Still think rural mountain residential development is OK? Read this article (Grand Junction: environment, real estate)

[jazzlover]

This story in today's Grand Junction Daily Sentinel ( Development threatens Jackass Flats bighorns (broken link) ) is just one more example of how rural residential development in Colorado's mountain areas is destroying the natural heritage of the state. In this particular case, it is a bighorn sheep herd that has made its home in the valley around Ouray since before the white man came that faces its demise. For over a century and a quarter, the herd has survived the traditional ranching, mining, and logging that had occurred in the area. Their survival can be attributed to the fact that those activities were, in the case of mining and logging, confined to fairly concentrated areas often away from their habitat; or, in the case of ranching, at least reasonably complementary to the herd's existence.

More importantly, until the last few decades, most county residents--aside from the few ranchers and miners who lived where they worked--lived within the relatively concentrated core of the county's few small towns. Of course, living that way is not acceptable to today's affluent, selfish, largely Baby Boomer "mountain lovers." They just have to have their trophy house on an acreage out in the middle of "paradise." As this article illustrates, that is not a benign activity--much as the rural yuppies, land developers, real estate lackeys and others would like you (and themselves) to believe that it is harmless. The fact is that this kind of development has very negative effects on wildlife, viewsheds, wetlands, and watersheds. The effects on wildlife are especially pernicious, and not just on the very noticeable big game species. Adverse effects are well-documented on various species of birds and small animals--some which are or may soon become threatened or endangered.

There is a lot of talk about the "urban-wildland interface." The fact is that the "interface" is really a war zone, and the war is being waged against wildlife, and they are losing. What is so sickening about it is that this is happening in so many places because of encroachment by people who actually profess "to love the mountains." That's real hypocrisy.

One final note: As the article states, Ouray County actually has land use regulations that could stop the particular development that is threatening the bighorn sheep herd there. Most Colorado counties have never implemented regulations that would even come close to stopping this kind of destruction, and many of those that have don't have the political will to say "no" to destructive development. It is also sadly clear that there are plenty of people, either by ignorance or greed, who are more than willing to continue to demand their "little piece" of Colorado--no matter what the cost. So, the destruction of the natural heritage of the state will also likely continue . . .

[vegaspilgrim]

I agree, jazzlover. Why is it that people who want to move to the mountains cannot just live in a town like everybody else? In this case, live in the actual beautiful town of Ouray itself? By living in one of those mountain towns, you will still be smack dab in the middle of the mountains, with beautiful views surpassing any big city, able to access recreation spots within minutes, and simultaneously being a part of a community. Concentration of human settlement in towns and cities make much more sense than rural sprawl, especially in the landscape of the Rocky Mountains. Do those people think they are just "too good" to live as part of a settled, built up town?

[CosmicWizard]

While I'm in favor of people living wherever they want to live as long as they can afford to do so, I'd prefer that everyone on the move would buy an existing house, preferably in town. I'd be in favor of a permanent moratorium on new constuction anywhere outside of an existing town, especially any land adjoing BLM, National Forest, any other land that is environmentally sensitive, or currently in use as agricultural land.

blessings...Franco

[tallrick]

I have no problem with people living in wild areas, provided they have no roads, and do not bulldoze any of the land, plant no lawns and do not cut down trees. Also no fences. If they are willing to live like that go ahead and let them build. Somehow I think that none of the yuppies would go for that.

[CosmicWizard]

A hippie living in a Teepee is likely to be a better steward of the land than a yuppie living in a million dollar mac-mansion.

blessings...Franco

[Noahma]

this is coming from a home designer, I HATE Doing homes in the mountains. Not just for a design standpoint, but there is plenty of rual flat land here than ripping up the side of beauty to place a house on.

again this is my personal feelings.

[brightdoglover]

I sold my building lot in Elk Meadows, above Ridgway, when I really thought about it and knew I'd rather be a town person, when the town is as small as Ridgway or Ouray. When I considered Durango, I looked at in-town housing. (Still keeping all options open in my mind for summers in retirement, the sooner the better).

[Idunn]

Thank you for the article.

While not everyone may want to live in town, also the inescapable reality that any species will have an effect on any other, humans often out of proportion to their number.

In Rocky Mountain National Park the bighorn sheep use the Sheep Lakes mineral lick of Horseshoe Valley for vital nutrients:
See pdf listed under 'Plant and Wildlife Publications'
Continental Divide Research Learning Center

This is so important to the bighorn sheep that they will hazard crossing highway US 34 to reach the licks. Particularly come early summer one might often see bighorn sheep there, and at times park rangers on the road stopping traffic so the bighorn sheep might pass safely.

What was not recognized at the time of the highways construction was how important this area is to the bighorn sheep, or how the highway and proximity of humans would alter their access to it. Basically, even though the bighorn sheep still frequent this area out of necessity, human development and encroachment has been an impediment to them. Their numbers have declined for various reasons, this surely one.

I've seen bighorn sheep at times within the park or just outside it and they've generally seemed as nonchalant as the elk about humans, and more or less ignored me. But they pay attention. Very close attention. How and what we may do does affect them.

[atgt13]

My longterm plan is to build a home in/around Golden. Would I qualify as one of those yuppies destroying the mountains or does Golden qualify for new building under the opinions of the thread? What if I bought an older house on a plot of land, demolished it, then built a new home? Still a problem? Just curious. This would be in 5-6 years BTW.

[jazzlover]

Let's put it this way--when I lived in Golden years ago, there was a pretty good sized elk herd that wintered on a ranch close to town. That ranch was subdivided and the elk herd is gone. Draw your own conclusions.