> 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
