Classical Jazz 2005: Home

Browns Canyon in the News

Many many people and organizations support the Browns Canyon Wilderness. Here is a listing of just a few choice quotes supporting the Browns Canyon Wilderness.

“this is one of the cleanest wilderness proposals I’ve seen in almost 20 years in Congress. It is the result of a grassroots effort, spearheaded by the Friends of Browns Canyon and continues to enjoy overwhelming local public support. It presents no problems with water, mining or grazing rights and would fit into Chaffee County’s plans for its economic future, which appear to be based on outdoor recreation. I hope the subcommittee and the full committee will act quickly to designate this area so that those plans may become a reality.” Representative Joel Hefley before the Committee on Resources

"It would be a travesty if Browns Canyon is not designated as wilderness," Senator Ken Salazar.
(Denver Post 11/15/2006 Editorial: Pass Browns Canyon bill now)

Browns Canyon "boasts some of Colorado's most pristine forests, great hunting and fishing habitat, and draws outdoor enthusiasts from across Colorado and the country during nearly every season." Senator Ken Salazar (Denver Post 06/07/2008 Editorial: Browns Canyon needs protection)

“...it would be a shame if partisanship derailed efforts to protect one of Colorado's most precious natural assets.” (Denver Post 07/30/2006 Editorial: Pass bills to protect state's wilderness )

“The part of the Arkansas River adjacent to the Browns Canyon area is one of the most popular whitewater destinations in the country, and the wilderness area would preserve unspoiled views for those running the river - when they have time to look. The surrounding areas already offer many kinds of recreation, and adding the possibility of a wilderness experience can only enhance the area's appeal.” Rocky Mountain News 7/24/2006 Editorial: Congress should act on wilderness bills

“Browns is a fragile area. Since it's for the most part a high desert receiving only small amounts of annual precipitation, any damage to the land from off-road use is a long time recovering. At the same time, because of its unusual rock formations and outcroppings and its wild, untamed and rugged nature, Browns is deserving of full wilderness designation.” Mountain Mail 4/13/2007 Editorial: Designate Browns

"The Browns Canyon Wilderness Area as currently proposed by Rep. Joel Hefley represents a reasonable compromise between various users and outdoor enthusiasts.

"Originally, Browns Canyon was presented as 35,000 acres, which has been scaled back to just over 20,000 acres. The smaller area makes sense in that it will be easier to manage and define, with boundaries for the most part running alongside existing roads and trails, the Arkansas River, railroad tracks and other readily-recognized features. This will make it easier for users to understand what’s wilderness and what’s not and easier for officials to educate the public and enforce." Mountain Mail 9/16/2005 Editorial: Browns Canyon ‘go’

"What it boils down to," Bill Sustrich says, "is back in Washington we have a bunch of ivory-tower types. They never go out and get their feet dirty. They listened to a couple ATV guys here locally who happened to be NRA members. It was slanted input, period. None of them ever came out and looked at the ground here." Denver Post 05/18/2008 Op-Ed by David Lien: Protecting big game habitat in Browns Canyon

"The motorized crowd may not be able to go everywhere they want sitting on their butts, but if they chase all the game out, gouge the meadows, muddy the stream and make all that noise, I have no reason to go there. They effectively have denied access to everyone who doesn't want those things." David Petersen Denver Post 12/13/2006 Editorial by Charlie Meyers, Outdoors Editor: Browns Canyon bill daggered

"We need to maintain quality habitat for wildlife populations, and more roads won't do that," [David] Lien said last week in a letter to [Senator] Allard. Denver Post 11/08/2006 Editorial by Charlie Meyers, Outdoors Editor: NRA off target on Browns Canyon project

“To say the view from a granite knob high above the east bank of the Arkansas River inspires patriotic sentiment would be an understatement.

[The Browns Canyon Wilderness area] is where our country lives - or at least, it's one of the remnants we've beaten it back to.” Rocky Mountain News 7/3/2008 column DENTRY: Struggle endures to protect Browns Canyon

“As an NRA life member and NRA-ILA supporter, I suggest that the organization is mistaken in opposing [the]… proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness Area in central Colorado. I live in the adjacent county. I have hunted and fished in Browns Canyon…and I fully support its wilderness designation.” (Chas Clifton) Rocky Mountain News 3/8/2008 Op-Ed by David A. Lien: Protecting big game habitat in Browns Canyon

I believe - like military veteran and famed hunter-conservationist Teddy Roosevelt - that, "Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us." Rocky Mountain News 3/8/2008 Speakout by David A. Lien: Browns Canyon ideal wilderness candidate

“Designation of Browns Canyon and the surrounding area as wilderness offers a distinct marketing advantage to local rafting companies and outdoor retailers. It would be rare indeed to have an official wilderness area adjacent to the most popular whitewater river in North America.” Mountain Mail 4/2/2007 Guest Opinion by Andy Neinas: Preserve Browns for future generations

“...the proposed wilderness area’s low altitude provides rich species diversity and year-round recreational access and opportunities such as hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, backpacking and camping.” 8/24/08 Letter to The Pueblo Chieftian by ROY L. MASINTON, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: Browns Canyon has wilderness potential

“The best use of the land for Browns Canyon is wilderness designation. The sheer ruggedness, proximity to water and low elevation provides tremendous big game habitat. With the 100,000 acre Fourmile Motorized Area due north, proposed mountain bike paths to the south, the full recreational use spectrum for balanced year round use would be realized for public land east of the Arkansas River.” 10/17/2008 letter to The Mountain Mail by Michael Kunkel: Wilderness is best use of land

“Chaffee County's boating industry would get a jolt from a nationally recognized wilderness area adjacent to Browns Canyon, proponents of the legislation said Wednesday.

"I want to be able to promote that," Arkansas River Outfitters Association member Joe Greiner said. "I think that would be a great marketing angle for us: 'Come visit Browns Canyon wilderness.' That's probably going to headline most of my marketing."” 4/5/2007 article in The Mountain Mail by Jason Starr: Browns Canyon Wilderness: Boating industry would get economic boost

“We simply cannot allow our booming population and their toys to dictate how much wild land becomes wilderness. We should remind ourselves that we are not “users” of the backcountry, but the stewards of it.” Time to get real about Browns Canyon by Paul Vertrees

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/27/dentry-browns-canyon-hopes-second-verse-better/

The Aspen Times: 5/24/08: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080524/NEWS/883852379&SearchID=73318950312145

Not Really (an) Ally
NRA no longer has hunters’ best interests in mind

By DAVE BUCHANAN The Daily Sentinel
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Just when it appeared sportsmen/conservationists had struck a compromise with the
apparently wildlife-hating National Rifle Association on the proposed Browns Canyon
Wilderness Act, the NRA changed its mind.
The wilderness bill, which would have protected some 20,000 acres of BLM and Forest
Service land along the Arkansas River south of Buena Vista, was supported and sponsored
by two key Colorado Republican congressmen, Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Joel Hefley,
and also received nods of approval from Colorado Rep. Mark Udall and Sen. Ken Salazar,
both Democrats.
But at the last minute, the NRA scratched its OK because the bill would have closed what
locals call the Turret Road, a hard-scrabble, two-track wagon road up a steep gully
penetrating into the proposed wilderness.
The NRA’s opposition was based on the complaints of a few members who wanted to drive
their all-terrain vehicles along a route that most local residents and Forest Service officials
said was in need of being closed.
The NRA forged its reputation for its zealous defense of the Second Amendment, but in
recent years the powerful lobbying group has diverged terribly from what many observers
consider the mainstream hunter and angler. Instead of being the sportsmen’s ally, the NRA
comes on as an anti-wildlife, anti-wildlands interloper more interested in catering to
well-heeled political allies instead of forming coalitions with everyday hunters who recognize
the need for roadless areas.
The NRA ignores what such diverse groups as Trout Unlimited, the Colorado Division of
Wildlife and the Oregon-based Backcountry Hunters and Anglers have documented: That
there is a strong connection between roadless area and the success of hunters and anglers.
David Lien, Front Range director for Backcountry Hunters and anglers, said in a letter to
Allard that while the NRA “does an excellent job of protecting our Second Amendment gun
rights ... their lobbyists apparently don’t get outside of Washington, D.C., often enough
these days to hear from real hunters.
“Loss of habitat is the biggest threat to wildlife and hunting today, and hunters understand
that habitat means wild, rugged country not overrun with roads, trails, and (off highway
vehicles),” Lien continued.
Those of us in western Colorado who have seen some of the best habitat laced with roads
from the ever-increasing energy boom doubly lament the loss of any chances to protect
wildlife and its habitat.
Lien’s letter, along with some impassioned arguments from Chaffee County Commissioner
Jerry Mallett, a wilderness proponent who delivered an alternative bill that would cherrystem
a narrow road corridor into the wilderness, apparently was enough to mollify the NRA, which
then withdrew its opposition.
For about a week.
Earlier this week, the NRA demanded not only a road but also a 400-foot wide corridor, a
space one observer said was enough to turn around a semitrailer.
“The agreement was to withdraw the road, with the assumption the Forest Service would
close it anyway,” said Dave Petersen of Trout Unlimited and Colorado field representative for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. “Everyone thought the compromise looked good, but the
bill Allard introduced called for a 400-foot wide corridor, and that killed the whole deal.”
This isn’t a Second Amendment issue, but rather a case of the NRA pandering to a fistful of
ATV users willing to tear up and further fragment wildlife habitat.
As Mallett said in a letter he sent to Allard, “It is apparent that the NRA has no on-the-ground
knowledge of the area.”
Petersen and others aren’t sure who shoulders most of the blame for the last-minute deal
killer, but there is little doubt the ultimate responsibility lies with the NRA and its pressure on
Allard to change the legislation to demand that 400-foot wide corridor.
Now, the wilderness bill awaits the next session of congress, where proponents hope it meets
a friendlier fate.

Friday, December 08, 2006

Plenty of hunters, but no game

Friday, December 08, 2006


Dear Editor:

Thanks for your insightful piece regarding Browns Canyon. The area is indeed fragile. I have seen the damage over-use of vehicles has done just to the north of the proposed wilderness
, on trails that showed little wear 20 years ago. The same trails now have ruts a foot deep.

Also, in the Four Mile area during hunting season, I saw many hunters driving the roads and
trails in vehicles, but I saw no game, except way back in draws and arroyos far from roads.

The response from a National Riffle Association lobbyist from the East at this late hour is
puzzling indeed. Where has he been for the last 10 years? If Mr. Cox is indeed concerned
about preserving hunting, he should be supporting the preservation of habitat, given development and population pressures on game herds.

Hunting is hopefully still a sport, which implies an interesting degree of uncertainty as to the outcome - as compared to a trade - where all available technologies are employed to ensure that outcome.

Jay Gingrich,

Buena Vista

Content © 2006 The Mountain Mail

 

Ticket info - call 800-555-1212