Thursday, August 04, 2005

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

> 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

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
>

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

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

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

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

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
> >
>