Beaver Brook Watershed not the
appropriate place for shooting
Editor:
On July 23, my wife, Mary, and I attended a meeting at the Evergreen fire station with reference to the U.S. Forest Service proposal on dispersed recreational sport shooting on one area of our concern, the Beaver Brook Watershed in Clear Creek County.
My wife and I have lived on Old Squaw Pass Road about 500 yards from the east gate of the watershed for 41 years, so we are very familiar with the watershed property.
Our concerns are as follows:
• Danger: To have recreational sport shooters scatter in all directions in the watershed would obviously be very dangerous — to the residents of Floyd Hill, the Beaver Brook area, Old Squaw Pass Road, and for hikers in the area. There should be a serious concern with shooters “scattered in all directions.”
• Noise: This is a very big concern for all of us living in the above-mentioned homeowner areas.
• Trash: Yes. And “scattered in all directions.”
• Fire danger: Our largest and most important concern is the fire danger that will always exist. This year we have been fortunate in Colorado, with rain almost every day. However, during dry seasons, a spark from stray shells can start a fire very easily. With the winds we get in these areas, the fire would be on the homes before the residents had a chance.
In closing, may I mention that I have had guns and hunted all my life, so I am not an anti-gun person. However, I feel there should be a proper place for “recreational sport shooting,” and the Beaver Brook Watershed is not the place.
Clarence and Mary Beaver
Evergreen
Shooting proposal a bad idea
for Clear Creek County
Editor:
The proposal to allow dispersed sport shooting in the Beaver Brook Watershed is a very bad idea that will affect my life negatively. Currently I visit the watershed two to five times weekly with my wife and dog, and occasionally with my granddaughter and other relatives. A major factor, besides the proximity to my home, is that I can hike in this area confident that stray bullets will not endanger us.
I am concerned that law enforcement will be difficult when these people misuse their firearms and hikers, bikers and horseback riders complain to whatever law enforcement agency has jurisdiction. As I understand it, the dispersed shooting areas are unsupervised, and there are no procedures to ensure that this shooting will be done in a safe manner. My questions to the USFS:
• What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure the safety of all the users of this pristine, unspoiled and unique area located so close to the Denver metro area?
• Why do the rights of sport shooters apparently trump the safety of the majority of the users of the watershed?
• What agency will be tasked with law enforcement, and what guarantee do we have that it will respond to complaints in a timely manner? In the past complaints have been ignored.
• If sport shooting is to be allowed in this area, how will these participants know when they are on USFS land and not on other contiguous parcels — e.g., open space — where this activity is prohibited?
The watershed is a unique gem, close to Denver, and very heavily used by many different groups of Colorado residents and visitors. The death of Glenn Martin of Monument in a USFS campground in early July from a stray bullet is a sad reminder that some firearms owners do not use or know how to use their weapons safely or do so in legal shooting areas. Mr. Martin was killed in a national forest campground marked with “No Shooting” signs.
Dispersed shooting in the watershed is a poor use of the area that conflicts with the safety of the majority of the users of this beautiful wilderness, and I urge the Forest Service to reject this proposal.
Alfred Maclay
Evergreen