This question is from Julianne McCabe (our champion question suggester)
Do you think there is conflict between recreation groups and conservationists regarding OS management? Whether you answer yes or no, please explain. If you think there is a conflict, what do you recommend the City should do to help resolve it?
Macon Cowles
Did not participate.
Angelique Espinoza
Clearly there is conflict between some individuals in recreation groups and some conservationists regarding OS management. However, I do not think that recreation and conservation interests must inherently conflict. In fact, I think they depend on one another. Without protection and care, the land can offer no enjoyment. But if we cannot enjoy it, we lose the opportunity to form a personal relationship with the land that inspires our commitment to protect it. Boulder Open Space and Mountain parks define Boulder for many residents, whether we enjoy it just by living in our beautiful mountain setting, or by getting out there on the trails. As hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers, preservationists, or just occasional strollers, most of us share a common goal; to be able to enjoy these precious natural areas we have deliberately set aside, while preserving them for the future. How to achieve that balance is somewhat trickier, with increasing numbers of visitors, particularly from outside the city. The Visitor Master Plan attempts to balance input from various interested groups to arrive at an effective management strategy. I support implementing the strategies outlined in that plan.
This is going to require leadership and trust building among the people who are presently embroiled in the conflict, but I think that reasonable and effective solutions can be reached.
Crystal Gray
Arrived late
Andrew Harrison
Did not participate.
Philip Hernandez
Yes, to be honest there may be no reconciliation between conservation and recreation groups. The city will have to decide what, in my opinion, we value more. My opinion is we error on the side of conservation.
Nabil Karkamaz
Did not participate.
Kathryn Kramer
Yes, there is a conflict and I have heard from voters who say they will not vote for open space because they are not going to get their way. This is not good for anyone involved and will mean that future potential open space could be developed instead of remaining undeveloped. I think the city should look at opening up more trails because people should be able to enjoy the beauty that is Boulder (and take their dogs with them). However, I would propose that there should be a few more guidelines put in place to make certain that visitors (particularly those from out of town) do not put the land in danger (such as starting a fire or endangering wildlife).
Adam Massey
Did not participate.
Lisa Morzel
Did not participate.
Alan O'Hashi
Did not participate.
Susan Osborne
Did not participate.
Eugene Pearson
No I think that the conflict is often a matter of perception and rooted in a system that forces a false dichotomy between these values. City open space lands should be managed so that human uses are as compatible as possible with habitat and wildlife values. I would like to see a comprehensive inventory of all trail maintenance needs. Before any new trails are approved, I would like the opportunity to determine if we can meet the need to ensure that our current system is environmentally sound. This project should ensure that we can meet these needs in a timely fashion with current staffing levels. We must put this as the top priority while recognizing that yesterday’s $1 problem has already become today’s $100 problem may very well become tomorrow’s $1,000 problem in terms of habitat restoration due to improper trail construction or maintenance. My general philosophy of my appreciation of public lands will guide me when we get down to the nitty gritty details and in resolving conflicting demands. When I visit our open spaces I know that I am entering a wonderful habitat and I am there to commune with nature – not to conquer it. When I recreate I want to ensure that the habitat that I am entering is one that allows me to experience a wild space. There are some areas that must be off limits for this to occur so that wildlife has their space and some areas that I am able to enjoy the presence of other beings.
Susan Peterson
I think that if you ask most Boulder-ites where they would put themselves, on a scale from 1-10 (with 1 being 100% preservation and 10 being 100% recreation), they would say somewhere in the 4-6 range. The idea that everyone in town is totally polarized between recreation and preservation does not serve us well, particularly when there is so much that both sides of the issue have in common. My impression is that the constituent groups I have spoken with feel under-represented and un-welcome to participate in our OSMP direction and management, and that in the absence of information or participation, they assume the worst case scenario. My suggestion to resolve conflicting demands would be to formalize input from the constituent groups on a quarterly basis, so that people felt vested in the process and well informed. And by the way, in case you were wondering…I would put myself at a 3 or 4 on the “preservation” side of the scale.
Larry Quilling
The Open Space & Mountain Parks Department is the steward of our open space lands. With that designation comes an important responsibility to weigh the goals of conservation, protection and restoration against the public right and desire to enjoy our open space. This requires an openness to hear concerns from the public while also communicating the basis for limiting access. The responsibility for stewardship demands greater responsibility for openness and leadership than any other city department. There is conflict between conservation and recreation groups and I believe our Open Space & Mountain Parks Department must be the ones who strike a balance between usage interests.
Tom Riley
Yes and no. I think that the perceived conflict is almost disingenuous. This is evidenced by the varying interest groups recommending/endorsing the same candidates. I think this almost false conflict allows the varying groups to continue to have a more heard voice than they might have separately. I applaud these groups for their working together. However, at this time I think the city of Boulder has acquired almost 90% of the open space it should. We should work diligently at acquiring this last 10 %. It cost $35 an acre to manage open space but over $3,000 an acre to acquire it. At this time I think it would be prudent for us as a caring people to reevaluate our priorities. When dedicated sales taxes sunset in the next 5-10 years we should approach Boulder’s citizens and ask them for their approval to support non-profits and other services that support the disenfranchised.
Eric Rutherford
No. This contentious issue has more or less been solved. The issue remaining is the 10 percent of the Open Space that is most heavily utilized, ie. Chautauqua Park and Mt. Sanitas. We must
We must have communication between the recreation groups and the conservationists about this 10 percent of the Open Space and seek common ground.
Rob Smoke
Did not participate.
Ken Wilson
Did not participate.
Matt Appelbaum
Did not participate.
Philip Bradley
Yes. I think of Goldie locks ( some think it is too hot others to cold) we need to preserve areas where we can and stop fussing about areas that have been greatly effected by the actions of the community. i.e mountain bikes, dogs, (people) should be allowed on areas of high use and areas that are lower recreation areas should be maintained. I would also like to see more utilization of our open space for renewable energy. the wind blows the same in open space in the east. we could utilize this land for preservation (farming) and energy creation.
Seth Brigham
Did not participate.
Shawn Coleman
The conflict is not resolved and finding the most equitable solution will be vital to ensuring the public continues to support open space at the ballot. Finding this balance will involve an ongoing dialogue with open space users, and appointing a BALANCED open space board of trustees to ensure that decisions made about implementation of the open space visitor master plan are based on sound science, as opposed to political whim. The best way to forward the values of conservation is exposure to open spaces. It is vital that the public has enough access to open space so that they value the cost and are understanding of conservation closures. Further we must ensure we can adequately maintain our open space lands, this needs to be a higher priority
