Re: [puma-news] Fwd: BAN HUNTING IN SUGARLOAF

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
>