Restricting access to achieve a sustainable Open Space for the next seven generations makes sense.  The term “restricting” frightens many such as Lori Fuller (Camera, July 2), who interpret the term as a draconian exclusion.  It is actually based in common sense, abundant science,  and the common interest.  The benefits of recreation are abundant, and there will always be abundant recreation opportunities on Open Space.  The impacts of recreation are also well documented by scientific studies throughout the world as well as the US including Boulder, in spite of Ms. Fuller’s statement that there isn’t evidence of negative impacts on wildlife in Boulder’s Open Space.

In a warped form of logic, Ms. Fuller implies that increased recreation could be the solution to chronic wasting disease.  Does she really think that more visitors throughout the system will help the ailing deer?  What we really need are more predators, but that is another issue.

“Restricting” is the hot button word that many like to jump on and use the threadbare argument that, “since I pay taxes, I should be able to do anything I want on Open Space”.  With over 3,000,000 visitors a year, there is a lot of wear and tear on trails, vegetation, and wildlife.  Inconsiderate visitors are often the single largest source of complaint rather than issues like,  “I resent not being able to walk my dog off-leash through a zone of ground nesting birds, because you can’t prove it does any damage”.   Most of us owners/guardians of Open Space understand this and are willing to sacrifice just a tiny bit of our “wants” for the good of the ecosystem “needs”.  If you really need special access to Open Space, you can probably get it by asking.  To deserve access you should learn about the land you love so you don’t love it to death.

Patrick Murphy

Ecotone Corporation

Boulder

Our Random Articles

More Links