In November, Colorado residents will vote on Initiative 91, which would ban regulated hunting of cougars and bobcats in the state. Brought forward by the animal rights group Cats Aren’t Trophies, it is the latest high-profile ballot proposal in Colorado that seeks to take wildlife management decisions away from state biologists and leave them to the public. This has worried hunters of all stripes, who see the bill as a dishonest attempt to misrepresent hunters and curtail hunting rights. The ballot initiative also makes little economic sense, according to a new study released Monday, since a big cat hunting ban would cost Colorado about $61.65 million in lost economic revenue.

The report comes from the Common Sense Institute, which describes itself as a “nonpartisan research organization dedicated to protecting and promoting Colorado’s economy.” Researchers concluded in the report that passage of Initiative 91 in November would have a direct impact on the state’s wildlife management coffers, with Colorado Parks and Wildlife missing out on $410,000 worth of potential license revenue through June 2025. That figure is based on the amount CPW made from cougar and bobcat license sales in 2023-23, when it sold 2,114 licenses to residents, as well as 500 licenses to nonresidents, according to CSI. (It’s worth noting that license sales do not equate to successful hunts; only 19% of hunters were successful in the 2022-23 season, meaning many hunters are paying for the opportunity to hunt cougars in Colorado without harvesting any.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

“These estimates include only the direct or static impacts of the measure,” CSI writes in a summary of its report. “Initiative 91 is likely to have broader economic impacts, as an increase in the puma predator population will impact other animal populations and habitats.”

Read more: Colorado expands its Wildlife Commission with three animal rights experts

In further analyzing these “dynamic” impacts, CSI believes that without hunting, the mountain lion population is likely to increase. This would result in fewer elk and deer on the landscape and would require CPW to devote more of its dwindling resources to combating livestock depredation and other conflicts with people.

The researchers in the study project that Colorado’s mountain lion population would increase by about 443 individuals within a year of banning hunting of the species. This is based on the average statewide hunt of 508 lions between 2019 and 2023, minus the number of lions that would have to be removed due to conflicts with landowners. CSI points out that California wildlife managers, who have not conducted mountain lion hunts since 1990, typically remove about 65 lions per year to protect private property interests at taxpayer expense.

These conflicts would cost private landowners more money because they would not be eligible for compensation under CPW’s wildlife damage program if mountain lions were to lose their current management status as a big game species. Researchers note that CPW’s expenses would also likely increase because the state would have to hire contractors to care for the problem lions.

However, CSI researchers concluded that a lion hunting ban would have the greatest impact on Colorado’s world-famous ungulate population and all the hunting opportunities that come with it. The state is currently home to North America’s largest elk herd and a robust mule deer population.

They cite an Oregon study that found that cougars kill an average of 1.03 elk/deer per week. From there, the connections are pretty easy to see. More lions would mean fewer elk and deer, which means fewer available hunting tags, which means less money for CPW to fund fish and wildlife conservation in the state. It also means less money for Colorado’s rural communities, which provide hunters with goods and services and are an essential part of the state’s economy.

Read more: Podcast: How the hunting ban came about

“Initiative 91 would result in an estimated loss of economic output of $61.65 million (in 2024 dollars),” CSI concludes in its summary, noting that “$6.28 million of this amount is directly attributable to lost mountain lion hunting and $55.37 million is attributable to indirect impacts on elk and deer hunting.”