Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
In 2001, the Post Independent made a courageous decision by speaking out forcefully against a controversial proposed new gravel pit near Silt. Urging the county commissioners to deny the application, the editorial said, “Thanks to an ample supply of gravel, Garfield County has the luxury of making a conscious decision to deny this unwanted and unnecessary new gravel pit.”
Now Lafarge is asking to add another pit to the county, directly in-between their existing pit on Highway 82 and the expanding Western Slope Aggregates operation, creating a 1.6-mile-long open pit mine along Highway 82 east of Carbondale.
Despite the protests from neighboring landowners, despite the lack of need for more gravel production in this slow economy, and despite the proposed destruction of wildlife habitats, Lafarge continues to push for a new 64-acre pit.
Landowners near one Lafarge pit near Silt have decried the destruction of the ecosystem there as well as Lafarge’s failure to comply with reclamation requirements. According to a PI article on April 15, one adjacent landowner said, “It’s a nightmare, the way it looks.” He added that due to the Lafarge pit, “It’s a dead zone, from Antlers to Rifle. It’s just a shame.”
Now Lafarge proposes to create another “dead zone,” this time along Highway 82 in the Roaring Fork Valley, at the very foot of an established rural residential neighborhood.
The PI would do a great service to our county by educating its readers about the disastrous effects of this new pit, should it be approved by the county commissioners. It would do an even greater service by taking a stand against this unwanted, unneeded, environmentally devastating proposal.
The paper should follow the example of that 2001 editorial which read, “The public will get its chance to speak, and hopefully the commissioners will listen because, as the public continues to correctly point out, there just isn’t enough logic to hold this proposal together.” The editorial concludes, “The county commissioners should listen to those well-reasoned, valid concerns and respond with a resounding ‘NO.'”
The commissioners will hear the Lafarge proposal on June 13.
This letter is written in regard to the situation at the Krabloonik Kennel in Snowmass.
That Krabloonik is in compliance with the Colorado Pet Animal Care Facilities Act (PACFA) is a good thing, but it is a minimal standard indeed. Quoting from the PACFA webpage, it “is committed to making sure that pet care facilities meet minimum standards for physical facilities; sanitation; ventilation; lighting; heating; cooling; humidity; spatial and enclosure requirements; nutrition; humane care; medical treatment; methods of operation and record keeping.” One would hope that good facilities would far exceed those minimal standards.
The May 17 Aspen Daily News reported, “[Dan] MacEachen predicted that problems would arise when the dogs are let off their tethers into an enclosed exercise yard, and that they will likely fight to establish dominance.” I fear that there will be problems since Mr. MacEachen is approaching this unwillingly. His prediction could easily be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
My prediction is that you will see letters and perhaps news articles detailing bloody horrors just before the exercise program is discontinued. I hope I am wrong on both points.
Laura Van Dyne
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
Jury finds Rifle man guilty of drunken driving, resulting in the deaths of two friends