U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-06-2010, 10:42 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,186,386 times
Reputation: 9067

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper2 View Post
Why are there so many naysayers and doom-and-gloomers on this forum?

Are some on this forum just purposely agreeing with the doom-and-gloomers' theories in hopes to stop people from moving to Colorado?
No, because some of us with decades of experience are smart enough to see past all the fluff and bull**** that is being thrown around, and see the economic and environmental realities of this place as they really are.

Those who ignore those realities do so at their own peril.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2010, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,106 posts, read 20,420,899 times
Reputation: 4148
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
No, because some of us with decades of experience are smart enough to see past all the fluff and bull**** that is being thrown around, and see the economic and environmental realities of this place as they really are.

Those who ignore those realities do so at their own peril.
That's fine and well and I agree that developers should prove their development will have enough water for its residents but the economic reality is the state will grow so the best we can do is manage it so it grows properly not stick our head in the sand and hope it does not grow.

Last edited by Josseppie; 05-06-2010 at 11:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2010, 09:37 AM
 
1,742 posts, read 2,628,935 times
Reputation: 1923
I hope it's not this summer.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-wildfires-monday-text,0,3117145.story (broken link)

Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-21-2010 at 11:18 AM.. Reason: Fixed the link so that it works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2010, 09:55 AM
 
16,215 posts, read 20,257,944 times
Reputation: 46832
Proveick! tried to pull that up and got a message from Fox 31 that they are redesigning their site. Will try it later.

Speaking of wildfires a new one popped up on the Roan plateau, maybe an hour northeast of where I live. So far it is at 150 acres. The fire at the Great Sand Dunes National Park is now at 4500 acres though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2010, 10:22 AM
 
1,742 posts, read 2,628,935 times
Reputation: 1923
Here's another link. Not a good situation this early, today is the FIRST day of summer.
High temperatures, winds help stoke fires - The Denver Post
RP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2010, 10:27 AM
 
16,215 posts, read 20,257,944 times
Reputation: 46832
Got that one-thanks! Yea, this gonna be a troubling fire season I'm afraid. Although Flagstaff is a tad off topic, they have a huge problem there with a 750 acre fire. A couple hundred homes have been evacuated. I know that north part of the area well. They shut down 89A, the major highway north.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2010, 11:58 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,186,386 times
Reputation: 9067
It will be interesting to see how things play out. If this year is anything like normal, southern Colorado is likely to remain dry until mid-July, when the Southwest Monsoon reaches north. Until then, we could get some nasty fires in that part of the state. What will be very interesting is to see what happens in the northern half of the state. Typically, June is the wettest month there, with considerable drying in late July and August. So, what is happening now in southern Colorado will likely migrate north as the summer progresses. That could spell real trouble in those dead lodgepole forests in northern Colorado.

Two notes about the current situation. First, there is very little lodgepole in the southern half of Colorado, so the fires there generally burn in Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Fir, and Piñon/Juniper forests. The Ponderosa and Douglas Fir forests do have problems with pine beetles. Fires in aspen and spruce/fir forests are relatively rare, but can be devastating if they do occur. The situation is much more grim in the northern forests. Lodgepole, much of it dead and dying, is the common mid-elevation forest in much of northern Colorado. Fire is both necessary and inevitable in those forests--they are just waiting for the right conditions. People worry about losing trophy homes, etc. if that occurs. My take on that--too bad, it's what happens when one builds in the "Stupid Zone," as Denver Post columnist Ed Quillen likes to call it. Far more troubling is what a massive fire in all of that dead lodgepole in northern Colorado could potentially do to the watersheds that supply most of the Front Range's drinking water. A sizable percentage of that supply could be compromised, possibly for years, if a true "mega-fire" burned in the right place.

One final note on the fire burning in Great Sand Dunes National Park. Medano Creek is a very pretty spot, one of my favorite backcountry spots in Colorado. It may never be the same again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2010, 03:11 PM
 
1,742 posts, read 2,628,935 times
Reputation: 1923
This new development will compound the problem.
Development in Colorado going with the flow of water deficit - The Denver Post
RP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2010, 04:53 PM
 
9,817 posts, read 19,082,538 times
Reputation: 7546
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
People worry about losing trophy homes, etc. if that occurs. My take on that--too bad, it's what happens when one builds in the "Stupid Zone," as Denver Post columnist Ed Quillen likes to call it.

One final note on the fire burning in Great Sand Dunes National Park. Medano Creek is a very pretty spot, one of my favorite backcountry spots in Colorado. It may never be the same again.
What is it with all these judgmental people?

Most of the "trophy" homes are very concentrated for the most part in certain areas and as a total percentage of the land it is infinitesimal. There is no reason to let these homes burn to the ground. You wouldn't want your home to burn to the ground would you?

Nothing is ever the same again. Every state changes and has cycles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2010, 05:21 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,186,386 times
Reputation: 9067
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
What is it with all these judgmental people?

Most of the "trophy" homes are very concentrated for the most part in certain areas and as a total percentage of the land it is infinitesimal. There is no reason to let these homes burn to the ground. You wouldn't want your home to burn to the ground would you?

Nothing is ever the same again. Every state changes and has cycles.
I see no reason that the taxpayers of the United States should be on the hook for defending homes built in fire-prone tinderboxes against inevitable fires. That is stupid public policy and flies in the face of such people being held responsible for their own actions. I feel the same way about people building in flood plains or areas with near certain beach erosion. The taxpayers should not be subisidizing their folly. It is especially egregious when the Forest Service is defending private structures built in a stupid location where the structure's only purpose is to give the owner a place to goof off.

It is my firm contention that the purpose of the US Forest Service is manage and protect the National Forests owned by the people of the United States, NOT defend the private properties snuggled up against them. The fact that the Forest Service now must expend a considerable portion of its budget to defend private structures built in stupid places only decreases the amount of financial resources it needs to properly manage the National Forests.

Our current forest fire policy amounts to a subsidy to people engaging in risky, dumb behavior. As is usually the case, when you subsidize something, you get more of it. If those people were held responsible for their less than intelligent behavior (by having to pay to defend their own poorly located structures from fire, or by losing it to fire altogether), I'd bet a lot of that risky behavior would stop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top