Trash in Fountain Creek
More must be done.
Creek Week is a shining example of citizen activation under the direction of Allie Plute Schuch, the outreach coordinator at the Fountain Creek Watershed, Flood Control and Greenway District. It has produced a fascinating amount of trash that has become more than a problem.
As a local fisherman, I have now logged well over 100 hours on Fountain Creek. This creek is a mixture of cold and warm waters disseminating from Pikes Peak. As our city grows, so do the problems, and consequently the amount of water coming from the warmer east.
The trash, center of the debate, is very different from the trash I picked largely from dad’s garage — clean trash. The trash on Fountain is very different.
It is composed of human survival that has been ignored and pushed around. I know, I have been asking multiple police and sheriffs deputies close to the situation. Homelessness is being moved around. Trash is left in their wake. I see the remnants of booted camps and brand-new ones put in their place. Loitering is now particularly bad, under bridges where new sharp boulders were placed to discourage camping.
Two days after Trout Unlimted cleaned up Dorchester Park, I went back to check that the city online reporting process had worked. It did and quickly. What must be done now is Creek Week on a much larger scale, sweeping policy change to back it.
Classic ‘sue and settle’ approach
Regarding the Oct. 1 article concerning a nongovernmental organization’s (“NGO”) threatened lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service for failing to protect greenback cutthroat trout in the Bear Creek drainage near Jones Park. This is the classic “sue and settle” approach to land management and completely undermines public participation in any outcome.
Settling this lawsuit will mean closure of Trail 667, exactly what the U.S. Forest Service and the NGO wanted way back in 2012 — to limit public access and use of public lands.
You must read the fi
Margaret Henkens’ letter to the editor Oct. 3, (Thinking of the next generation), was right on target.
If we enter into the USMCA, then our freedoms simply would be eroded by some nameless, faceless bureaucrats sitting primarily in Ottawa, Mexico City, and Washington, D.C.
The US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement might look really good at first glance but just like any contract you must read the fine print.
In a nutshell, USMCA is NAFTA on steroids, but go and see for yourself, google “USMCA key dangers” and see the facts. After a bit of digging you will find that this NAFTA 2.0 agreement creates the foundation for a European Union-style “North American Union” where the Free Trade Commission can make changes to the agreement without consent or approval by Congress, thus it is a wholesale giveaway of our sovereignty.
Contact our elected officials, primarily Sen. Michael Bennet and Sen. Cory Gardner, and tell them no on USMCA.
David F. Peaslee
Keep guns away from crazy people
Recent events show it is easy for crazy people to get guns and do a mass shooting. There is something that can be done about this, if we have the political courage.
First, let’s define the problem: much of the gun violence in the U.S. is done by criminals, gang members, etc. That problem can be addressed by good background checks but can never be completely solved anymore than we can eliminate robbery and murder.
However, the gang members don’t do the mass shootings as they would like to live to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. Most mass shootings are done by mentally disturbed individuals who usually don’t care if they live or die (and it seems most are seeking to go out in what they think is a blaze of glory).
Very often, when you look at the facts of the cases, you see that the shooter bought the gun (or guns) very shortly before the shooting.
Is there a way to limit the ability of crazy people to easily get guns, besides background checks which only apply if the person ran afoul of the law in the past?
Yes. Before someone joins law enforcement, they have to submit to a psychological exam as a precaution before they are issued a gun and a badge. We could require a psychological exam before the application to purchase a new gun is processed.
Yes, this is a minor hassle and expense, but aren’t the dozens of lives that would be saved every year be worth it?
No, this does not violate the Second Amendment as it would only prevent insane, dangerous people from having guns. If those people have full rights under the Second Amendment, then why not let the inmates in asylums carry firearms?
This proposed change in law would only apply to future purchases so it would not be an ex post facto law. It would not take guns from those who had lawfully acquired them.
If crazy people buy guns before such a law passes, that’s unfortunate, but passing such a law would still be a huge help in starting to reduce the number of mass shootings.
Also, some criminals might be reluctant to submit to an examination and thus they might wind up with fewer guns.