in the past. In 2020, Shakira and Jennifer Lopez were chosen to perform, with Bad Bunny making an appearance. The choice then, too, was seen as controversial.
Raising the flag overseas
As a teacher and scholar of critical sports studies, I study the global growth of U.S.-based sports leagues overseas.
Some, like the National Basketball Association, are at an advantage. The sport is played around the globe and has large support bases in Asia – notably in the Philippines and China – as well as in Europe, Australia and Canada.
The NFL, by contrast, is largely entering markets that have comparatively little knowledge and experience with football and its players.
The league has opted for a multiprong approach to attracting international fans, including lobbying to get flag football into the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Playing the field
When it comes to the traditional tackle game, the NFL has held global aspirations for over three-quarters of a century. Between 1950-1961, before they merged, the NFL and American Football League played seven games against teams in Canada’s CFL to strengthen the relationship between the two nations’ leagues.
Developing a fan base south of the border has long been part of the plan.
The first international exhibition game between two NFL teams was supposed to take place in Mexico City in 1968. But Mexican protest over the economy and cost of staging the Olympics that year led the game, between the Detroit Lions and Philadelphia Eagles, to be canceled.
Instead, it was Montreal that staged the first international exhibition match the following year.
In 1986, the NFL added an annual international preseason game, the “American Bowl,” to reach international fans, including several games in Mexico City and one in Monterrey.
But the more concerted effort was to grow football in the potentially lucrative, and familiar, European market.
After several attempts by the NFL and other entities in the 1970s and ’80s to establish an international football league, the NFL-backed World League of Football launched in 1991. Featuring six teams from the United States, one from Canada and three from Europe, the spring league lost money but provided evidence that there was a market for American football in Europe, leading to the establishment of NFL Europe.
But NFL bosses have long had wider ambitions. The league staged 13 games in Tokyo, beginning in 1976, and planned exhibitions for 2007 and 2009 in China that were ultimately canceled. These attempts did not have the same success as in Europe.
Beyond exhibitions
The NFL’s outreach in Latin America has been decades in the making. After six exhibition matches in Mexico between 1978 and 2001, the NFL chose Mexico City as the venue of its first regular season game outside the United States.
In 2005, it pitted the Arizona Cardinals against the San Francisco 49ers at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City. Marketed as “Fútbol Americano,” it drew the largest attendance in NFL history, with over 103,000 spectators.
The following year, Goodell was named commissioner and announced that the NFL would focus future international efforts on regular-season games.
The U.K. was a safe bet due to the established stadium infrastructure and the country’s small but passionate fan base. The NFL International Series was played exclusively in London between 2007 and 2016.
But in 2016, the NFL finally returned to Mexico City, staging a regular-season game between the Oakland – now Las Vegas – Raiders and Houston Texans.
And after the completion of upgrades to Latin America’s largest stadium, Estadio Azteca, the NFL will return to Mexico City in 2026, along with games in Munich, Berlin and London. Future plans include expanding the series to include Sydney, Australia, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2026.
The International Player Pathway program also offers players from outside the United States an opportunity to train and earn a roster spot on an NFL team. The hope is that future Latin American players could help expand the sport in their home countries, similar to how Yao Ming expanded the NBA fan base in China after joining the Houston Rockets, and Shohei Ohtani did the same for baseball in Japan while playing in Los Angeles.
Heading south of the border
The NFL’s strategy has gained the league a foothold in Latin America.
Mexico and Brazil have become the two largest international markets for the NFL, with nearly 40 million fans in each of the nations.
Although this represents a fraction of the overall sports fans in each nation, the raw numbers match the overall Latino fan base in the United States. In recent years the NFL has celebrated Latino Heritage Month through its Por La Cultura campaign, highlighting Latino players past and present.
Latin America also offers practical advantages. Mexico has long had access to NFL games as the southern neighbor to the United States, with the Dallas Cowboys among the most popular teams in Mexico.
For broadcasters, Central and South America offer less disruption in regards to time zones. Games in Europe start as early as 6:30 a.m. for West Coast fans, whereas Mexico City follows Central time, and Brasilia time is only one to two hours ahead of Eastern time.
The NFL’s expansion plans are not without criticism. Domestically, fans have complained that teams playing outside the U.S. borders means one less home game for season-ticket holders. And some teams have embraced international games more than others.
Another criticism is the league, which has reported revenues of over US$23 billion during the 2024-25 season – nearly double any other U.S.-based league – is using its resources to displace local sports. There are also those who see expansion of the league as a form of cultural imperialism. These criticisms often intersect with long-held ideas around the league promoting militarism, nationalism and American exceptionalism.
Bad Bunny: No Hail Mary attempt
For sure, the choice of Bad Bunny as the halftime pick is controversial, given the current political climate around immigration. The artist removed tour dates on the U.S. mainland in 2025 due to concerns about ICE targeting fans at his concerts, a concern reinforced by threats from the Department of Homeland Security that they would do just that at the Super Bowl.
But in sticking with Bad Bunny, the NFL is showing it is willing to face down a section of its traditional support and bet instead on Latin American fans not just tuning in for the halftime show but for the whole game – and falling in love with football, too.
Jared Bahir Browsh, Assistant Teaching Professor of Critical Sports Studies, University of Colorado Boulder
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
