While in agreement with many of Tim Hogan’s points (Boulder Mountain Park Planning, June 28), I find his anti-access perspective on Open Space to be alarmist. Mr. Hogan implies there is an inherent conflict between environmental preservation and enjoyment of natural areas.
Remarkably, there is little to support the claim that Boulder’s traditional use and enjoyment of this land has caused significant damage to wildlife species or their habitat. In fact, our city struggles to deal with the effects of wildlife population exceeding the capacity of the land. In spite of Boulder’s “protective” practices, our deer population in the West Trail Study Area suffers from Chronic Wasting Disease, a communicable disease resulting from over-population, in rates that are over twice as high as the next highest infection rate in the state.
Yet, our Open Space Department recommends restricting recreation access as a solution to this problem. There is simply no scientific or common sense correlation between the problem and the “solution.” Those who believe that ever increasing access restriction is the only means to “protect” the land, rarely consider the environmental cost of the restrictions.
Boulder is internationally known as an environmentally conscious, recreation-oriented community. Our citizens are committed to this lifestyle and if it’s not available in our own city we will (and all too often are left with no choice but to) drive elsewhere to experience it.
Considering our city’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions, encouraging unnecessary driving to access public land outside of our city is hypocritical. The cost of restricting visitor access to open space comes at a significant cost that is rarely considered by those promoting an anti-access viewpoint.
The ultimate cost may very well be realized when Boulder citizens refuse to continue funding for a program that offers no continued benefit.

Lori Fuller

Boulder

Our Random Articles

More Links