Your Letters |

Your Letters

Post Independent
Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado

While I do not live in your area and do not have the daily enjoyment of your beautiful valley, I feel I have a stake in the area nonetheless. I hunt in your area each September. While skiing at Aspen and Snowmass recently, I became aware of the Hidden Gems proposal. As I have a stake in the outcome, I have to provide my opinion.

It is my understanding that your Division of Wildlife is funded mostly, if not entirely, from activity fees and not through state or local taxation. I did some quick math and found that most of those fees are collected from non-residents like me.

Last year alone, I spent $544 for an elk tag, $5 for a habitat stamp, $25 for an ATV sticker, and about $40 for a fishing license. Those fees go towards protection of the environment and wildlife. What I spend annually is probably 10 times more than the amount spent by most of the proponents of the Hidden Gems.

Non-residents spend more than $60 million each year, counting only elk and deer licenses. A lot of that money is gained from folks like me who come to the Roaring Fork area.

I have hunted the area and understand why folks want to protect it, but from what? The gas line roads will still be maintained. The logging trucks will continue to roll through. The water service vehicles will run as usual.

The only change will be the absence of wheeled vehicles. You will be denying the handicapped access and to all the hunters that need to get near the game. Horses will be allowed, but most hunters don’t use horses. Consider that using horses does not lend to “leave no print” observance. Cows, too, will be free to roam as usual and do significant damage to streams and to the habitat of other animals.

So who wins if Hidden Gems becomes a reality? More elk and deer to watch for. Fewer Division of Wildlife employees. More elk starvation. You will be preserving an area you will never see to enjoy.

James Gorman

Grand Rapids, Mich.

Thank you for your recent coverage of the run in New Castle to remember the life of Dan Schons (Jan. 22, 2011).

Although I have relocated out of the area and couldn’t participate in the run with my friends and former neighbors, your thoughtful coverage of the event helped me to know more about the benefit was and feel the emotions, the sadness, the joy and the sense of community of that day.

Also, your story is helping to bring much-needed awareness to the often overlooked disease of mental illness. Thank you.

Gina Mead

Bellevue, Wash.

Greetings from Planet Rifle. Bob Anderson has taken me to task for entertaining ideas concerning the potential harm of climate change. Leading off with the Bilderberg Society last week, he raises the ante with two more, one from MIT and one ex-Green Peacer. I’ll see your raise and give you this from the Guardian, out of the UK: 20 Nobel prizewinners, including U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka and Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai, have compared the threat of climate change to that posed to civilization by nuclear weapons.

Borrowing a phrase from U.S. civil rights leader Martin Luther King, they said at the end of a three-day climate change symposium hosted by Prince Charles in London, “We must recognize the fierce urgency of now. The evidence is compelling for the range and scale of climate impacts that must be avoided, such as droughts, sea level rise and flooding leading to mass migration and conflict. The scientific process, by which this evidence has been gathered, should be used as a clear mandate to accelerate the actions that need to be taken. Political leaders cannot possibly ask for a more robust, evidence-based call for action.”

Whether you are a denier or a believer, I am still waiting for a rebuttal to the letter I wrote, posted on Dec. 3, 2010.

My question to those opposed to the mere thought of man’s effect on the planet has been and continues to be, “What if it’s true?”

What is the downside to acting like we can have an effect on the planet? A positive effect.

New technologies could bring us cleaner air, cleaner water, safer food, alternative energies, electric cars, smarter cities and maybe healthier citizens. New technologies open the door to increasing exports, lowering our deficit and unemployment by giving displaced workers new opportunities.

So I am asking for any member of the vocal anti-everything crowd that frequents this forum to tell me why we should not make bold moves forward. Please, I am waiting for one logical argument. If not now, then when? I’m still waiting.

Craig S.Chisesi Rifle

In response to the letter exclaiming there are no healthy restaurants between Glenwood and Grand Junction.

Before I state the truth, everyone should know that I am biased when I talk about Creekbend Bistro in Rifle. I should be, I work there. Our tagline states, “Thank You for Choosing the Healthiest and Tastiest Restaurant.”

With organic selections, free range meats, fresh seasonal fruit, the willingness to cater to finickiest of culinary desires and recipes derived from true gastronomical education, there can be no way for us not to respond to your letter. I do not wish for this to sound like a commercial for the restaurant. I just wish for the ones that need us be aware that we exist.

John Welden


Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User