Let Wildlife Policies Work: Denver Post

Home Browse Search

Qo Q, Let wildlife TWH E COLORADO Division of ildlife is' ffustrated over the loss of wildlife habitat to the bulldozer. A few examples of what has engendered that frustration; v Condos west of Vail overlook the new Arrowhead golf course where hungry elk still stand forlorn - ly on the snow- covered fairways. A few years ago it was theirs — the last winter elk range in the lower Eagle Valley. v Superhighways fence off deer from their migration routes. On others the winter carnage contin- ues: At least one deer dies nightly on Colorado 82 between Aspen and Glenwood Springs. v In the state's large mountain drainages, storage dams have cov- ered up hundreds of miles of trout streams — and more are planned. Colorado needs the water, but miti- gation of the damage to the streams has been slow in coming. Mitigation has become a fighting word in the Colorado General As- sembly. Division of Wildlife offi- cials have toughened their efforts to require replacement habitats for the displaced wildlife, but in the process, they have angered ranch- ers and water developers. The real problem is that, unlike the. powerful federal environmental establishment, the wildlife agency has little authority to require build- ers to compensate for wildlife habi- tat damage when they build. The wildlife agency responds in a vacu- um; its efforts seem almost whim- sical. For example, the Division of policies work Wildlife picked the figure of $200 million for what mitigation would cost if Denver builds the proposed Two Forks Dam. And near Fort Collins, sponsors of a huge dam on the Cache la Poudre River were told to buy 24 miles of fishing stream in North Park,— many miles away. The applications of pol- icy seem inconsistent. House Bill 1244, introduced by Rep. Bob Shoemaker, a Democrat- ic rancher from Canon City, threat- ens a legislative crackdown on miti- gation, limiting the Colorado Wildlife Commission's authority to require reparations, and virtually shutting down the division staff's authority to make recommenda- tions. The appointed commission, which is the division's policy-mak- ing body, is trying to blunt the ill- advised legislative action by rule making of its own. Tim Schultz, commission chairman, has issued a staff memorandum defending miti- gation but imposing more controls on staff procedures. His focus is on cooperation, rather than confronta- tion. The Shoemaker bill should be shelved. But we can't help wonder- ing whether it was needed. Who re- ally opposes mitigation? Dollars earned from wildlife are as bankable as ski -lift receipts or condo rentals. Surely developers who want visitors to come to Colo- rado must realize that wildlife is a major travel lure. The issue is not that developers are spending miti- gation money but whether they are spending enough.