On August 31 there will be a field trip to several of the areas "treated"
but the FS over the last few years. Anyone is welcome to come and
participate and ask questions. We will meet at the PUMA kiosk (near the end
of the pavement) at 10 am, Wednesday.
Scott
******************************
Scott Campbell Reuman
Artist/Writer
Conundrum Designs, Inc.
Nederland, CO
http://www.conundrumdesigns.com
scottreuman@conundrumdesigns.com
This is a repeat of an earlier posting. Some folks got in touch who
were just interested in parts, rather than the whole system. Please get
back in touch and we'll see what we can do. Of course, first priority
goes to someone who can use the WHOLE system.
FREE DESKTOP COMPUTER SYSTEM:
Old but lovingly maintained, excellent condition, 386 desktop computer
system. Perfect for in-house word processing, kid keyboard practice,
etc. Does not connect to Internet. .
The system:
Okidata B&W OL830 laser printer
Color monitor
386 main unit uses old Wordperfect & standard diskettes
Computer stand
Best of all...the price...the cost of gas to come & get it!
Norman
Aspen Meadow
We need a memory jog: How much are the dues and to whom do we send them?
Thanks, Wally and John
Mitzi and I are returning form Wyoming that day -- depending on our departure/arrival we will attempt to make the meeting. Thanks!
From: Terry Greenberg <Terry.Greenberg@colorado.edu>
Reply-To: Terry Greenberg <Terry.Greenberg@colorado.edu>
To: PUMA Mailing Listna <puma-news@www.puma-net.org>
Subject: [puma-news] The Meeting for the Grant is September 6th
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:52:24 -0600
>
>>Hi All Thanks to Debbie Ching I am nopw specifying the date of the
>>meeting:
>>
>>Dorothy Whalen has made a great beginning on the communtiy outline
>>for a plan so that we can attach it to the CWPP grant. The area is
>>shown in the attached map so that we can make this workable this
>>first time, i.e., not too big.
>>
>>Please remember to schedule coming to our meeting for this grant
>>where we will go over what we have put together thus far and then
>>add some people's concerns. We are hoping to see a whole lot of
>>people at the update meeting very close to the deadline of
>>September 12th. This will be September 6th, Tuesday, at 6:30 PM at
>>my house at 943 Pine Glade Road. Please RSVP and if you need more
>>information please call at 303-443-1409.
>>
>>Thanks for your efforts and interest and keep talking to neighbors
>>who want their name included.
>>
>>Terry Greenberg<grantmap.jpg>
>Deborah Ching
>PO Box 372
>Nederland, CO 80466
>303-442-8855
>
>
>Hi All Thanks to Debbie Ching I am nopw specifying the date of the meeting:
>
>Dorothy Whalen has made a great beginning on the communtiy outline for a
>plan so that we can attach it to the CWPP grant. The area is shown in the
>attached map so that we can make this workable this first time, i.e., not
>too big.
>
>Please remember to schedule coming to our meeting for this grant where we
>will go over what we have put together thus far and then add some
>people's concerns. We are hoping to see a whole lot of people at the
>update meeting very close to the deadline of September 12th. This will be
>September 6th, Tuesday, at 6:30 PM at my house at 943 Pine Glade
>Road. Please RSVP and if you need more information please call at
>303-443-1409.
>
>Thanks for your efforts and interest and keep talking to neighbors who
>want their name included.
>
>Terry Greenberg<grantmap.jpg>
Deborah Ching
PO Box 372
Nederland, CO 80466
303-442-8855
-------------- Original message --------------
Anyone know of a pager system that works nearly everywhere in the Aspen Meadows area?
Scott & Rachel
Neghbors,
We have a cord of dry split hardwood (elm) for immediate sale at $200.
If you can reply very soon, we could get it to you immediately!
Dan
303-442-7460
Pumites,
Here are several links which should help answer many of the questions
about cheatgrass control using Plateau Herbicide. We will work up a
series of instructions concerning application with the PUMA sprayers.
Cost to current PUMA members will be 50% of the cost to PUMA (paid your
dues?). Cost to non-members will be full cost. (This product cost PUMA
about $640 for 2 gallons.)
http://www.vmanswers.com/magazines.aspx?pid=698
http://www.vmanswers.com/content.aspx?mid=0&pid=720
http://www.prairiesource.com/plat_specs.htm
Dan
Pumites,
Some people were not sure if they had paid dues for 2005 yet.
According to our records, the only paid members of PUMA are:
Bargmann, Rosalie, Griess, Jerry
Border, Bill
Cowart, James & Todd
Dexter, Don & Pennie
Gilmore, Julie & Steve
Long, Ed & Cherie
I guess that doesn't include us!
Dan and Jennifer
Hi All,
I have recieved a note from Brian, our treasurer, that membership has
taken a nose dive, along with PUMA's bank account. We now have only 6
households who have paid their dues for 2005!
I suspect that PUMA has simply gone to sleep because we have no pressing
issues right now. In the past, we have battled the FAA, FERC, and USFS,
with a measure of success. While we didn't always get our way, we did
affect the outcomes of two major issues. DIA is more respectful of our
airspace, and USFS didn't clear-cut our whole forest (not that that is
what they were planning).
PUMA also puts on great parties, twice a year. It has been a factor in
creating a real sense of community up here. PUMA owns the lawn mower and
the weed whacker, and is making Plateau herbicide available to its
members, at half cost.
So, even while PUMA snoozes, that it can wake up when we need it, let us
( Dan & Jen too) check and see if we have overlooked our dues payments.
Please send your check ($24) to:
PUMA
P.O.Box 536
Nederland, 80466
Best to everybody,
Jennifer
Hi Members of PUMA
We are in the grant writing phase for the Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP ) in order to make our mountain community safer and
healthier. We need all the input from you to create the plan to represent
our needs. Any volunteers to help us now? Please call or e-mail us. "Us"
is terry.greenberg@colorado.edu and Dorothy, dwhalen@mric.net and Parmeta,
parmita@whiteswanmusic.com..
All members of PUMA or members of our community that you know are urged to
come to the meeting to learn about the plan and what has been put together
thus far. We can add some more to it as you make your ideas known. Note
that this outline of a plan must be submitted to the State Forest Service
by September 12, 2005 so we're working very hard.
The meeting will be September 6th, Tuesday at 6:30 PM at my house at 943
Pine Glade Road. Please RSVP so I can know how many to expect.
I thank you in advance for your input and participation to keep our
mountain land safer for our homes and the environment around them.
Terry Greenberg
303-443-1409
I found 3 Blockbuster DVDs in the road on Pine Glade this morning. Will
return them to Blockbuster tomorrow if I don't hear from anyone.
Loren Blaney
303-258-3488
Although not up here at the moment, I thought you might be interested in the
increase of barn owls down in the flatland. Cherie
-----Original Message-----
From: nature-net@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nature-net@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Stephen R. Jones
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:39 AM
To: nature-net@Yahoogroups.com
Subject: [nature-net] barn owls on nature almanac
Friday morning's Nature Almanac (KGNU radio, 8:10 a.m.) features a visit to
a barn owl nest site in northern Boulder County. We now know of 5 or 6 barn
owl nests this summer, the highest number ever documented in Boulder County.
These owls are listed as "rare" on the Boulder County Avian Species of
Special Concern list, and they weren't even documented in Boulder County
until 1937. It appears they may be increasing in number, especially since
four of our sites are within a 10-square-mile area south of Hygiene and
north of Boulder Reservoir. So keep your ears open for those loud hisses and
rattles. Steve
======================================================
Boulder County Nature Association's Nature Network
http://www.bcna.org
To Post a message, send it to: nature-net@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a message to: nature-net-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe, send a message to: nature-net-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Message Archives: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/nature-net
Unless otherwise stated, opinions expressed do not necessarily represent
BCNA's position. BCNA reserves the right to reject any message we feel is
inappropriate.
======================================================
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nature-net/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
nature-net-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change
the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead
Hi all,
Sometimes I tend to "stir the pot" by expressing some of my non-mainstream
beliefs. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. What can I say? I love a good
argument <g>. Please don't hold that against HCFD now. My views are uniquely
mine. They are definitely not typical of HCFD. Ask Greg Ching (another HCFD
volunteer firefighter).
First, this is not in any way an official statement of HCFD. I'm just a
firefighter, not even any kind of officer in the department -- I'm a grunt.
Here in the Magnolia area, we rely on High Country Fire Department (HCFD) to
respond to medical emergencies, motor vehicle accidents, structure fires,
wild fires and various other emergency situations. When I moved to Magnolia
in March, 1985, HCFD had just succeeded in lowering us from a zone 10
(worst) to a zone 9 (reducing the cost of fire insurance). It has continued
to fall, and I believe we are now down to a 6 or a 7 -- remarkable for a
forested area. That has saved us all a lot of money on homeowners insurance.
Over 73% of firefighters in the US are volunteers (800,050 of 1,096,250
total). High Country Fire Department is entirely volunteer (the fire
marshall gets a trivial stipend to help defray his expenses). Of the 30,542
fire departments in this country, only 2,018 (6.6%) are all-career (paid).
In other words, unless you live in a city, you're likely to be served by a
volunteer fire department. Even down in Boulder, the non-urban departments
(e.g., Cherryvale) are mostly volunteer. Hiring professional firefighters
would cost an estimated $37.2 billion per year nationwide. Between 1983 and
1996, fire departments nationwide saw the number of calls grow from under 11
million per year to over 17.5 million per year. As the population ages, that
growth in calls will continue. The number of calls to actual fires declined
in that period.
Over the last 12 months, High Country Fire Department has seen more
attrition than usual. It's not a desperate situation, but if someone has
thought that they might want to become a volunteer firefighter, it might be
a good time to check it out.
It's a serious time committment (at least 60 hours a year), so why do it?
1) The most important reason (to me) is the good feeling that you get when
you see that you've helped your neighbors. Not every call has a good
outcome, but just seeing that a neighbor, who cares, is responding, makes
people feel better. If you want to help create a Magnolia neighborhood, this
is about as effective a way as I can imagine.
2) You'll meet people from the area that you don't know, and learn a lot
about the various subdivisions (side roads of side roads). You'll discover
places you didn't know were here.
3) You'll learn a lot. You'll be trained in everything from how to tie knots
to how to drive a big fire truck to running a pump to handling a hose to
using a chain saw to CPR and how to use an AED (to shock a heart back into a
normal rhythm). That's only a tiny fraction of what you'll learn. Knowing
that you can do those things can be a tremendous boost to your self-esteem.
I know from first-hand experience that there is nothing worse than not
knowing what to do when someone you love needs immediate medical attention.
Beyond the basics, it's up to you how much medical training you persue. We
have several local members who have gotten EMT training (department pays the
course cost). You decide whether you want to learn more about any specialty,
from wildland firefighting to whitewater rescue, and the department gets you
that training.
4) The state of Colorado has a nominal pension that volunteer firefighters
qualify for (after ten years of service). It's not much, but I didn't want
to forget it.
If you've thought about joining, you've probably wondered whether you could
do it. I wondered whether I could do it, before I joined.
A) You don't have to be a big, strong man. You will get some exercise, which
can help your fitness. I believe there are seven women in HCFD (out of about
40 total). I have no qualms about working with and relying on any of the
women. They're all very capable and well-trained. When I took my "red-card"
class (Federal wildland fire training), the most capable firefighter in our
group was a woman (Gold Hill Fire Department). She knew how to fight a fire,
and had been involved in the Black Tiger Fire. Her card had lapsed, so she
was re-taking the class.
B) Practice is very important, and we try to schedule it often. You're a
volunteer, so you don't have to go to every practice, just a minimum amount
per year. You'll find that practicing helps you feel more confident in what
you're doing, and you'll get to know the other volunteers better, learning
to work with them as a team.
C) You need a relatively good driving record. The big engines cost $300K, so
we'd really rather not have you roll one <g>. We'll teach you to drive a big
truck better than you thought you could.
D) You'll be given a pager, so that you can be 'toned' in an emergency. That
means that some morning, you'll be paged at 3AM. If you can, you should
respond to that page. You are a volunteer, so you don't have to respond.
You're not expected to turn around if you're on your way to work, etc. But,
if you simply won't respond to calls in the middle of the night, then don't
apply.
E) Expect the unexpected. I love the surprises of HCFD. I recall responding
to a call about a vehicle that had rolled into South Boulder Creek, and on
the way there, we had to turn around to respond to a car fire on the paved
part of Magnolia. There were other trucks responding to So. Boulder Creek,
but we were the closest to the fire. Even when the call seems normal,
there's always a surprise. You'll learn that you can adapt much better than
you may have imagined.
F) If you're ever asked to do anything that you feel is dangerous, you do
not have to do it. You're a volunteer. I've never been asked to do something
that I wasn't comfortable doing, but we do not want people trying to do
something that they aren't confident that they can accomplish safely.
If you're thinking of volunteering, you can call the department at
303.642.3588, or call me at 303.440.0157. I'd be happy to try to answer any
questions, or connect you with someone who can answer them.
It's a big committment, but the rewards are well worth it.
John,
~ the chart guy
John Carder, CMT
Topline Investment Graphics
Where your chart dreams come true!
www.topline-charts.com or www.chartguy.com
PO Box 2340
Boulder, CO 80306-2340 USA
800.347.0157 (toll-free in the USA)
303.440.0157 (voice)
303.440.0147 (fax)
> Your email seems like a considered argument, but I'd like to point out a
> couple of flaws. First, the reason hunters predominately shoot
> other hunters
> is that they are in the woods. The reason the rest of the
> population doesn't
> get shot in hunting accidents is because they are in downtown
> Denver. Since
> we live in the woods, we are much more likely to get shot than the general
> population.
Paul,
I understand what you're saying. It does seem to
be based more on emotion than facts. You argue that because
we live in the woods, we're "more likely to get shot". I'd
be curious to hear about the last non-hunter shot in a
hunting accident in Colorado. I suspect it's very rare.
In 20 years, the number of addresses that get mail delivery
on Magnolia has only increased 10%, and I don't recall anyone
being shot by a hunter on Magnolia. The risk of being shot
if you're a hunter in Colorado is very low to begin with.
Even if it were as great for us as for hunters, it's still
very, very low.
> My other point is that this is not an all or nothing solution.
Unfortunately, any limits that would be large enough to
be effective would eliminate hunting.
> While I am not a fan of hunting per se, I do agree that there may be some
> benefits. However, I think that it is criminal that during the best hiking
> weather of the year, the woods are full of "characters" with high powered
> rifles. I would like hunting season to be set up with a minimum of one day
> per week and one long weekend per month that are hunter free. In this way,
> the rest of us can enjoy some time in the woods without the risk
> of getting
> shot.
This is where you show your emotional reaction to hunting. Hunters are
"characters"? Hunters are very typical of the population, as a whole,
with the exception that they tend to be more responsible, having jobs,
expensive rifles, taking the classes and buying licenses, etc.
Again, you refer to the "risk of getting shot". What exactly is
that risk? The numbers that I presented earlier showed that the risk
was exceedingly small, and even if you think we're as likely
as a hunter to be shot, they're still exceedingly small.
I've walked through the forest, often with my dogs, almost every
day for twenty years. I've never felt the least bit threatened by
hunters in that time, and I've never changed my plans, or picked
a different trail because it was hunting season. Maybe I'm just
lucky, but I doubt it.
John
John,
Your email seems like a considered argument, but I'd like to point out a
couple of flaws. First, the reason hunters predominately shoot other hunters
is that they are in the woods. The reason the rest of the population doesn't
get shot in hunting accidents is because they are in downtown Denver. Since
we live in the woods, we are much more likely to get shot than the general
population. My other point is that this is not an all or nothing solution.
While I am not a fan of hunting per se, I do agree that there may be some
benefits. However, I think that it is criminal that during the best hiking
weather of the year, the woods are full of "characters" with high powered
rifles. I would like hunting season to be set up with a minimum of one day
per week and one long weekend per month that are hunter free. In this way,
the rest of us can enjoy some time in the woods without the risk of getting
shot.
My 2 cents,
Paul K
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Carder" <jcarder@topline-charts.com>
To: <David.Bahr@colorado.edu>; "PUMA News" <puma-news@www.puma-net.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: RE: [puma-news] Fwd: BAN HUNTING IN SUGARLOAF
> > I fear that I tread onto dangerous and impassioned waters, but here's my
2
> > cents...
>
> Don't worry. I'll treat you as a reasonable person with a right to his
> opinion. I may take the opportunity to attempt to change that opinion
> with information, as you are attempting with me. In the end, we're both
> individuals, and we'll make up our own minds.
>
> Incidentally, I do not hunt. I don't have anything against hunting, and
> probably would hunt in the right situation, but I've never hunted. Living
> up here, I don't see any real sport in opening the back door on the second
> floor and squeezing a trigger (all that would be necessary). Living alone,
> I'd have a lot of meat to store, although wild game can be delicious. What
> I'm trying to say is that I'm not a knee-jerk, "hunters are always right",
> person. I do think, and believe it or not, I actually do change my mind.
> Fifteen years ago, I was a conservative. I actually thought the first
> Iraq invasion was a good idea. Today, I'm a libertarian, who realizes that
> both Iraq invasions are mistakes. Now that we're there, I support our
> troops, but I do NOT believe we should have sent them. It's one example
> that my beliefs are not etched in stone.
>
> > I have had someone point a gun at me on a spur road off of 359 (clay
> > shooters). Two years ago I had a resident shoot at me on the
> > east end of the
> > aquaduct "trail". And several years ago I had someone shoot at me on
Mt.
> > Thoridon while running trails. From personal experience I would
> > argue that the
> > problem with guns on forest lands is real and dangerous. I feel
> > like a target,
> > and I believe that my dog is at even greater risk. I've learned to
avoid
> > certain trails on Magnolia during hunting season.
> Did you report any of these incidents to the appropriate Sheriff (Boulder
or
> Gilpin County). If they're as you described, they're guilty of reckless
> endangerment, at the least. If they're as you described, they should be
> prosecuted. Not reporting incidents like this to the authorities may be
> easier emotionally (avoiding the conflict), but it encourages the idiots
> to do it again, and they typically are emboldened to act in an even more
> dangerous manner, next time.
>
> The real question is not whether some idiots with guns have done
> foolish or criminal acts. The question is whether additional limits
> on hunting will improve or hurt the quality of life in the area.
>
> > We already limit hunting within a certain distance from roads, so
> > it is not a
> > stretch to limit hunting within a certain distance of our
> > neighborhoods. And
> > those who would argue that this removes too much land from hunting
should
> > encourage the preservation of more land.
> Hunting on public lands is currently legal, with a license, observing
> the proper precautions. Hunting on private land is only legal with
> the owner's permission. Crossing private land to access public land
> is not legal without the owner's permission (unless there is an
> existing easement, aka 'forest access'). So, no one is hunting in
> your neighborhood, unless one of your neighbors allows it. You
> suggest a "certain distance from our neighborhoods". The implication
> is that this distance will make your neighborhood safe from a
> hunter's errant shot. It's time for a few facts.
>
> 1) Laws were passed in 1970 in Colorado. As a result,
> "Everyone born on or after January 1, 1949, must successfully
> complete a hunter education course and hold a valid hunter education
> card/certificate before purchasing any hunting license. A valid hunter
> education card/certificate and the appropriate license(s) must be in
> your possession when purchasing a license and while hunting."
>
> These courses drill into hunters both the maximum dangerous ranges
> of their weapons and the fact that the hunter is liable for their
> shots, errant or not. Hunters are not eager for jail time or being
> hit with massive civil penalties. In the 1960s, Colorado averaged
> nine hunting fatalities a year. The laws were passed in 1970, and
> Colorado averaged 1.3 fatalities a year in the 1990s, with NONE in
> 1999 (the last data I could find). In other words, the classes worked.
>
> Colorado harvests about 60,000 mule deer per year (harvest means killed
> by a hunter). That bounces between 40,000 and 90,000 but has been in that
> range since 1970. In other words, over the last 35 years, roughly
> two million, one hundred thousand mule deer have been harvested. How
> many residents have been killed, or even injured, by errant shots in
> the last 35 years? I don't know, but if it's even a couple, I'd be
> surprised. I'm not including hunters shooting other hunters, since
> you're concerned about your neighborhood. I'm only counting mule deer,
> not elk, small game or other animals. In other words, the chances that
> a hunter's shot will kill a resident (non-hunter) are roughly comparable
> to the chances that resident will be hit by lightning. At this altitude,
> they're probably significantly less than that (since we're much more
> likely to be hit by lightning than average). Here's some statistics:
> >From 1990 to 2003, 39 people died from lightning strikes in Colorado,
> almost 3 a year. Compare that with the 1.3 hunting fatalities a year
> in Colorado. You're TWICE as likely to be killed by lightning! It's
> actually MUCH greater than that, because almost all of the hunting
> fatalities are other hunters, not residents in neighborhoods.
>
> 2) What "certain distance from neighborhoods" would be appropriate?
> When designing shooting ranges, they determine the downrange safety
> zones by calculating the nominal maximum range of the round being
> fired. Any round that would be used on a mule deer would have a
> nominal maximum range of at least 4,000 meters, and those used on
> elk are often as high as 6,300 meters. If you're going to prohibit
> hunting within 4,000 meters of a "neighborhood", you've drawn 2.5 mile
> circles around every neighborhood, and essentially prohibited hunting
> anywhere in the County, and most of the State.
>
> > There are many alternative solutions to the problem of
> > overpopulation. Re-
> > introduction of predators is one solution. Decreased fencing (designed
to
> > discourage predators). Fewer dogs that discourage coyotes. Any
resulting
> > predator/prey population cycles are also very natural. On
> > uninhabited islands
> > (e.g., Isle Royale), the wolf and moose populations follow this
> > cycle and get
> > along just fine that way without human intervention. I'll take
> > the boom in
> > mountain lions -- I fear mountain lions far less than men with guns.
> I believe that last statement explains your comments quite well.
> The fact is that you are MUCH more likely to be killed by a mountain
> lion than by a hunter. That's a fact. Almost every year, someone in
> Colorado is killed by a cougar, often more than one person. I can't
> recall the last resident who was mistakenly shot by a hunter.
>
> I learned to shoot when I was 12. I was taught in a supervised class,
> with qualified instructors. I took that class for three consecutive
> summers. A gun is a tool, just like a car or a chainsaw. If people
> are irresponsible, they will drive under the influence of alcohol,
> or shoot under the influence. I had a neighbor that actually used
> a chainsaw drunk. I didn't want to be anywhere near him. My point
> is that people are responsible for their actions. In the US, we do
> NOT assume that they will act irresponsibly first. We hold them
> responsible for their actions, and expect that the fear of punishment
> will have an effect. The alternative is to assume everyone is guilty
> until proven innocent.
>
> My point is that you have chosen to live in the Rockies. We have a long
> history of using guns as tools here. Just a year or two before she died,
> Edith Skates carried her shotgun out with her to explain to some mountian
> bikers that they couldn't cut across her private property. Edith was
always
> polite, but she was firm and direct, and expected the bikers to be
> responsible. She would never have considered pointing the gun at them,
> but she brought it along, just in case. After all, she was 90 <grin>.
>
> If you're more frightened by a gun than a cougar, I suggest that you
> learn a bit about guns. Statistically, in the US, a car is much more
> likely to kill someone than a gun is (there are many more guns in this
> country than cars, and 42,673 traffic fatalities in 2003 in the US (632
> in Colorado). And I'm including guns used in the commission of crimes.
> Cars don't seem to scare people. I expect that's because of their
> familiarity with cars. I'd also suggest that you learn about hunting.
> If you do, you won't be frightened when you see a hunter.
>
> > Alternative solutions come with their own problems, and obviously not
all
> > hunters are irresponsible. But mistakes can happen too easily
> > with far too
> > serious consequences.
>
> To summarize, will additional limits on hunting improve or hurt
> the quality of life here? Cougar already kill more people in
> Colorado than hunters. Removing the harvesting would increase that
> statistic dramatically, because it would increase the numbers of
> cougar, deer and elk. There is much less risk of being shot
> by a hunter than of being hit by lightning, so there is very
> little to gain by prohibiting hunting on Magnolia. There is
> a lot to lose. Beyond the increased cougar risk, you are likely
> condemning deer and elk to death by starvation and Chronic Wasting
> Disease (may be another prion disease, like mad cow). We already
> have a large population of non-human predators, so I don't know what
> you would "re-introduce". Wolves? While I wouldn't object to
> wolves, I suspect the ranchers would not be pleased, and they
> were here before we were. Ranchers aren't going to want less
> effective fencing, either. While you say that the predator/prey
> cycles are "very natural", so is extinction. When man presses
> on a chaotic predator/prey system (by removing hunting), it
> results in extremes. The worst CWD in the state is at Estes
> Park, because hunting is essentially outlawed.
>
> I have no idea whether this has influenced your opinion, but
> I had to try.
>
> John Carder
>
This discussion has me thinking of an "alternative solution:" we equip all
deer and elk with little lightning-rod hats. That way, fewer hunting permits
could be issued, possibly alleviating some of the anxiety of getting hit by an
errant shot, AND, for those of us who enjoy an occasional meal of wild game,
it would come pre-cooked and delivered.
And while we're at it, let's strap one of those hats on the S-O-B cougar that
mauled my dog last year. BTW, I'm not volunteering for THAT job.
Facetiously yours,
-Brian
> I fear that I tread onto dangerous and impassioned waters, but here's my 2
> cents...
Don't worry. I'll treat you as a reasonable person with a right to his
opinion. I may take the opportunity to attempt to change that opinion
with information, as you are attempting with me. In the end, we're both
individuals, and we'll make up our own minds.
Incidentally, I do not hunt. I don't have anything against hunting, and
probably would hunt in the right situation, but I've never hunted. Living
up here, I don't see any real sport in opening the back door on the second
floor and squeezing a trigger (all that would be necessary). Living alone,
I'd have a lot of meat to store, although wild game can be delicious. What
I'm trying to say is that I'm not a knee-jerk, "hunters are always right",
person. I do think, and believe it or not, I actually do change my mind.
Fifteen years ago, I was a conservative. I actually thought the first
Iraq invasion was a good idea. Today, I'm a libertarian, who realizes that
both Iraq invasions are mistakes. Now that we're there, I support our
troops, but I do NOT believe we should have sent them. It's one example
that my beliefs are not etched in stone.
> I have had someone point a gun at me on a spur road off of 359 (clay
> shooters). Two years ago I had a resident shoot at me on the
> east end of the
> aquaduct "trail". And several years ago I had someone shoot at me on Mt.
> Thoridon while running trails. From personal experience I would
> argue that the
> problem with guns on forest lands is real and dangerous. I feel
> like a target,
> and I believe that my dog is at even greater risk. I've learned to avoid
> certain trails on Magnolia during hunting season.
Did you report any of these incidents to the appropriate Sheriff (Boulder or
Gilpin County). If they're as you described, they're guilty of reckless
endangerment, at the least. If they're as you described, they should be
prosecuted. Not reporting incidents like this to the authorities may be
easier emotionally (avoiding the conflict), but it encourages the idiots
to do it again, and they typically are emboldened to act in an even more
dangerous manner, next time.
The real question is not whether some idiots with guns have done
foolish or criminal acts. The question is whether additional limits
on hunting will improve or hurt the quality of life in the area.
> We already limit hunting within a certain distance from roads, so
> it is not a
> stretch to limit hunting within a certain distance of our
> neighborhoods. And
> those who would argue that this removes too much land from hunting should
> encourage the preservation of more land.
Hunting on public lands is currently legal, with a license, observing
the proper precautions. Hunting on private land is only legal with
the owner's permission. Crossing private land to access public land
is not legal without the owner's permission (unless there is an
existing easement, aka 'forest access'). So, no one is hunting in
your neighborhood, unless one of your neighbors allows it. You
suggest a "certain distance from our neighborhoods". The implication
is that this distance will make your neighborhood safe from a
hunter's errant shot. It's time for a few facts.
1) Laws were passed in 1970 in Colorado. As a result,
"Everyone born on or after January 1, 1949, must successfully
complete a hunter education course and hold a valid hunter education
card/certificate before purchasing any hunting license. A valid hunter
education card/certificate and the appropriate license(s) must be in
your possession when purchasing a license and while hunting."
These courses drill into hunters both the maximum dangerous ranges
of their weapons and the fact that the hunter is liable for their
shots, errant or not. Hunters are not eager for jail time or being
hit with massive civil penalties. In the 1960s, Colorado averaged
nine hunting fatalities a year. The laws were passed in 1970, and
Colorado averaged 1.3 fatalities a year in the 1990s, with NONE in
1999 (the last data I could find). In other words, the classes worked.
Colorado harvests about 60,000 mule deer per year (harvest means killed
by a hunter). That bounces between 40,000 and 90,000 but has been in that
range since 1970. In other words, over the last 35 years, roughly
two million, one hundred thousand mule deer have been harvested. How
many residents have been killed, or even injured, by errant shots in
the last 35 years? I don't know, but if it's even a couple, I'd be
surprised. I'm not including hunters shooting other hunters, since
you're concerned about your neighborhood. I'm only counting mule deer,
not elk, small game or other animals. In other words, the chances that
a hunter's shot will kill a resident (non-hunter) are roughly comparable
to the chances that resident will be hit by lightning. At this altitude,
they're probably significantly less than that (since we're much more
likely to be hit by lightning than average). Here's some statistics:
From 1990 to 2003, 39 people died from lightning strikes in Colorado,
almost 3 a year. Compare that with the 1.3 hunting fatalities a year
in Colorado. You're TWICE as likely to be killed by lightning! It's
actually MUCH greater than that, because almost all of the hunting
fatalities are other hunters, not residents in neighborhoods.
2) What "certain distance from neighborhoods" would be appropriate?
When designing shooting ranges, they determine the downrange safety
zones by calculating the nominal maximum range of the round being
fired. Any round that would be used on a mule deer would have a
nominal maximum range of at least 4,000 meters, and those used on
elk are often as high as 6,300 meters. If you're going to prohibit
hunting within 4,000 meters of a "neighborhood", you've drawn 2.5 mile
circles around every neighborhood, and essentially prohibited hunting
anywhere in the County, and most of the State.
> There are many alternative solutions to the problem of
> overpopulation. Re-
> introduction of predators is one solution. Decreased fencing (designed to
> discourage predators). Fewer dogs that discourage coyotes. Any resulting
> predator/prey population cycles are also very natural. On
> uninhabited islands
> (e.g., Isle Royale), the wolf and moose populations follow this
> cycle and get
> along just fine that way without human intervention. I'll take
> the boom in
> mountain lions -- I fear mountain lions far less than men with guns.
I believe that last statement explains your comments quite well.
The fact is that you are MUCH more likely to be killed by a mountain
lion than by a hunter. That's a fact. Almost every year, someone in
Colorado is killed by a cougar, often more than one person. I can't
recall the last resident who was mistakenly shot by a hunter.
I learned to shoot when I was 12. I was taught in a supervised class,
with qualified instructors. I took that class for three consecutive
summers. A gun is a tool, just like a car or a chainsaw. If people
are irresponsible, they will drive under the influence of alcohol,
or shoot under the influence. I had a neighbor that actually used
a chainsaw drunk. I didn't want to be anywhere near him. My point
is that people are responsible for their actions. In the US, we do
NOT assume that they will act irresponsibly first. We hold them
responsible for their actions, and expect that the fear of punishment
will have an effect. The alternative is to assume everyone is guilty
until proven innocent.
My point is that you have chosen to live in the Rockies. We have a long
history of using guns as tools here. Just a year or two before she died,
Edith Skates carried her shotgun out with her to explain to some mountian
bikers that they couldn't cut across her private property. Edith was always
polite, but she was firm and direct, and expected the bikers to be
responsible. She would never have considered pointing the gun at them,
but she brought it along, just in case. After all, she was 90 <grin>.
If you're more frightened by a gun than a cougar, I suggest that you
learn a bit about guns. Statistically, in the US, a car is much more
likely to kill someone than a gun is (there are many more guns in this
country than cars, and 42,673 traffic fatalities in 2003 in the US (632
in Colorado). And I'm including guns used in the commission of crimes.
Cars don't seem to scare people. I expect that's because of their
familiarity with cars. I'd also suggest that you learn about hunting.
If you do, you won't be frightened when you see a hunter.
> Alternative solutions come with their own problems, and obviously not all
> hunters are irresponsible. But mistakes can happen too easily
> with far too
> serious consequences.
To summarize, will additional limits on hunting improve or hurt
the quality of life here? Cougar already kill more people in
Colorado than hunters. Removing the harvesting would increase that
statistic dramatically, because it would increase the numbers of
cougar, deer and elk. There is much less risk of being shot
by a hunter than of being hit by lightning, so there is very
little to gain by prohibiting hunting on Magnolia. There is
a lot to lose. Beyond the increased cougar risk, you are likely
condemning deer and elk to death by starvation and Chronic Wasting
Disease (may be another prion disease, like mad cow). We already
have a large population of non-human predators, so I don't know what
you would "re-introduce". Wolves? While I wouldn't object to
wolves, I suspect the ranchers would not be pleased, and they
were here before we were. Ranchers aren't going to want less
effective fencing, either. While you say that the predator/prey
cycles are "very natural", so is extinction. When man presses
on a chaotic predator/prey system (by removing hunting), it
results in extremes. The worst CWD in the state is at Estes
Park, because hunting is essentially outlawed.
I have no idea whether this has influenced your opinion, but
I had to try.
John Carder
I fear that I tread onto dangerous and impassioned waters, but here's my 2
cents...
I have had someone point a gun at me on a spur road off of 359 (clay
shooters). Two years ago I had a resident shoot at me on the east end of the
aquaduct "trail". And several years ago I had someone shoot at me on Mt.
Thoridon while running trails. From personal experience I would argue that the
problem with guns on forest lands is real and dangerous. I feel like a target,
and I believe that my dog is at even greater risk. I've learned to avoid
certain trails on Magnolia during hunting season.
We already limit hunting within a certain distance from roads, so it is not a
stretch to limit hunting within a certain distance of our neighborhoods. And
those who would argue that this removes too much land from hunting should
encourage the preservation of more land.
There are many alternative solutions to the problem of overpopulation. Re-
introduction of predators is one solution. Decreased fencing (designed to
discourage predators). Fewer dogs that discourage coyotes. Any resulting
predator/prey population cycles are also very natural. On uninhabited islands
(e.g., Isle Royale), the wolf and moose populations follow this cycle and get
along just fine that way without human intervention. I'll take the boom in
mountain lions -- I fear mountain lions far less than men with guns.
Alternative solutions come with their own problems, and obviously not all
hunters are irresponsible. But mistakes can happen too easily with far too
serious consequences.
David Bahr
___________________________________________
Quoting John Carder <jcarder@topline-charts.com>:
> Greg,
>
> While I understand your concerns, I have to point
> out that there are real reasons to encourage
> hunting in the area.
>
> Without hunting, you have overpopulation of both
> deer and elk. That leads to death by starvation,
> and high population densities have been correlated
> with Chronic Wasting Disease. We've been relatively
> unnaffected by CWD here on Magnolia, but Sugarloaf
> has quite a bit of it. Some say that's because they
> have too many deer and elk (relative to the food
> and predators).
>
> Without hunting you create a boom in predators,
> primarily cougar. Then as more cougar are able to
> thin the herds more effectively, they get hungry.
> This boom/bust in predator/prey populations is
> one of the classic examples of chaos theory.
> A cougar is much more likely to take your dog
> than any hunter, in normal times. A hungry cougar
> presents a danger to all of us.
>
> We live in the forest. This is the habitat for
> deer, elk & cougar. We've artificially decreased
> the cougar population, so we need human hunters
> to help thin the herds.
>
> In other words, there are always unforeseen
> consequences associated with sweeping changes
> like limiting hunting. Consider what they
> might be before persuing a "feel-good"
> move, like limiting hunting.
>
> John Carder
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Ching [mailto:greg.ching@mric.coop]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:11 AM
> > To: PUMA News
> > Cc: cookie@theshannons.net
> > Subject: [puma-news] Fwd: BAN HUNTING IN SUGARLOAF
> >
> >
> > FYI, here is a petition along Sugarloaf Road that may interest some
> > folks along Magnolia. I know I worry where I take my dog on walks
> > during hunting season....
> >
> > greg
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [info] BAN HUNTING IN SUGARLOAF
> > Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:13:33 -0600
> > From: Ruth Shannon <cookie@theshannons.net>
> > Reply-To: Ruth Shannon <cookie@theshannons.net>
> > Organization: theshannons
> > To: Shannon, Cookie <cookie@theshannons.net>
> > References: <BF154913.124A%art-nancy@earthlink.net>
> > <opsuwqqdjtyigpt0@d71q4s51>
> >
> > ------- Forwarded message -------
> > From: "Art and Nancy" <art-nancy@earthlink.net>
> > To: cookie@theshannons.net
> > Subject: BAN HUNTING IN SUGARLOAF
> > Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:00:18 -0600
> >
> > COOKIE - HERE IS INFORMATION ON OUR WORK TO BAN HUNTING IN THE SUGARLOAF
> > AREA. ATTACKED IS A COPY OF THE PETITION. THANK YOU FOR SENDING IT OUT.
> >
> > ART GNEISER
> >
> > SUGARLOAF RESIDENTS
> >
> > By now you should have received this information by snail mail. Here is a
> > backup from cyberspace -------
> >
> > For the past few years a group of local homeowners, led by Jillian Weems
> > and
> > Marcia Barber, have been trying to reduce and hopefully eliminate hunting
> > in
> > the most populated parts of the Sugarloaf area. Last fall, through our
> > efforts we obtained help from the Sheriff¹s department, the Department of
> > Wildlife (DOW) and the Forest Service. And by the use of signs, increased
> > patrols and community awareness, the number of hunters and hunter
> > incidents
> > was significantly reduced. However this came at the cost of extensive time
> > commitment on the parts of all concerned. It clearly is not a good
> > permanent
> > solution to the obvious safety concerns represented by people shooting
> > high-powered weapons in our neighborhood.
> >
> > This year we have drafted and submitted to DOW a petition to ban
> > hunting in
> > an eight square mile area of Sugarloaf, representing the most popular
> > hunting spots and the area where the serious safety concerns are the
> > greatest. If we can convince the DOW to take this action it will be almost
> > unprecedented in Colorado. They are naturally reluctant to do this as it
> > ³flies in the face² of their most important job, which is to encourage
> > hunting thereby bringing more money into the coffers.
> >
> > We will be traveling to Lamar, Colorado in September to argue the
> > merits of
> > this groundbreaking idea. In order to be successful in this endeavor we
> > will
> > have to ³pull out all the stops². We want to have signed petitions from
> > most
> > all of the local residents and anyone else who is concerned for the safety
> > of Sugarloaf people and pets. We have hired Tom Lamm, the brother of our
> > former governor Dick, to represent us at the meeting. He is a
> > brilliant and
> > articulate lawyer, and has a long history of dealing with the DOW and
> > hunting issues. He is also expensive. We have opened an account where you
> > can send donations to help defray the cost of this effort at Pearl Street
> > Wells Fargo bank. Please make your checks out to Sugar Loaf Citizen's for
> > Safety. Please be generous if you believe that our cause is important.
> >
> > Also attached to this letter is a petition for your signature. Please sign
> > it, have any one else you can find sign it, and return it to Art
> > Gneiser at
> > 1704 Old Townsite Rd. Boulder 80302. You can just put it in the mailbox at
> > the corner of Old Townsite and Sugarloaf (The one with the palm trees).
> >
> > This all needs to be done by the 20th of August so time is of the essence.
> > If you have any questions please call Art Gneiser at 303-494-4673.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cookie Shannon
> >
>
Greg,
While I understand your concerns, I have to point
out that there are real reasons to encourage
hunting in the area.
Without hunting, you have overpopulation of both
deer and elk. That leads to death by starvation,
and high population densities have been correlated
with Chronic Wasting Disease. We've been relatively
unnaffected by CWD here on Magnolia, but Sugarloaf
has quite a bit of it. Some say that's because they
have too many deer and elk (relative to the food
and predators).
Without hunting you create a boom in predators,
primarily cougar. Then as more cougar are able to
thin the herds more effectively, they get hungry.
This boom/bust in predator/prey populations is
one of the classic examples of chaos theory.
A cougar is much more likely to take your dog
than any hunter, in normal times. A hungry cougar
presents a danger to all of us.
We live in the forest. This is the habitat for
deer, elk & cougar. We've artificially decreased
the cougar population, so we need human hunters
to help thin the herds.
In other words, there are always unforeseen
consequences associated with sweeping changes
like limiting hunting. Consider what they
might be before persuing a "feel-good"
move, like limiting hunting.
John Carder
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Ching [mailto:greg.ching@mric.coop]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:11 AM
> To: PUMA News
> Cc: cookie@theshannons.net
> Subject: [puma-news] Fwd: BAN HUNTING IN SUGARLOAF
>
>
> FYI, here is a petition along Sugarloaf Road that may interest some
> folks along Magnolia. I know I worry where I take my dog on walks
> during hunting season....
>
> greg
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [info] BAN HUNTING IN SUGARLOAF
> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:13:33 -0600
> From: Ruth Shannon <cookie@theshannons.net>
> Reply-To: Ruth Shannon <cookie@theshannons.net>
> Organization: theshannons
> To: Shannon, Cookie <cookie@theshannons.net>
> References: <BF154913.124A%art-nancy@earthlink.net>
> <opsuwqqdjtyigpt0@d71q4s51>
>
> ------- Forwarded message -------
> From: "Art and Nancy" <art-nancy@earthlink.net>
> To: cookie@theshannons.net
> Subject: BAN HUNTING IN SUGARLOAF
> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:00:18 -0600
>
> COOKIE - HERE IS INFORMATION ON OUR WORK TO BAN HUNTING IN THE SUGARLOAF
> AREA. ATTACKED IS A COPY OF THE PETITION. THANK YOU FOR SENDING IT OUT.
>
> ART GNEISER
>
> SUGARLOAF RESIDENTS
>
> By now you should have received this information by snail mail. Here is a
> backup from cyberspace -------
>
> For the past few years a group of local homeowners, led by Jillian Weems
> and
> Marcia Barber, have been trying to reduce and hopefully eliminate hunting
> in
> the most populated parts of the Sugarloaf area. Last fall, through our
> efforts we obtained help from the Sheriff¹s department, the Department of
> Wildlife (DOW) and the Forest Service. And by the use of signs, increased
> patrols and community awareness, the number of hunters and hunter
> incidents
> was significantly reduced. However this came at the cost of extensive time
> commitment on the parts of all concerned. It clearly is not a good
> permanent
> solution to the obvious safety concerns represented by people shooting
> high-powered weapons in our neighborhood.
>
> This year we have drafted and submitted to DOW a petition to ban
> hunting in
> an eight square mile area of Sugarloaf, representing the most popular
> hunting spots and the area where the serious safety concerns are the
> greatest. If we can convince the DOW to take this action it will be almost
> unprecedented in Colorado. They are naturally reluctant to do this as it
> ³flies in the face² of their most important job, which is to encourage
> hunting thereby bringing more money into the coffers.
>
> We will be traveling to Lamar, Colorado in September to argue the
> merits of
> this groundbreaking idea. In order to be successful in this endeavor we
> will
> have to ³pull out all the stops². We want to have signed petitions from
> most
> all of the local residents and anyone else who is concerned for the safety
> of Sugarloaf people and pets. We have hired Tom Lamm, the brother of our
> former governor Dick, to represent us at the meeting. He is a
> brilliant and
> articulate lawyer, and has a long history of dealing with the DOW and
> hunting issues. He is also expensive. We have opened an account where you
> can send donations to help defray the cost of this effort at Pearl Street
> Wells Fargo bank. Please make your checks out to Sugar Loaf Citizen's for
> Safety. Please be generous if you believe that our cause is important.
>
> Also attached to this letter is a petition for your signature. Please sign
> it, have any one else you can find sign it, and return it to Art
> Gneiser at
> 1704 Old Townsite Rd. Boulder 80302. You can just put it in the mailbox at
> the corner of Old Townsite and Sugarloaf (The one with the palm trees).
>
> This all needs to be done by the 20th of August so time is of the essence.
> If you have any questions please call Art Gneiser at 303-494-4673.
>
>
>
> --
> Cookie Shannon
>
29 yr old female grad student seeking to rent a room or share apartment. I am
currenly addending Naropa University in my third year of the Wilderness
Therapy program.
Looking for someplace near hiking as I love to be outside as much as
possible. Want a home where social and solo time is balanced. I absolutely
love to host/participate in dinner parties, drink red wine or sip tea and
chat/laugh/converse/dance. At the same time I really appreciate my
contemplative solo space.
Ideally I am looking to share with other women. I would love a home space
with animals (although I don't have any myself but I appreciate their presence
a lot). Would be wonderful if horses were nearby as I have a deep love and
respect for them (would be great if I could muck in exchange for some part of
the rent, but okay if this isn't the case).
I am looking to move in either august or september (have a temporary place
lined up for the month of august and am free to leave when I find the home I
am seeking). My price range is anywhere under 475$. the lower the better.
Please let me know if this sounds like we might be a good match.
Thank you.
My name is Jody. Please call me at 303.746.3865 or e-mail me at
jhicks@naropa.net. (Phone is better).
please note that I work at a youth program in the backcountry and will be in
the woods from aug 9th to the 24th therefore unable to receive calls or e-mail.
---
Naropa University - an adventure in mind, body, and spirit.
http://www.naropa.edu
Speaking of yard work. I have a small field, no rocks out front that should be mowed. Anyone interested in mowing and giving me an estimate? 303 642 0648 Thanks. Marielle
We have had good experiences with two local services that might be of
interest to others:
1. Dirty Bird Window Cleaners: Jay Edelmann, phone: 303-249-9465
In addition to cleaning those hard to reach windows and skylights, Jay
loves to climb roofs for cleaning out gutters (important for fire
mitigation), minor roof repair, etc. Very nice fellow and very
reasonable too!
2. High Country Rubbish Removal: 303-642-0303
At only $18 a month...their service is an excellent deal...AND they take
most recyclables at no additional cost!!
Norman
Aspen Meadow
I have an old but well maintained 386 system with color monitor &
Okidata laser printer and stand, looking for a good home. Great for
word processing and/or kid play! And, you can't beat the price...FREE!!
Norman
Terry Greenberg is heading up the project. She is out of town for
several more days, but you can reach her at greenbet@spot.colorado.edu
Dan
lora taylor wrote:
> I'm new to the diversity of what you offer our community. I have
> heard you applied for a grant for fire mitigation work. Is any of
> that money still available? I have a very thickly grown forest on my
> land, in need of major work. Let me know how to apply to your grant.
> Thanks,
> Lora
Is there anyone out there willing to do some yard work? It is fairly light work: weed-wack grass around house, lop & remove (or possibly just pile) dead juniper branches. Easy money!
Vivian
