Editor,
One of the reasons many of us choose to live in rural Colorado is our connection to the land.
Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, mountain biking, skiing, horseback riding, off-roading, and exploring public lands are not simply recreational activities. They are part of our culture, heritage, and way of life.
That is why I am increasingly concerned about the growing tension between public access and public policy.
Many residents support conservation. We value healthy forests, clean water, wildlife habitat, and responsible stewardship. But conservation should not mean excluding the people who have responsibly used and cared for these lands for generations.
Too often, decisions affecting land use seem to be made by agencies, boards, and organizations that are increasingly disconnected from the people who actually live here.
Families with limited mobility cannot always hike miles into wilderness areas. Elderly residents may depend on motorized access. Hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts often rely on roads and trails that have existed for decades.
As more restrictions are proposed, we should ask a simple question: Who are these lands being preserved for?
If working families, seniors, and ordinary residents can no longer access public lands, then they are not truly public. We can protect natural resources while still preserving access. We can support conservation without treating local residents as a problem to be managed.
The future of rural Colorado should include both healthy landscapes and the people who call those landscapes home.
Tom Warren
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here