Stop quacking, start compromising

To the editor,
I have been watching my domestic animals closely lately. I have noticed the processes they go through to adapt to each other’s existence in the world. These observations have been in the dog and cat world, but also includes the duck world.

Domestic ducks mostly like to bitch about everything. “Quack! Quack! Quack! What the bleep is going on?” “We should walk up to the road!” “No let’s go to the pond!” “Oh, let’s sue the President!” The most important thing is that they have “group think” and they stick together, moving in unison with whoever the “alpha duck” is.

Dogs and cats are very advanced in their ability to communicate with “outsiders.” I recently had a friend’s two dogs in my home while she was on vacation. At first, my three cats and two dogs were very uptight about these strangers. But once they all got through the initiation of thoroughly smelling each other’s butts, everything was kosher and relaxed, and they each maintained their own unique personalities.

Ducks only require that you’re a good complainer. I don’t even know if they are aware that they have a butt, and if they were, they would probably complain about that too and blame Obama. To be honest, I have never seen a duck’s butt up close and personal. But I sure have seen a lot of duck droppings! They must come from somewhere. Don’t get me wrong. I love my domestic ducks, but they have teeny brains and are unaware of the big picture because they don’t fly all over the world like their wild relatives. They tend to turn on each other for a misplaced quack.

For far too long, some members of Congress have been conducting themselves like domestic ducks at the expense of our whole country and even the world. The scary thing is, they don’t even get it. They just keep quacking.

I would like to suggest that our members of Congress (both houses) be required to evolve a little and enact the dog and cat basic “get to know each other” ritual  before each session to create trust and ensure a primal level of consciousness  that we all live on this planet together. This is a very good thing to be aware of so we might as well get along. Compromise is NOT a dirty word. It’s what makes the world go ’round.
– Blessings, Susan Urban, Durango

Shoot down public lands transfer

To the editor,
As a big game hunter who (like over 90 percent of Colorado sportsmen) hunts public lands, the recent push by some elected officials and big-industry groups to transfer federal public lands to state ownership, or to sell them off outright to private interests, is more than a little troubling. Unfortunately, it wasn’t that long ago (during the Bush administration) that similar shenanigans took place.

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) introduced a bill requiring the federal government to sell off 15 percent of national forest lands and 15 percent of lands managed by Interior Department agencies. These are lands that were set aside “for the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time,” as Gifford Pinchot, first director of the U.S. Forest Service, said.

More recently, the House of Representatives passed a budget engineered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that supports selling “unneeded acreage” of federal land on the open market. And here in Colorado, legislation sponsored by Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling) and Sen. Scott Renfroe (R-Greeley) is aimed at “transferring” our federal lands to the state. But all such proposals are bad for sportsmen, bad for wildlife, and bad for anyone who recreates on public lands.

In the words of Clear Creek County Commissioner (and sportsman) Tim Mauck: “Selling off our federal public lands makes as much economic sense as killing the goose that lays golden eggs. Clear Creek County is proud that 74 percent of our land is public and provides a robust recreational economy by attracting tens of thousands of hunters, anglers, hikers, river rafters, mountain bikers, backpackers, campers, skiers and other outdoor enthusiasts that seek out my community year-round for vacations, tours, exercise and relaxation in true western fashion.”

Hinsdale County Sheriff Ron Bruce adds: “States taking back federal lands sounds all fine and dandy but people need to remember it comes at significant cost. Just as a small example: last year’s ‘Complex Fire,’ largely in Mineral, Rio Grande and Hinsdale counties, ran up a bill approaching $40M at last count. If those lands belong to Colorado vs. USFS … you can be certain ‘Uncle Sugar’ is not stepping up to pay that bill. That’s just one event. Multiply that by how many more, and the costs would bankrupt most states.”

Transferring public lands to states would also mean less hunting and fishing for the average American, because:

- State lands are managed to return the highest possible yield to their school trusts. That means wildlife and recreational considerations are left off the table in many states.

- In Wyoming, you are not allowed to camp on state lands. At all.

- In Arizona, you can only camp on state land 14 days per year.

- In Montana, you can only camp on state land for two days before having to move.

Currently, in Colorado, only 20 percent of state lands are open to public use (access paid entirely by sportsmen through hunting license and gun sales), while the other 80 percent are leased out to the highest bidder. Whereas our federal public lands are managed for multiple uses, state lands are managed for the highest yielding use/income.

You have no right to access state lands like you do federal lands, which are owned by all Americans. Article 9 of the Colorado Constitution mandates that state lands be managed to generate revenue. Yet, the constitution mentions nothing about public access. Thus, unless the constitution is revised, recreational access on state land will remain a pay-to-play game.

In addition, 74 percent of Coloradans are opposed to selling public lands (2014 State of the Rockies poll). And it’s frankly a slap in the face to the 92 percent of Coloradan hunters who use our public lands. Hunter, anglers and other outdoorsmen and women are intimately familiar with our public lands. We know that the possible sale or transfer of public lands used for hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking will only serve to enrich a few at the expense of many and eliminate access to our public lands and waters.

America’s tradition of allowing public lands access for hunting, angling and other recreation is the epitome of our unique and successful model of natural resource/wildlife management. And for most of us, public lands are the only lands we will ever own. That’s why these proposals can’t be shot down fast enough.
– David A. Lien,  Chairman, Colorado Backcountry Hunters & Anglers