High Priority Habitat? CO Dems open the floodgates on gun control. Just how much of a "Colorado for All" is it?
High Priority Habitat Maps for CPW--posted as much for information's sake as for an ability to speak up.
If you do want to speak up, however, better sign up soon. The meeting is this Thursday 2/8 at 11 AM (and you can attend virtually).
I recently signed up for updates from Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC--formerly the oil and gas commission, now on its 2nd or 3rd name) and one came in yesterday that I wanted to share.
This one seems more technical, so unless you know your stuff, this may not be one you speak on, but I do hope you gain some new knowledge from this.
The announcement was for a rulemaking hearing to update the rules on "high priority habitat maps". See the first link below for a link to the information.
So what is this? I went in and poked around in the documents I got in the email from ECMC and excerpted the introduction and attached it as screenshot 1.
The short version is this. Where you can do oil and gas exploration is limited (yet another delightful outgrowth of the Democrats SB19-181--see the blue underlining in screenshot 1) to protect so called High Priority Habitat. These are areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) for various species.
CPW, thanks to some technological advances outlined in that document, has updated their maps (with one example for large game attached as a picture here) and now ECMC will update where you can drill based on these updates.
If you want to comment and/or watch the ECMC rulemaking meeting on this, you'll find a form linked second below to offer written comment and the ECMC website linked third below (look down the lefthand side of the webpage for Zoom links) to attend the meeting.
The original rulemaking notice to my inbox had no such context, so when I read up on it through that first link below my mind got pinged with a couple things.
The first was wolves. Does this in any way at all involve the release of wolves? I do not think i does, save for perhaps an effect years into the future where a wolf population affects big game migration. If I'm wrong and you know better, please don't be shy about correcting me in the comments.
The second thing that happened was I thought back to an earlier post, see the fourth link below, that I did where the BLM updated their rules on drilling and the mention in that article about sequestering some land to protect herds of pronghorn elk.
It occurs to me, and call me conspiratorial if you'd like, to wonder whether or not more animals being (not a fan of this term, but I'll use it) "rewilded" here will not lead to or be used to stop more oil and gas exploration via this legal mechanism here, the rulemaking to protect high priority habitats.
I don't know that I'd be willing to go far enough to say that reintroducing animals is a plot to end oil and gas exploration, but I am willing to go far enough to say that, once here, environmentalists will have absolutely no issue in exploiting their presence and current law to meet their goals.
Something to remember and keep in your pocket when it comes to animal policy. It's not just a single issue. Our world is more complicated and facets like these must be considered.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1b_WfTzRUSswg5JK2Jsy6GN-yKbp-Fwni
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeI5wuOneGBvssOBjFIHv22YnFUk3OCjpgPYya75QWizn_gtQ/viewform
https://ecmc.state.co.us/#/home
Related:
Tons of out of state money flowing in to help support the new initiative on preventing mountain lion hunting in Colorado.
Colorado has become quite the hobby horse for progressive causes and one of those causes is animal rights and/or animal reintroduction.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/02/02/out-of-state-money-anti-hunting-ballot-measure/
A whole slate of gun control bills is coming.
The Democrats, emboldened by the lack of electoral consequences from their efforts (see the article below--which also has a list of likely bills), are back this session with another handful of gun control bills, including a so-called assault weapons ban.
I normally would urge you to speak up and please do if you want to, but I'm going to take the same tack here I have lately on this issue. I would not waste your time speaking up. The fate of many of these bills has been decided already.
As such, I think the best thing you could do is what I have done and will continue to do. Donate money to groups that fight in the courts to preserve your rights.
I do not agree entirely with their politics, but I am now recommending a donation to Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (and I am open to thoughts from others as to good groups--add any suggestions you have to the comments).
I recommend a donation to them not because we line up exactly, but because they fight. I've given to other groups in the past to just have the money disappear. The only group that I know of that is actively pursuing legal action on multiple fronts to preserve our gun rights is RMGO.
Even small donations help the effort and I urge you to give thoughtful consideration to donating. A link to their site is below.
https://www.denverpost.com/2024/02/04/legislature-colorado-gun-bills-assault-weapons/
https://www.rmgo.org/
How much of a voice do you suppose you get, as opposed to, say, Boulder?
I got the presentation linked below from a friend. When I read it, the sense I got was to wonder how much legislation in this state is influenced by Boulder compared to where you live? How much louder a voice does that city have than your legislators?
Your voice should matter after all. Aren't we in Governor Polis' Colorado For All?
Let's look backwards at some history before we go forward and see what Boulder is pushing for in this session.
If you look at screenshot 1 you will see a list of legislative efforts that Boulder had a significant influence on. Probably not much of this would be a surprise. This is Boulder after all.
Moving into the current Assembly session, screenshots 2a - 2c you'll see Boulder's policy position on a variety of issues before the Assembly. Again, this is not likely a surprise. It's Boulder.
Now think about how many of the things that Boulder supported in the past, passed. Think how much overlap there is between what Boulder supports now and what the Democrats are saying. Maybe not 100%, but I bet you'd find a fair bit.
Put that next to how many of the bills your rep or Senator proposed that even make it out of committee for debate on the floor.
The demographics and the way our system is set up obviously have a role to play here; Boulder's got a lot more people than there are in my town. Of course, they'll have more reps and more senators and more of a chance to push policy they like.
But there is a mismatch here between the rhetoric of the people running this state and their actions. How many times do you hear about a Colorado for all? How many times do you hear about good ideas from both sides. And how many times are there just ideas from the far left (like Boulder)?
Not just that either, how many times has it been that it was Boulder's good ideas forced on all parts of the state?
I don't think it's fair to expect a 50:50 ratio between the Front Range/Boulder and the other parts of the state, but I think it's fair to expect it be something other than 100:0 ( or close to it if not completely zero).
Lastly, let's look at what bills Boulder thought was noteworthy. That is screenshot 3.
Some of this stuff seems relatively benign. For example the one that has bipartisan sponsorship from two legislators who stood up to Polis last session (5th bullet point with Zenzinger and Kirkmeyer).
Some of it is pretty dumb. For example the bill by Priola (7th bullet point) that would allow developers to not have to set aside as much land for parking as they do now. We're all going to be using transit you know.**
But some give me heartburn. The first and third bills, the 100% carbon free bill and the one about not running gas lines to developments where they're "unnecessary" are two examples. Both of these are accelerations of electrification. The eighth is also a concern, the one to fund Front Range Passenger Rail. These ones are on my watchlist and so I will update as I see or hear more.
**Don't know about you, but I generally don't go to places that I can't park at. I mean, if you want me there, give me somewhere to put my car. One of my gripes about places like Downtown Denver.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14HBMbGur2nZTn84Vmsc5NcLdrb_wzCrl/view?usp=sharing