Fair game for drillers

Energy companies’ forays into state’s wildlife preserves ruffle feathers

By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Monday, March 17, 2008

Photos by Matt McClain / The Rocky

Tool pusher Chris Tinnin performs maintenance on an XTO Energy rig during a morning snowstorm earlier this month at the Bosque del Oso State Wildlife Area 25 miles west of Trinidad. The area is home to increased coal-bed methane gas production.

Wild turkeys forage near coal-bed methane production equipment in the Bosque del Oso State Wildlife Area . Energy companies are drilling for methane deposits trapped in coal seams 1,000 feet or more beneath the 30,000-acre preserve west of Trinidad.

Game warden Bob Holder relaxes in his Trinidad home. "What people forget is wildlife is also an industry," Holder said, in response to all the rhetoric about the wealth brought by energy development.

Nature rewards hunters on horseback who hoof a few miles into the pine-covered hills of the Bosque del Oso State Wildlife Area.

On display are red-tailed hawks riding the thermals, black bears, bobcats, regal bull elk crowned with forests of antlers and a slumber party of wild turkeys dozing in the roof of a cottonwood tree.

But, as documented in recent Colorado Division of Wildlife surveys, local hunters also are running into the startling impacts of the coal-bed methane industry.

Dirt clouds follow truck convoys carrying water, chemicals and equipment in and out of the Bosque. Haul roads make gravel ribbons through habitat - along ridges, through valleys and cut into hillsides. Drill pads are flat-topped interruptions to the rounded high country. The grind of diesel engines pierces the cool, silent air.

Industry's mechanized omnipresence is an especially jarring sight considering that hunters enter the preserve only on foot or by horseback.

Inside the 30,000-acre Bosque del Oso (Forest of the Bear) State Wildlife Area, 25 miles west of Trinidad, energy producers are drilling for methane deposits trapped in coal seams a thousand feet or more underground, seeking fuel to run power plants and heat the West's homes and businesses.

The industry's reach into the Bosque serves as another example of the costs that come with the jobs, tax revenue and myriad economic benefits of Colorado's energy boom: Across the state, areas once set aside as wildlife preserves and hunting grounds are under increasing pressure from companies eager for access to the buried treasure of fossil fuels.

So far, only a dozen or so of Colorado's 230 state wildlife areas covering 369,518 acres are being drilled or are at risk of impending energy development. But hunters, wildlife biologists and environmentalists are wary of what's in store as the industry continues its extraction efforts in four major mineral basins in the state.

"I do not mind competing with other hunters in a given area, but competing with machinery is too much for me," wrote elk hunter Anthony Vecellio, of La Veta, of his December experience in the Bosque - one he described as ruined by trucks, roads and spooked game.

This first visit to the Bosque, Velcellio said on his Division of Wildlife questionnaire, "is likely to be my last."

Hunters are echoing such concerns across Colorado as they discover that industry, the federal government or private citizens often own the mineral rights underneath wildlife preserves - frequently giving energy developers legal authority to drill wells, move equipment and build the pipelines to get the gas out.

* In northwestern Colorado, companies are drilling inside the popular Piceance State Wildlife Area and Garfield Creek SWA. Two pipelines corridors cross three wildlife areas - the Piceance, Bitter Brush and Little Snake - and a third pipeline is planned.

* In southwestern Colorado, the Division of Wildlife has persuaded the U.S. Bureau of Land Management - which owns minerals rights underneath many SWAs - to defer lease sales on two state wildlife preserves. But state officials say it's probably only a matter of time before drilling occurs.

* In the San Luis Valley, the federal Fish and Wildlife Service has given initial approval to a company that wants to drill two exploratory wells inside the Baca National Wildlife Refuge. The EPA, state wildlife officials and citizens groups have raised objections to the plan.

* To handle booming energy development in state wildlife areas, as well as on habitat across public and private lands, the DOW recently moved five employees into new positions as energy liaisons to work with industry and try to limit effects on wildlife.

"It's a tough problem," said Bob Towry, a retired conservation official with the DOW, "and clearly when you bought the property to have habitat, that's not what you anticipated to have happen to it."

Preserving a haven

The Division of Wildlife purchased the Bosque del Oso - Colorado's largest state-owned wildlife area - a decade ago, for about $9 million, in hopes of preserving a haven for hunters and animals alike in an area of southern Colorado dominated by private land ownership.

The site lies west of Trinidad, in the Purgatoire River Valley along the Highway of Legends, a state-designated scenic route on Colorado 12. With the spectacular snow-draped Culebra Range in the background, the Bosque's ponderosa pine forests, cottonwood-lined creeks and open patches of grass and forbs make it an inviting home for a veritable zoo of Colorado wildlife.

Bob Holder, the local DOW game warden, has overseen the Bosque and surrounding lands for 33 years and played a major role in marshaling the agency's forces to buy the property in the late-1990s. Holder will tell you coal-bed methane has brought an economic boost to his hometown of Trinidad and high-paying jobs to the workers. But, in Holder's view, there's also a steep price to pay.

"One of the things you can't quantify is the aesthetic experience of wildlife," Holder said, pointing out the ubiquitous dirt and gravel roads that now criss-cross a refuge once home to a single two-track Jeep trail.

"Ten to 15 years ago, methane wasn't a blip on the radar screen for most people," he said. Development "happened so fast, without any notice. Now, it's intense."

Since it began its work five years ago, the company that owns the Bosque's mineral rights, Fort Worth, Texas- based XTO Energy, has carved out 185 drilling pads, and has plans to double that over the next 20 years, said company Vice President Del Craddock.

The industrial feel to parts of the Bosque was a chief complaint from hunters surveyed by the DOW since elk season last fall.

Critical comments included: "Just do not like the noise from all of the gas wells" and "It's a shame (development) had to happen" and "(too much) construction traffic" and "massive gas production activity" and "(gas workers) driving up road and scaring elk off."

One visitor wrote: "Compared to what we have in Illinois, the Bosque is huge. However, I can see the habitat slowly shrinking due to energy development."

Wildlife officials can't say for sure what effect the drilling is having on animals, in the Bosque or elsewhere in Colorado. Various studies are only in the early stages.

Research conducted in Wyoming, however, where the oil and gas boom is much further along, suggests some animals are driven out of their favored areas by all the industrial activity.

"We know that disturbance can move animals off of preferred habitat," said Randy Hampton, a spokesman for the DOW's northwest region. He said a Wyoming study showed mule deer moving off preferred winter range to secondary ranges.

That "leads to issues of herd health," Hampton said. "If they're on secondary range and not getting good nourishment, then they're at risk for disease. The number of fawns they may have or carry may decrease."

Perhaps the only direct evidence of damage to wildlife in the Bosque, and elsewhere in the state, comes from what wildlife officials say is an increase in roadkill - the result of both more roads into once-remote areas and more vehicles on them.

"When the deer rut comes, our roadkill goes sky high," Holder said. "Bucks are looking for does, and they're not as wary and not as cautious as they should be. With all the roads, it's formula for disaster."

Impact debated

Not all hunters complained about gas development in the Bosque. Some surveyed didn't even mention the activity and marveled about their experience.

"Having the opportunity to see many species of game animals and enjoy/appreciate the well-managed environment," one hunter wrote in response to a question about the best part of the hunt.

Craddock, the XTO executive, goes so far as to say his company has improved the wildlife habitat in the Bosque. Workers have built attractive, stone- lined ponds to dispose of nonpolluted water and have scattered seed mixtures to improve forage, he said.

"I honestly believe that we have enhanced the elk population (in the Bosque) because we have provided two things they need to thrive: food and water," Craddock said.

Craddock said the company tries to keep its footprint small and reclaim disturbed land along roads and pads as much as it can and still allow for operations.

"We use the smallest (drill) rigs we can get in there," he said. "We cut the pads down as much as we can after we're done. OSHA has certain standards, so we can't cut them down too small."

XTO, like all energy companies on state wildlife lands, also must pay the DOW for land disturbance, Craddock pointed out. Fees include $1 per linear foot for roads and pipelines and $3,000 per drilling pad.

As it is across Colorado, the Division of Wildlife has tried to make arrangements with energy companies to limit the impact. One key agreement on the Bosque: keep industry vehicles out of the area before 9 a.m. and after 3 p.m. to improve the experience for hunters.

"It makes for short workdays, but we just have to honor the restrictions as part of our agreement," Craddock said.

Al Trujillo, Division of Wildlife energy liaison for the southeast region, said XTO has "done some things that we wouldn't have done, or couldn't have done" to improve habitat.

"My personal preference is they wouldn't be there, but they're there; they have property rights. We work with them while we can."

Seeking middle ground

Energy companies "don't want to go out there and be the bad guy," said Ron Velarde, who directs DOW's operations in northwest Colorado, and most make an effort to at least listen to the agency's concerns.

One example: At the Garfield Creek State Wildlife Area south of Silt, a 13,179-acre refuge loaded with excellent winter range, wildlife officials are talking to an energy firm with mineral rights in hopes it will move its pipeline to traverse the right of way of a county road instead of cutting through habitat.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management also has worked closely with DOW, often citing the agency's concerns when requiring directional drilling from outside of a state wildlife area's boundaries to access federal minerals underneath.

"The BLM has deferred many of the state wildlife area parcels in previous (lease) sales . . . and we appreciate the BLM taking our comments into account," Hampton said. But, he added, "it doesn't mean (the leases are) off the table in the future."

And the two agencies don't always reach accord. The BLM recently leased a parcel of federal mineral rights within the Garfield Creek SWA over the protests of state wildlife officials. The parties are still trying to work out how drilling might occur, a process that could take months.

But at some point, Hampton said, "it's the BLM's decision."

On the Bosque, more than any other state wildlife area, the impacts of drilling are well established. And with so much coal-bed methane in the Raton Basin, drilling inside and in private lands outside the preserve will likely continue for decades.

For Holder, the quintessential game warden whose ring tone mimics a bugling elk, his deep affection for the area is obvious in the way he can spot well-camouflaged deer, elk and turkeys long before anyone else riding along inside his black DOW pickup has a clue.

A big fellow, with a bald head and a Rottweiler named Attila that often rides with him, Holder might terrify a poacher - or just about anyone - until he reveals his people-loving persona. He chats and waves to anybody, even the energy workers carving up the Bosque.

"What people forget is wildlife is also an industry," he said, reacting to all the rhetoric about the wealth brought by energy development. "This is why people move to Colorado, why people hike and hunt.

"Sometimes," he said, reflecting on a gas road that had to be built through some habitat that had been earlier restored by the DOW, "it's kind of disheartening."

Riches above - and below

A variety of sensitive landscapes across Colorado, aside from state wildlife areas, are in the line of sight of energy companies drilling for oil, natural gas and coal-bed methane.

* Citizen-proposed wilderness: 14 areas nominated by environmental groups and some members of Colorado's congressional delegation for wilderness protection have been leased by the federal government for oil and gas development. But none of those have yet been developed.

* Wild and Scenic: Land within at least one federally proposed Wild and Scenic River corridor, along the Yampa River, was nominated for leasing, but was deferred by the Bureau of Land Management last year after protests by environmental groups.

* Roadless areas: Several U.S. Forest Service roadless areas have been leased for energy development, but no drilling has yet occurred in those. Activists sued this month to stop a planned natural gas pipeline through three Western Slope roadless areas.

* Conservation easements: Dozens of parcels set aside through state-sanctioned conservation programs designed to protect land from development still allow for drilling.

hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5048

• March 17, 2008

  6:21 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  kmcconnon writes:

  Republicans and a few energy patch Democrats are behind this. We can boom and bust our way to destruction. The energy industry is bringing a bunch of money to Colorado for a few years and then when the boom ends, we'll wonder why the economy is in the toilet. The habitat will take twenty years to recover if it every does and Mr. Craddock will have made his cash and his mansion down in Texas. Hunting and fishing bring $5 billion to Colorado every year. It isn't a boom/bust industry, yet whenever Republicans and some Democrats make vote in the legislature, sportsmen get screwed. Add in all of the other outdoor related tourist dollars that come into Colorado and not only is selling out our wilderness unethical, it's stupid too.

  Republicans play the 2nd amendment card and then turn around and sell out hunters. January 20, 2009 can't come soon enough for me. Maybe a Democratic administration and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate can slow this crap down. Cheney, Bush, and their energy industry pals have taken enough from America. Are the elk really in league in with the terrorists?

• March 17, 2008

  7:51 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Earl writes:

  well get off your dead butt and come up with energy we can have tomorrow to replace the need stuff we use today. leave it to democraps and everyone will be living in a cave and have free health care to go along with no jobs as they have no power.
  this same crap was said when the Alaskan pipe line was underconstruction and today it is back to normal just like this will be. do you really think the deer and elk just hang out once the first shot is fired? all you enviro wackos can make up some of the best stuff for feeling good.
  so what will bo and hillbillary do for energy? how will they replace the jobs you want destroyed? maybe they can share your corner and use your sign till they beg enough money to get their own.

• March 17, 2008

  8:05 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  Earl,

  Your free use of insults makes your argument hard to listen to. It's difficult to respect those who don't show a little of it themselves. No one has attacked you, yet you feel it somehow helps the conversation to pre-emptively strike out at someone for having a different opinion than your own?

  Come on Earl, you can do a lot better!

• March 17, 2008

  8:07 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  pak writes:

  As long as the enviros push intermittent and unreliable renewable power (wind and solar) which works only 33% of the time, and fight every coal fired baseload plant, we will need gas for energy. Build more coal fired baseload plants (like China, India and Russia are doing) and the demand for gas will decrease!! Until we make the right decision to build lots more coal fired plants, we will enjoy more gas drilling, and intermittent, expensive power from renewables!!

• March 17, 2008

  8:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Jack_Bauer writes:

  kmcconnon,
  Your theory about the Republicans also rings true about your beloved party the Democraps. They pander to the poor and uneducated for votes by saying they are going to help them while at the same fining and regulating Walmart to death. Just where do they think these constituents (voters)shop? Lord and Taylor, Nordstroms?
  Then they go and mandate higher ethanol production which has now driven the cost of a lot of food items through the roof. They won't allow any new energy exploration or production in the name of environmental concerns causing prices to just keep going up. They blocked any attempts to build new refineries thus forcing superficial prices on the very segment of society (voters)they supposedly work so hard for. They will not allow nuclear power plants to be built and in fact right here in colorado shut one down and converted it to natural gas of all things. They won't allow new coal power plants even though the cost of firing one is much less than that of natural gas once again driving the price of electricity higher.
  Yet all the while they stand on the sidelines and bitch and moan about how the middle and lower class (their supposed constituency, I mean voters) in this country is suffering.
  So stop with the BS about Republicans because your party is just as bad or worse when it comes to the less fortunate in our society as all they care about is the vote of these people and regulating everybody else into submission.

• March 17, 2008

  8:29 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  misterbigge writes:

  greenleaf, we conservatives have learned a little late that reasoning with far leftists and radical enviros does not work against their over reaching and unrepresentative aggressive tactics. We now fight fire with fire. The radical goof balls (both left and right) need to be attacked and ridiculed since many of these people are more interested in getting attention than supporting thier supposed causes. I speak from a past history of left wing radical who was finally dismayed to see how many activists were in it to get their name in the news. I would like to see real enviros work with energy producers and consumers (me, you and your family!!) to make life better for all. Wild areas and wildlife have remarkable abilities to recuperate from mans' activities as long as that is part of the equation before we go into these areas. Nature is constantly changing and animals and habitat are constantly changing to react. In one sense man introduces just another change. We can and should however minimize the overall impact on our wonderful natural areas.

• March 17, 2008

  8:31 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  pak,

  I don't mind your use of the abbreviation "enviros", it seems to be a logical abbreviation.

  I think your outright dismissal of wind and solar ignores certain facts. Peak use of energy occurs during the day when millions of people are at work and when air conditioners draw vast amounts of energy. This is precisely the time when solar works the best; during times of peak load. Concentrated solar, with demonstration plants already in use, not only supplies peak use, but stores superheated water to power turbines long after the sun goes down.

  The wind often blows at night and while supplying less energy than solar does during the day, energy use drops at night and wind can help with that.

  Once these plants are constructed, no additional fuel will be required during their service lives. They are a far more efficient concept than the hungry beasts that coal fired plants are. We level entire mountains producing the coal that we then sometimes haul hundreds of miles to burn. Coal plants then play their part in contributing to mercury in our fish and waterways, acid rain helping to kill our forests and lakes and the air pollution which has obvious negative impacts on health.

  How many more reasons do we need to at least slow our consumption of this dirty, polluting resource? Coal and oil will be part of our energy equation for years to come, like it or not, but it is also time to open our minds to consider a few alternatives.

• March 17, 2008

  8:40 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  misterbigge,

  Thanks for the thoughtful post! I agree that insult is no more becoming on the left than it is on the right. It fouls our national discussions and gets in the way of real progress and compromise. Your proposal that we all cooperate for the common good is what I have advocated for years, and will continue to advocate to the end. As a professional Botanist, I don't totally agree with your statements regarding wildlife impacts and their resilience in the face of massive and continuous industrial intrusion to their habitats. That aside, I appreciate your diplomatic approach to an issue that is so important to us all.

  Thank you again misterbigge!

• March 17, 2008

  8:46 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  rickg19611 writes:

  Hmm.... leftwingers praise eminent domain when it forces a homeowner to give up their property and move elsewhere so that some "feel good" boondoggle can be built.

  Consider this eminent domain for Bambi, squirrels, and rats. They had to move 1 mile away, but hey... "it's for the greater good" so deal with it!

• March 17, 2008

  9:08 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  Greenleaf,
  If you invite misterbigge over for cocktails, you are a two-timing-lib-enviro-nincompoop!

• March 17, 2008

  9:54 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Scott writes:

  rickg19611,

  "Consider this eminent domain for Bambi...." Not from what is on the front page of today's (Monday's) RMN. The photo show a bunch of turkeys near an oil/gas well holding tanks! So much for the oil-drilling-is-bad excretions from the eco-freaks.

  Scott

• March 17, 2008

  10:34 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  horsinaround writes:

  Does anyone realize it takes 160 acres of windmills or solar panels to equal the same amount of energy produced by a gas or oil well on two acres of land???? You still need the big trucks going down the road to build the windmills and then the hunters will have the gorgeous landscape of windmills....or rather the folks driving across country through the plains will get to view acres upon acres of windmills. Does anyone really think that looks good and doesn't spoil our land???? How do you enviromentalists want to heat your houses, drive your cars/SUVs? You want to use ethanol?? Have you seen the price of milk lately, to name just one of many price increases, thanks to the Democrats pushing ethanol? Do you really think the unfortunate among us can afford the prices of food now that you've pushed for ethanol?? They can probably afford gas or a bus ticket easier than a trip to the grocery store now. Way to go!! The only reason ethanol is so cheap is because it is government subsidized for now with our tax dollars!! You want to tax the oil & gas industry, which Democrats have vowed to do and are doing. Guess what....that just raises the prices of oil/gas for everyone and forces the industry to cut jobs. Face it, this country will always be dependent on oil and gas to some degree. Rubber is made from petroleum products, that includes the elastic in your panties. We'll always need it. Isn't it better to obtain it from home rather than the Middle East? Don't you Dems. want so badly to get out of the Middle East? We have to drill at home to reduce our dependency on them. You can't have it both ways...oh, wait, you think you can. But reality check, doesn't work that way.

• March 17, 2008

  10:37 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  Gene,

  No worries, you're my 5:00 cocktail buddy (Contorta neats)!

  But Gene don't you think you are going overboard with the compliments? A lib. an enviro and now a nincompoop all in the same phrase? Thanks pal!

  Scott,

  I think you need to reread the article. You missed a bunch of important points, not the least of which is that much of the article features information from the Division of Wildlife concerning impacts on hunting and wildlife. Or did you choose to overlook that purposely so as to make an unfortunate hit and run insult!

• March 17, 2008

  10:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mark79trans writes:

  Today's gas fired turbines consume a ridiculous volume of gas resulting in a big push to find resources. It is has been a long time since I worked this issue as a policy advisor so I don't remember the cubic feet of gas / turbine use calculations. The scrubbers for coal fired plants designed a couple decades ago are extremely good, but the Mercury issue always comes up. Hydro-power, especially in the Northwest kills the spawning runs for the fish, plus environmentalists don't like the changes cause by damming a river. Nuclear just scares people even though most major navel vessels are floating nuclear plants. Solar and Wind are developing technologies and are no where near able to meet our energy needs (today). IMPORTANT POINT*****So, the proponents of the Clean Air Act and environmental lobby in general, that shut down many coal fired plants and halted several nuclear plants from going online, forced the building of gas-fired turbines over the last twenty years for cleaner power generation; now these same environmentalists are upset about gas exploration in the Rockies?***** Unless we want to go back to the horse and buggy days with candle light and cut our population by more then half, we will need to extract resources until we transition to something else. This transition will take several decades...it isn't going to happen overnight. There is a good tax break for installing solar on your home and push/pull to/from the energy grid. Activists can install these panels and provide clean power generation, which is far more beneficial then spending thousands probably more like millions on this year's campaign. Although, it is more easy for them to cast blame and use the current presidential administration as a scapegoat even though this same administration signed stricter CAFE standards twice while closing some of the loopholes...this will completely change the automotive industry. What do you think the industry will need to do to make trucks/SUVs average 27 and automobiles average 35? Yes, Bush "the evil oil villain" supported this! It doesn't mater whether there are Republicans or Democrats in the White House or Congress; the underlying problem is the same. By cutting resource supplies prior to finding sustainable alternatives all we do is cut our own throat. What do you think would happen if there was no off-shore exploration, no gas exploration in the Rockies ore elsewhere, no hydro-power dams, no internal combustion transportation (shipping, trains, and trucking), and no Nuclear(?); our country would shut down. There would be a whole lot of people killing a whole lot of people over a few bites of food.

• March 17, 2008

  11:04 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  horsinaround,

  I can't answer for Democrats because I am an independent. I am also a botanist and a business owner. The first makes me an environmentalist, the second makes me a fiscal conservative who doesn't care for eccessive regulation and taxes'

  We have an energy problem in the world, let alone this country. We also have environmental problems in this country and the world as a whole. Oil and gas greatly contribute to our environmental problems and are problematic sources of energy when it comes to geopolitics.

  To me, as a fiscal conservative, The economies of wind and solar make sense for one reason: once built, they will supply energy without using energy over their thirty plus year lifespan. Your average gas or oil well will play out in less time than that and will require a never ending search for increasingly difficult to access sources. How does that make sense economically?

  Your point about visual impacts of wind is valid, and there exist some ground level impacts as well. However there will be benefits paid to farmers and ranchers and they can still use the bulk of their land for the original purpose. So far as I know, wind and solar aren't proposed for delicate ecosystems as oil and gas extraction obviously are.

  You blame the Democrats for ethanol - don't. It's the Agribusiness lobby and corn growing state representatives of both parties that have given the American taxpayer that boondoggle. I don't know of a single environmentalist that supports that concept over Cellulose based ethanol or biodiesel.

  You seem concerned about rubber, but rubber/plastic was originally made from plant sources and could be again.

  Of course, we will need oil and gas to be part of the mix for years, but it makes sense to conserve them and it makes sense to diversify into cleaner fuels as well.

  You make good arguments without insult and that moves the discussion forward. Thanks horsinaround!

• March 17, 2008

  11:10 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  sunshinestate writes:

  Where is the NRA ?? Nancy Pelosi has proven more helpful to hunter interests on the Roan than many 'friends' of the hunting constituency. The hunting community has been in the talons of development since James Watt. and there is unfounded complacency about the 'vastness' of the 'West'.Most newcommers to the west hardly understand so much about the reality of the interior west.Even Edward Abbey failed to warn and school on so many elements now emerging. Glad I stayed in Florida where all types of recreation,including hunting, can be superior.This is not a "jab" but rather a wake up call.

• March 17, 2008

  11:28 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  LET 'EM CHOKE ON THEIR FEATHERS

  Until they figure out a way to put $10 at the pump out of bounds too, then this crowd better get used to being surrounded by drilling rigs. There is no turning back; the moment of truth hhas arrived. Drill we must for a growing, employed and secure America, screw the antelope.

• March 17, 2008

  11:42 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  SASQUATCH,

  So....... The strength of your arguments boils down to " LET'EM CHOKE ON THEIR FEATHERS"?

  I'm glad you aren't on my side of many arguments, you don't don't benefit your cause with sound bites like that!

• March 17, 2008

  11:43 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  Hey sunshinestate,
  This is not the Roan. This is Trinidad, where if you wander into town you might wander out a different sex. That is more than a "jab" and a real wake up call where the sundoesn'tshine.

• March 17, 2008

  11:43 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  Hey sunshinestate,
  This is not the Roan. This is Trinidad, where if you wander into town you might wander out a different sex. That is more than a "jab" and a real wake up call where the sundoesn'tshine.

• March 17, 2008

  11:55 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  greenleaf: "To me, as a fiscal conservative, The economies of wind and solar make sense for one reason: once built, they will supply energy without using energy over their thirty plus year lifespan. Your average gas or oil well will play out in less time than that and will require a never ending search for increasingly difficult to access sources. How does that make sense economically?"

  Don't forget the rebates utility companies pay back to residences and businesses in payment for their extra solar energy. A solar system can not only pay for itself within two years or less, it starts to make money afterwards.

  But I doubt this will register with the "War Against the Sun" crowd...

• March 17, 2008

  noon

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  Hey, 2cents,
  You are the "War Against the Sun" crowd. You are the ones who don't believe solar flares cause temperature to go up. You think I'm doing it.

• March 17, 2008

  12:13 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  Gene,

  You do have to admit, you do "flare" on occasion! (so do I of course!).

• March 17, 2008

  12:20 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  Greenleaf...

  And you can choke on spinach.

• March 17, 2008

  12:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  hikingartist writes:

  I have always said, conservatives only appreciate the environment for 2 things; destruction for profit or blood sport. Either way the wildlife is sacrificed. It is always amusing when their exploitive agendas collide.

• March 17, 2008

  12:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Froward69 writes:

  Dont look now gene, Earl and sa-squat-ch... The Pepsi can is going 100% green.

  http://www.9news.com/news/article.asp...

• March 17, 2008

  12:40 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  Froward69er, - don't drink Pepsi.

  hikingartist, - did you see BLM is safely pumping clean water from the Leadville tunnel???
  You were right to glom onto the benefits of capitalism.

• March 17, 2008

  12:43 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  it's good to see everyone getting a little silly. We all take ourselves to seriously sometimes!

• March 17, 2008

  12:56 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mark79trans writes:

  "Posted by hikingartist on March 17, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
  I have always said, conservatives only appreciate the environment for 2 things; destruction for profit or blood sport. Either way the wildlife is sacrificed. It is always amusing when their exploitive agendas collide."

  Wow, that is incredibly narrow minded especially given the photos my wife and I have of the deer and elk herds on our property or the photos taken on our many nature hikes, etc. We choose to live and spend our time in our forests because we really want to destroy it ?????? (you may want to think about this before you speak...)

  There are always competing interests (the real issue here). The problem is no respect of others or understanding of the situation. Hunters will need to understand that the resources will be extracted. The industry will need to be good stewards of the land. Environmentalists will need to understand that we need resources and people will hunt. No one group (special interest) has a monopoly on what is right.

  Well, maybe we just need to have the wolves chase off the drillers and hunters and eat the wildlife!

• March 17, 2008

  1:18 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Gene: "You are the "War Against the Sun" crowd. You are the ones who don't believe solar flares cause temperature to go up."

  Um...*assuming* that was the case, wouldn't that make me a defender of the sun???

• March 17, 2008

  2:09 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  2-cents,
  I believe solar flares cause the temperatures to go up. Maybe we are on the same side. Gee, this is too much. Kum Ba Yah My Lord, Kum Ba Yah. Ol' greenleaf was right (in mean independent). P. S. there are idiot-enviros that beleive you and I are making temperatures to go up, because of our human activity. At least they want to tax us for it.

• March 17, 2008

  2:15 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Gene: "Gee, this is too much. Kum Ba Yah My Lord, Kum Ba Yah."

  Just wait 'til you get to the warm and fuzzy hugs part - it's ALMOST as fun as our Diversity Training classes!

• March 17, 2008

  3:45 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  rubadub writes:

  you can see bobcats, black bears and wild turkeys on the roan plateau? maybe if you live there, nobodys going to go for a short hike and see any such thing. the author makes it sound as if they're hanging around waiting for humans to show up and gawk at them. since my arrival in 1982 and many,many hours spent camping, hiking, 4 wheeling and exploring, i think i saw a wild turkey once. i've never even seen a rattler here. and the roan plateau is one place i never had the urge to explore, because it doesn't look like it's worth exploring. not my idea of scenic, no water.
  we can't yap endlessly about energy dependence and then close off the very places where we might find it. i got nothing against hunters, but i'd put our energy needs above them any day.

• March 17, 2008

  3:47 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Bob299 writes:

  I wonder how many of the hunters quoted in the articles are Republican?

  Maybe the issue isn't as cut and dry, Democrat vs Republican as you think.

• March 17, 2008

  3:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  rubadub writes:

  Republicans play the 2nd amendment card and then turn around and sell out hunters. January 20, 2009 can't come soon enough for me. Maybe a Democratic administration and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate can slow this crap down. Cheney, Bush, and their energy industry pals have taken enough from America. Are the elk really in league in with the terrorists?

  what nonsense, everything we take out of the ground is sold to a consumer[you and me] to heat their house or use in some other productive manner. nobody is hoarding this stuff, for whatever bizarre reason you can come up with. this vapidity of greedy oil and energy cos. is so much nonsense by people who have no clue how the world actually works.

• March 17, 2008

  4:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  Mark79trans,

  Mark your 12:53 posting proves you should be in the diplomatic corps!. "No one group(special interest) has a monopoly on what is right.". That was beautifully said, and I hope everyone else was listening! While we may all be part of the problem, we all need to be part of the solution as well. The only way we are going to get there is to make certain compromises for the common good. Rather than pointing fingers we should have more of what Gene thinks of as "Kumbaya moments". A few of those certainly can't hurt.

  Does anyone have an idea how we can compromise for the good of wildlife, hunters and industry?

• March 17, 2008

  7:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  greenleaf: "Does anyone have an idea how we can compromise for the good of wildlife, hunters and industry?"

  No.

  Industry has more than had its fair share of wildlife habitat.

• March 17, 2008

  8:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  mytwosense,

  My goal in this is to keep conversation going between people who generally disagree so strongly they talk at and past each other. It gives everyone a chance to make their points and discuss the issue civilly. Ideally we would be out of the insult phase and into a critical thinking mode where some ideas would have an opportunity to sink in. It's all about hearts and minds. It's your opportunity to influence the debate.

  Actually I doubt that there will be many more comments anyway. We've probably about run our course here. Consider it for the future? :>)

• March 17, 2008

  9:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  pak writes:

  Greenleaf

  Coal plants emit less than 1 % of atmospheric mercury in USA. Wet scrubbrs pull 99% of Hg and SOx from the stacks, so acid rain is no longer a problem. Have you heard of the 1977 coal reclamation law? All coal lands are reclaimed. Go to Moffat county and tour the reclaimed coal lands that contain thousands of elk, deer, grouse, antelope, etc. Since 1977, all coal lands, including Mtn top removal are reclaimed and used for grazinf and wildlife. Did you hear of the Texas electricity emergency where the wind turbines quit turning? We are on the verge of massive brownouts and blackouts if we don't build some coal plants. China built 119 such plants in 2005 and now build 2 a month. The sucking sound you will hear will be all of the jobs leaving to go to China where they will have cheap, reliable not expensive intermittent power. Colorado needs 4900 mw of power by 2025, and wind turbines will not do it. It takes 78 sq miles of wind to equal 1000mw of power. I do not want over 300 square miles of land in windmills for intermittent power that works only 33% of the time. COAL!!!

• March 17, 2008

  10:59 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  woodland writes:

  100 dollar oil and 10 dollar gas means a lot of profit for oil companies and they will reinvest that to make more (capitalism). Some will go towards developing new technologies, remember coal bed gas methane technology has only been developed over the last 20 years or so. And with higher prices will come more and more wells and their associated nuisances as marginal prospects become profitable to develop.

  The next big push will be coal, given the huge reserves. Two solutions(such as multiple wells from one pad)to minimize the footprint:

  1. Companies react to legislation (lobby your congressman, etc.)
  2. Companies react to public opinion(yell out loud, write, email)
  3. Park the SUV, throw out the air conditioner (and buy a Mercedes smart car and a ton of beer with the gas savings)and tell the billions of chinese etc. who want what we have to stay in the rice paddies.

• March 26, 2008

  6:56 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  kurtray writes:

  I'm glad I found this article - thank you RMN. I had been planning a hunt to the Bosque del Oso, but have put the kabosh on that. That's a real economic impact - a week's worth of food/lodging/gas/gifts. What a travesty for the CDOW. Well, maybe my grandkids will be able to enjoy this property once the gas-sucking leaches are (hopefully) gone...