Thursday's class notes

Notes for Thursday, June 10

What happened at OSBT meeting? Public involvement--comments first. Background: When new Springbrook and Goshawk trails were added, biking group leaders felt that OS board ignored their suggestions for trail safety and joint use. Last night, president of bike association (Jason) briefly spoke, thanked Board for their involvement in the issue now.
Bridge out by Red Lion.....may be a while to fix. Expensive new bridge, loss to business there at Chapman Drive
Boulder Falls still closed, work to re-open ongoing.
Motion passed to allow annexation of Burke property
Problem discussed re: allowing voice and sight control for dogs on the part of Continental Trail that runs through annexation. Passed, we think?

Greenways maintained interdepartmentally. Transportation, parks and rec. Concern about how long it was taking to get up to speed on weed control.

Staff report----what CCG is doing, how process is going.
Then CCG rep. Got up and gave his resignation speech. Ouch! Said the stress from personal attacks by the Chanahan 6 HOA wasn’t worth it, and he hoped CCG”s purpose would continue without being undermined by further attacks. Left his alternate Guy to fill his shoes.

Guy speaks, talks about his position as a trail user

Next neighborhood rep Scott speaks, he resigns as well!

Next public comment period. LOTS of comments....pro and anti bikes. Mostly against bikes it seemed. Reasons given were potential damages to sensitive environmental areas, danger/discomfort for other trail users and to children around neighborhood area, increased numbers of users from Boulder and Denver may lead to too much trail traffic.
Basically the bikers want a total of 13 miles of the trails opened up for their use--mostly flat trails. Perhaps the reason so many people are opposed is because of fear and misinformation==not understanding what the proposal really is.

Point made that HOA should not be given preferential treatment--would preclude others’ voices from being heard.

Other issues to think about: horses on trail; compromise; being aware of community issues;

While there are many positives to Open Space, also some negatives depending on viewpoint--what is nature, and how should we treat it? First settlers see New World as virgin wilderness--untouched by humans. This implies that humans’ impact on nature is negative--we should leave it pristine and untouched. Another view is that using labor to tame the land is a good thing, humans are mandated to use the land to better themselves. Transcendentalists (thoreau and emmerson) start publicizing views that nature is actually there to give humans a personal spiritual connection and a vehicle to get closer to God....humans should be outside, in touch with nature....complete immersion with nature was Thoreau’s viewpoint. He secluded himself in nature, wrote books. What a life.

After transcendentalists, we have progressives: Muir, Pinchot (1st forester in US, started forestry school at Yale). Pinchot saw nature as a valuble resource, very anthropocentric; embraces using resources wisely, with eye to the future; doesn’t see humans as part of nature. Thought govnt and scientists should be ones to make decisions.

John Muir, contemporary of Pinchot, were friends. Muir loved to “commune” with nature--represented spiritual experience for him. Muir saw nature as threatened more than Thoreau did, but they have much in common. Both Muir and Pinchot thought govnt should be the one to protect nature.

Building of Hetch Hetchy Dam---moment when idea of govnt as main protector/parent of nature is cemented. Nature still seen mainly as resource for humans.

After these progressives came Leopold. He fought against the view that nature was just there to be mastered by science. He saw nature as a teacher to humans--we have much to learn from nature. Ecosystem and community: not necessarily responsibilities in an ecosystem, whereas in a community there are specific obligations to others--your actions impact others.

What is nature, are humans part it, how should humans interact with it, who makes those decisions---his 4 questions

Leopold differed from Muir in that he wanted to provide a practical view of nature for humans where they could live from the land and enjoy it without destroying it or its purity/symbolism. wants people to be educated about nature so they can make choices on their own without being forced to by law. He saw this as a better way to accomplish conserving and protecting the land. Muir was more about conserving nature entirely pristine--use power of govnt to accomplish this.
Leopold says use education and experience to teach value of the land to people. Also can be a very messy process, not always a neat system.

1. Who maintains Boulder’s Greenway system?
2. What were reasons given at the meeting by those opposed to bikes on trails?
3. What is a possible explanation for why so many people were strongly against opening trails to bikes?
4. What are practical ways that ‘opposing’ trail users can compromise?
5. Can we have our cookies and eat them too?
6. Muir and Leopold were both avid lovers of the land--how did their views differ practically?
7. What are the two biggest ways that Leopold would say this land ethic can be instilled in people?
8. What are some of the negatives associated with Open Space?