The site features a soft-surface walking trail lined with mature cottonwood trees and willow that provide habitat for numerous wildlife species, such as songbirds, raptors, wild turkey and mink. Elk and deer are also common visitors to the property.

The trail also provides access to the north side of the Big Thompson River.

The city purchased the 26-acre property in 2012, but, a year later, it was inundated by the Big Thompson River flood, which realigned the river channel and left several inches of fine silt behind. In the years since, several stewardship and cleanup projects have restored the site, allowing Loveland Open Lands and Trails to move forward with plans to open it to the public.

Visitors can access the Wild Natural Area from a small parking lot and trailhead at U.S. 34 and Glade Road from sunrise to sunset. There is also access from the adjacent Sweetheart Winery.

Leashed dogs are welcome, but pet owners are responsible for cleaning and disposing of pet waste.

Total costs to construct the natural area were $332,000, funded by Loveland’s share of revenues from Larimer County’s quarter-cent ($0.0025) open space tax. A new stoplight at Glade Road accompanying the project was partially funded by a grant, with open space revenues from the city and county picking up the rest.

No Loveland general fund money was used on the project, according to a media release from Open Lands and Trails.

For more information, visit lovgov.org/OpenLands.

Gov. Jared Polis announced the collaboration involving CPW, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, nearby municipalities, counties and other agencies last week in his annual State of the State message.

The nonprofit Pikes Peak Outdoor Recreation Alliance (PPORA) had campaigned for CPW management of federal lands adjacent to the 14,107-foot mountain, which have been adversely impacted by high visitation pressures and federal funding challenges.

“This is just the first step in a multi-year plan to improve and expand world-class recreation opportunities like camping, fishing, hiking and more on the majestic mountain in a way that benefits the landscape, our way of life and local economy,” Polis said. “Anyone who visits our state parks knows exactly what CPW is capable of delivering.”

The concept was inspired by an existing model. CPW already manages camping, fishing and hiking in the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area, a 150-mile stretch of mostly federal land along the Arkansas River from Leadville to Pueblo.

Issues on public lands on and around Pikes Peak in recent years have included discarded trash, dumping, user conflicts, resource damage and overwhelmed restroom facilities.

“Our community has said this is a very special place, and we really need exceptional natural resource conservation,” said Becky Leinweber, executive director of the PPORA, in an interview. “At the same time, we need exceptional recreational opportunities. We have people retiring here, we have people visiting and moving for that reason, and that’s only going to increase.

We have some amazing land managers in multiple jurisdictions, but resources have been challenging,” she continued. “Resources are going down when the need and use are going up. How do we provide exceptional management so we have these great places preserved and to be enjoyed?”

CPW’s first priority is the completion of the Ring the Peak trail around Pikes Peak. Ultimately the trail will measure approximately 95 miles, with 63 miles already in place, according to Mike Rigney, project manager for Ring the Peak. CPW would take over the development and management of the trail.

“We think CPW is a great galvanizing organization that everyone can get behind to coordinate and help manage the project,” said Glenn Carlson, executive director of the region’s Trails & Open Space Coalition. “There are lots of jurisdictions, government entities, non-government entities, forest service, BLM, private landowners. To have one entity that is able to pull everybody together and keep driving this, keep pulling it forward, I think is a critical aspect of it.”

Completion of the trail, which has been a dream of recreation users in the area for two decades, may require the realignment of some existing trails. Routing the trail where there is now a 26-mile gap also has yet to be determined, but Leinweber welcomes CPW’s involvement.

“They are committed to exploring getting this trail completed, and that would be amazing for this area,” Leinweber said. “I’m excited to say this because 18 months ago, I couldn’t have said I think we’re going to see a completed Ring the Peak trail corridor. Now I can say that with some real confidence, we’re going to get this done and we’re going to do it right.”

Leinweber said she expects CPW to develop additional camping in the area as well. “Their funding is largely user-based. Day passes, campgrounds, is what funds a lot of what they do. They will be looking for appropriate areas to do some developed camping. On Pikes Peak, that is a need. I think it will be great to have some additional camping opportunities for folks.”

Federal protections and regulations still will govern the management of forest service and BLM lands under CPW management.

“There are still federal processes that are in place, so even with a partnering manager who may see that there needs to be recreational development such as camping in an area, those federal regulations are still in place and have to be followed,” Leinweber said. “There is no land transfer. There’s no change in ownership.”

In 2020, Polis signed an executive order creating the Regional Partnerships Initiative. Funded by CPW and Great Outdoors Colorado, regional partnerships bring together interest groups and public land managers to balance management, conservation and recreation while relying heavily on local input. The PPORA was one of the first to be created in the state. Now there are 20. Others include NoCo Places, which is exploring land management ideas for northern Colorado, the Summit County Outdoor Coalition, the West Slope Outdoors Alliance and the Eagle County Community Wildlife Roundtable.

“It’s not a top-down process where the state dictates what needs to happen,” Leinweber said. “They recognize local communities can best decide the priorities and values for their local communities.”

On Pikes Peak that will mean balancing the wishes not just of hikers, mountain bikers and campers, but hunters and anglers, too. CPW already manages hunting on forest service land across Colorado.

“To me, it’s a treasured mountain,” Carlson said. “It’s incredibly diverse habitat. You can hike on it, you can ride your mountain bike. You can also get into prime outdoor habitat if hunting and fishing are what you enjoy. I’m an outdoorsman, so I think the wildlife aspect of it is critical. There’s bighorn sheep up there, elk, you name it. That aspect needs to be looked out for.”

CPW’s responsibility will be similar to that of the forest service — managing public land for multiple uses.

“It’s not easy work because all these people have different perspectives, different goals, but there are a lot of similarities with lots of overlap,” Leinweber said of the interest groups PPORA represents. “At the end of the day, I think we all want the same thing. We want beautiful robust natural places and wildlife. We also want opportunities to enjoy them. Working together is what this is all about. It’s collaboration at its core.”

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, The Adventurist, to get outdoors news sent straight to your inbox.

This section of the river near its headwaters wasn’t supposed to be left dry in the winter, according to environmental groups. A rehabilitation project on the dam that creates the Rio Grande Reservoir was billed as an upgrade that would make the river healthier and improve recreation throughout the year.

But even four years after the construction project concluded, those promises haven’t materialized. That’s because the dam’s new valves cannot safely release water during the winter, according to the Committee for a Healthy Rio Grande, a group formed to push for more water releases from the reservoir for fishing, rafting and environmental health. The irrigation district that operates the dam closes the valves from November through March.

The lack of water in the winter kills off aquatic insects and vegetation — the base of the river ecosystem’s food cycle.

“I don’t want to frame this in an us-versus-them way. We’re not trying to take their water,” Jim Loud, founder of the committee, said of the irrigation district that operates the dam. “We’re just trying to get them to use the water in a way that is also beneficial to the river.”

A solution may be in the works. After four years, the San Luis Valley Irrigation District — which owns and operates the reservoir — on Dec. 1 applied for state grant money to study how the dam’s valves could be modified to work in the winter, said Cole Bedford, the chief operating officer of the Colorado Water Conservation Board

“We are developing a solution that will safely provide low-flow releases during the winter,” San Luis Valley Irrigation District Superintendent Rob Phillips said in an emailed statement.  “And, we look forward to continuing our work with those water users and organizations in the San Luis Valley who have a unique and valued history of working together to find constructive solutions.”

The issue is part of a larger challenge: How should Colorado balance the different uses of its water as climate change shrinks supplies and adds volatility to decades-old climate patterns?

“These water issues are not going to go away,” said Tim Armstrong, another member of the Committee for a Healthy Rio Grande. “They’re just going to get worse.”

Unmet promises?

The irrigation district first sought to upgrade the dam in the 2010s because wear and tear on the century-old structure was beginning to affect operations and make the dam less safe.

The dam was leaking on its sides, Bedford said. Regulators imposed a restriction on the reservoir that meant it couldn’t be filled to full capacity. The valves could release water at only two volumes — a trickle or full blast.

Before the dam was updated, the irrigation district released water when possible during the winter to keep the river healthy, said Kevin Terry, the southwest program director for Trout Unlimited. Terry lives in South Fork — one of the Colorado communities along the Rio Grande — and has been involved with the reservoir for 10 years.

But the new valves mean the Rio Grande remains dry for the first 0.8 miles downstream of the reservoir, until the first creek brings some water to the river.

“Even with the vital and complex upgrades to the dam and Reservoir outlet works, the safe operation of a reservoir at nearly 10,000 feet in elevation is extremely difficult,” Phillips wrote in his statement. “Safety is our top priority, and we must operate the Reservoir in a manner that ensures the integrity of those upgrades first and foremost.”

Flow data recorded just below the dam show that flows throughout last winter sat below 1 cubic foot per second, state records show. This fall, the flows plummeted to 3 cubic feet per second (cfs) on Nov. 1, down from 77 cfs the day before.

The flows are far below the ideal volume of water needed for aquatic life, according to the 2020 Rio Grande Stream Management Plan. The assessment found that, in the section of river below the dam, the ideal minimum flows would be 31 cfs during the winter and 85 cfs during the summer.

In an average year, that section reaches those ideals a third of the time in the winter and 94% of the time in the summer.

When there’s not enough water in the river, trout struggle to find the best habitat to weather the seasons, said Armstrong, who is a retired Adams State University biology professor.

“The deeper the pool, the better winter habitat for fish,” he said. “So as you reduce those flows, the quality of fish habitat declines all the way down the river.”

Drying a river also harms the bugs and plants that live in the river and provide food to animals higher up the food chain, Terry said.

“Obviously, drying up a river has impacts on the ecosystem,” he said.

Loud and others on the committee said the lack of winter water, along with the absence of a plan to manage the reservoir in a way that helps the river’s environment and recreation, violates promises made by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the irrigation district.

The CWCB prioritizes funding projects that provide multiple benefits to communities. While touting that the board provided $30 million in grants and loans for the Rio Grande Dam and Reservoir Rehabilitation Project, the CWCB said the upgraded dam would keep more water in the river, increase recreation opportunities and improve wildlife habitat as well as better serve irrigation purposes.

But the habitat, streamflow and recreation improvements never materialized, said Terry, Armstrong and Loud. The end result of the dam upgrade did not meet the original vision, Terry said.

“This is a setback, but we’re still committed as a community in the San Luis Valley to the vision of this project and making (the project) the example that it is for the rest of the state and the West,” he said. “As we battle the scarcity of a shared resource, we need collaboration and we need infrastructure that benefits as many uses of the resource as possible.”

Now what?

Bedford, from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, said conversations about future management of the reservoir, including purposes beyond agriculture, are “headed in the right direction.”

It will take time to fix the valves so they can work safely in the winter, Bedford said. But people are working in good faith to get there, he said.

“There really is a lot that is working in the (San Luis Valley) — there’s a lot of trust and goodwill,” he said. “And that’s what’s going to get us to a solution on this one. I think that the folks that need to be involved are involved — and are involved in the right way.”

Loud said the grant application to pay for a new study is a step in the right direction, but fixing the valves isn’t the only change needed.

“I take that as a sign of encouragement,” Loud said of the grant application. “But there’s no indication that they’re willing or planning to manage the dam for a multi-purpose river.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

In results updated at 11:30 p.m., nearly 58% of voters opposed the animal fur ban and 64.6% opposed the slaughterhouse ban, with very little change in the split for and against throughout the evening.

Opponents of the slaughterhouse ban declared victory Tuesday night and Pro-Animal Future, which put the two questions on the ballot and then found itself heavily outspent by opposition groups, issued a statement appearing to concede on both measures at about 9:35 p.m.

ELECTION RESULTS: Live Colorado election results for the 2024 election

Both measures had attracted national attention. Initiated Ordinance 308 asks voters to pass a fur ban that would block businesses from making or selling a range of animal-based products in the city.

Its sister measure, Initiated Ordinance 309, sought to prevent slaughterhouses from starting or operating in Denver city limits. Opponents argued it unfairly targeted the one slaughterhouse facility left in Denver, owned by Superior Farms. It is based in Globeville and employs 160 mostly Latino workers.

“Activists from New Orleans and California used dark money from out of state to try and shut down this local company, but they lost to Colorado workers, farmers, ranchers, and restaurateurs,” said Ian Silverii, the campaign spokesperson for “Stop the Ban. Protect Jobs,” a No on 309 group, in a statement. “We have one message for those who tried to come to our city and our state to run their experiment to upend the lives of so many hardworking people: it was a baaaaaaaad idea.”

Pro-Animal Future highlighted the numerous votes their measures received despite opponents outspending them by a six-to-one margin.

“This was a bold campaign, and no one said changing the status quo was going to be easy,” said Pro-Animal Future spokesperson Olivia Hammond in a statement. “Over a hundred thousand meat eaters voted for a world without slaughterhouses, and that’s a foundation we’ll continue building on. Voters aren’t used to seeing animal rights on the ballot, and we are paving the way with this campaign.”

Although other cities have passed fur bans, Ordinance 308 would go further, defining fur as “any animal skin or part thereof of hair, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto, either in its raw or processed state; or such hair fleece or fur fibers detached from any animal skin and re-attached to another material.”

It would prohibit the manufacture, distribution, display, sale or trade of certain animal products within Denver city limits, with limited exceptions, such as for Native American cultural uses or for cow leather. That could block the sales of cowboy and other hats made of beaver, rabbit or hare hides, as well as fly-fishing lures that include animal fibers.

Supporters argued the ban was merited, given the track record of mistreatment and abuse of animals. They argued most products could be made with synthetic alternatives. They also alleged that fur farms were inhumane and bad for the environment.

Opponents like the National Western Stock Show argued the measure would hurt business owners who engaged in a long-established part of Colorado culture and history. A group called “Hands Off My Hat Denver” also raised money to defeat the measure.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Those are some of the expenses incurred by Colorado’s wolf reintroduction program, which has cost $4.8 million since voters in 2020 mandated the return of the apex predator to the state, according to a spreadsheet of spending obtained from Colorado Parks and Wildlife via a public records request.

Costs have remained under the amount appropriated to the program by state lawmakers, but are almost twice the amount estimated to the voters who elected to reintroduce the native species.

Spending on the program started years before the first capture of wolves from Oregon and their release in central Colorado in December. Before the agency could release the animals, CPW had to develop a wolf management plan, conduct public meetings and prep the materials needed for a relocation operation.

Nearly half of that spending — $2.6 million — was spent on staff salaries and benefits, the spreadsheet provided by CPW shows. The agency of more than 900 employees now pays four full-time wolf specialists. But that figure also includes time spent by biologists, district wildlife managers and communications staff not specifically allocated to the wolf program who spent time working on wolf issues, CPW spokesman Travis Duncan said.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife did not pay Oregon for the wolves captured there and released in Colorado last year.

Other large expenses over that four-year period include:

• $525,276 for “contract personal services” including facilitating the creation of the agency’s wolf management plan and hosting public meetings
• $752,762 for purchase services, including reimbursements to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to help it complete its assessment of the plan, $14,360 for aerial wolf surveys and aerial support when capturing wolves, crates and collar data
• $161,568 in travel expenses, including lodging, meals and airfare

Payments to ranchers who lost livestock to wolves have remained minimal, primarily because no claims for reimbursement have been submitted for the majority of the depredations.

Since reintroduction, CPW has paid a total of $3,855 to three ranchers for the deaths or injuries of two calves and a llama. No claims have been submitted for the remaining depredation of 15 head of cattle and nine sheep.

Ranchers have the option of filing immediately after the incident or waiting until Dec. 31 to file a claim for reimbursement.

Above estimated costs, below budget

The costs for the first years of the program outpaced those estimated to voters ahead of the 2020 election, but remain under the amount budgeted to the agency by lawmakers.

The nonpartisan Blue Book issued in 2020 estimated Colorado’s program would cost $2.4 million in its first three years. Instead, the state spent $4.5 million in that timeframe — nearly double the original estimate.

The Blue Book estimated that preparing for wolf reintroduction would cost $300,000 in fiscal year 2022, $500,000 in fiscal year 2023 and $800,000 a year after that.

Spending has exceeded those estimates every year. Wolf costs topped $1.1 million in fiscal year 2022, $1.7 million the following year and $1.5 million the year after that. Colorado’s fiscal years begin in July, so fiscal year 2025 began in July 2024 and will end June 2025.

Lawmakers allocated a total of $5.3 million for fiscal years 2022-24, of which CPW spent $4.5 million. So far this fiscal year, the agency has spent $122,870 of its $2.1 million budget on wolf costs.

When voters narrowly approved the reintroduction, the ballot measure directed money for the plan to come from CPW’s wildlife cash fund, which is primarily funded by hunting and fishing license fees.

State lawmakers changed the funding source in 2021. Sponsors of House Bill 1243 argued that anglers and hunters should not be the only ones who bear the costs of the reintroduction. When the bill became law, it spread the reintroduction costs among the general fund, the Species Conservation Trust fund, the Colorado Nongame Conservation and Wildlife Restoration cash fund.

Money can still be appropriated from the wildlife cash fund, but not from money generated by license sales.

Estimating benefits

Tallying up the fiscal costs of the wolf program is relatively simple, but estimating the benefits of the reintroduction is trickier.

Dana Hoag, a professor of agriculture and resource economics at Colorado State University, attempted to tackle exactly that question in a study.

A survey of 400 Colorado voters found that people who voted in favor of the reintroduction were willing to pay $27 per person to sustain a population of wolves in the state and $72 per person to compensate ranchers directly or indirectly impacted by the wolves.

Hoag and his team then extrapolated those figures to find that, combined, all voters in favor of wolf reintroduction would be willing to pay up to $115 million for the existence of wolves in Colorado and to compensate ranchers — even if those voters will likely never see a wolf themselves.

“Most of the value of wolves is in existence value — it’s that warm feeling value,” Hoag said. “People just want to know that they’re there and very little of it is in the ability to see or interact with the wolves.”

One of the key challenges with Colorado’s wolf reintroduction is that the people who voted in support of reintroduction will experience few of the costs, Hoag said. Urban voters — who primarily ushered in the reintroduction — will not lose livestock or consider the impacts of coexisting with the apex predator.

The eight reintroduced wolves that remain in the state have most recently been tracked in the north-central mountains and plains, including around Steamboat Springs, Walden and Kremmling.

The highest costs, instead, will be borne by a select few ranchers who lose livestock to wolves. Other ranchers, too, will pay to prepare for wolves and deter them from their herds whether or not wolves ever come to their ranch.

Hoag and other researchers conducted a survey of ranchers across nine Western states found that the indirect losses from wolf depredation — like reduced reproduction rates and weight loss in herds near wolves — were equally or more damaging than the impact of a wolf kill.

“It’s not a big number,” Hoag said of the ranchers being directly impacted. “But the people that are getting hurt are really feeling it.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

A “no” vote on Proposition 127 will allow the hunting and trapping to continue under the careful regulation and scientific control of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

The Denver Post editorial board has long supported the wildlife officials at CPW in their pursuit of scientifically managed populations and supporting hunting as both recreation, food sources and a tool for population control.

The group that has proposed Proposition 127 – known as CATS – has focused its campaign on making the case that trophy hunting or sport hunting is inherently unethical and should be banned in a state known for its hunting recreation opportunities. For now, the target is big cats, but we fear what may be targeted next. Bear hunting?

No one is hunting moose primarily for the meat, and while fish often survive being caught and released, sometimes the stress or injury is too much and they die. Hunting and fishing, even when the primary motivation is not procuring meat, is not necessarily unethical.

While most Coloradans would not participate in a mountain lion hunt, or feel comfortable killing a bobcat that had been caught in a live trap, we do not find those practices to be beyond the pale. Like all outdoor recreation, it has an impact on wildlife, but CPW’s job is to carefully regulate and manage that balance between hunting and healthy ecosystems and between fishing in Colorado’s rivers and streams and flourishing trout populations.

Colorado’s mountain lion populations appear to be thriving. Bobcats are not listed in short supply, although population estimates are hard to do on the elusive animals, and lynx are already an endangered species, and hunting and trapping of the animal is not permitted.

Some shocking revelations have come from the CATS campaign, however. All is not lost just because voters might reject a complete hunting ban in a state known for its recreational hunting.

First, mountain lion hunters are killing too many female lions. About half of the 500 lions killed last year were females, which can endanger the lion population and also inadvertently lead to the death of nursing kittens if signs are missed or ignored by hunters. As it does for deer and elk, CPW should start limiting how many licenses are issued for female lions every year.

Second, there need to be annual limits put on fur trapping for bobcats. The tags are currently unlimited, meaning a hunter receiving an over-the-counter furbearer license can kill as many bobcats as they can using hunting and trapping. We don’t think that’s reasonable and could lead to overhunting. A per-license limit should be applied to the license for all furbearing animals — badger, fox, mink, muskrat, opossum, pine marten, raccoon, ring-tailed cat, skunk, weasel.

But again, those two concerns don’t support a full ban of our Colorado hunting traditions.

Finally, we do worry that the current method of hunting may not give mountain lions a fair chance to escape the hunters. Dogs pick up on a lion’s scent and pursue them for miles before treeing the animal and alerting the hunters with their barks. Today, however, hunters do not have to keep up with their dogs on foot. Instead, they use GPS tracking collars to find the treed cat and shoot it from the limbs of the tree. No matter how you feel about that hunting practice, however, that is not what this ballot measure is about. Proposition 127 is not a carefully worded regulation of hunting practices that ensures the critical principles of “fair chase.” It is a complete ban that would open up a slippery slope for all hunting across Colorado.

Voters in this state have long embraced and prioritized outdoor recreation — even if it’s a sport they don’t personally participate in. Hunting big cats is no different and we hope voters in cities and towns, on the plains and in the mountains will say “no” to Proposition 127.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The breathtaking geologic feature is the result of millions of years spent underwater, rocked by volcanic activity and shaped by erosion. While the rocks are old, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison in Montrose is one of the country’s youngest national parks, celebrating its 25th anniversary this month.

On Oct. 21, 1999, legislators and Western Slope residents gathered on the south rim for a dedication ceremony to welcome what at the time was Colorado’s third national park – its first in almost 85 years. The event included speeches, musical performances, and a cake decorated with the Bureau of Land Management and National Park service symbols, according to The Denver Post’s reporting at the time.

Indeed, there was much to celebrate. Then-President Bill Clinton, who signed the legislation adding the local attraction into the national park fold, noted in a statement that the designation had come to fruition after “more than a decade of hard work by the people of the Western Slope of Colorado to bring to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison the recognition it deserves.”

That effort was marked by several failed attempts, disputes among federal agencies about the prospective park’s boundaries, and concerns from locals about land use. Eventually, everyone came together under a shared mission: to protect the canyon and surrounding wilderness from development so it may continue to inspire awe for generations to come.

This wasn’t the first time that officials had worked to protect the area. The Black Canyon was designated a national monument in 1933, quite literally putting it on the map. Leaders in Montrose had a vested interest in elevating the area to national park status to attract international tourists and boost the economy in this otherwise remote section of Colorado. But conservation was always core to the mission.

“It’s much better protected now,” said Sheridan Steele, who served as the area’s superintendent from 1996 to 2003 and helped architect the national park plan. “You go there and it’s a lovely wilderness experience along the rim and it wouldn’t be otherwise.”

A deep history of conservation and compromise

Early expeditions to the Black Canyon focused on exploring the river, as pioneers settling the West sought to expand railroads and bring water from the Gunnison River to nearby homesteads. According to Paul Zaenger, who worked in Black Canyon’s education division for 28 years, one of the first people to recognize the canyon’s recreational value was Mark Warner.

Warner, who moved to Colorado in 1917 to become pastor at the Montrose Presbyterian Church, was instrumental in building the first road up to the south rim. Construction took place in the 1920s and the thoroughfare opened on Labor Day in 1930 with a public picnic and much fanfare at the overlook now called the Chasm View. In a celebratory gesture, a commissioner’s daughter threw a bottle of grape juice in the canyon, Zaenger said.

“That’s not something we would recommend doing today,” he laughed.

Once the road was built, the public could more easily enjoy the Black Canyon. But the threat of development seemed imminent, whether by residential settlers or logging and mining companies. So Warner led the effort to establish the area as a national monument, collaborating with state elected officials who brought the initiative to the White House.

Former President Herbert Hoover used his last days in office to designate the Black Canyon of the Gunnison as a national monument on March 2, 1933.

Over the following decades, Zaenger said there were ongoing conversations about converting the Black Canyon to a national park, but they never materialized because the politics weren’t right or because federal agencies couldn’t agree on where to put the park’s boundaries. Private landowners were also in the mix, bringing the risk of suburban development to the viewshed.

In one specific instance, plans to expand the boundary suggested incorporating acreage downstream, in what’s now known as the Gunnison Gorge. That concerned the Bureau of Land Management, which supervised the area, as well as locals who wanted to use the land for different types of recreation typically prohibited in national parks.

“People wanted to still be able to ride their off-highway vehicles, their dirt bikes, their ATVs, their 4×4 vehicles recreationally,” said Edd Franz, the manager of the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area. “So there was some pushback.”

When Steele began his tenure as superintendent of both the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument and the nearby Curecanti National Recreation Area, national park conversations were still percolating. But Steele knew he’d have to be creative to bring the project to the finish line.

Instead of expanding the proposed park’s boundary upstream or downstream, Steele set his sights on the Sanburg Ranch, a 2,500-acre property abutting the south rim. The ranch’s cattle often found their way onto the road within the monument’s boundary, but what worried him more than the herds was the prospect of residential construction.

“I could just see subdivisions all along the South Rim Road — houses and streetlights and driveways and people mowing their lawns,” Steele said. “It really would have changed the entire experience from visiting a wilderness-type canyon to more of a suburban park, and that would have just been awful.”

Steele and the National Conservation Fund negotiated an easement with the property owners, who also gave the fund the right of first refusal should they ever decide to sell the land. (They did, and the ranch officially became part of the park in 2017.) He also worked with BLM to incorporate 4,400 acres of the Gunnison Gorge into the prospective national park.

With a compromise in place, Steele began coordinating with U.S. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Rep. Scott McInnis, who co-sponsored the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999, which eventually made its way to President Clinton’s desk. (The two congressmen, along with Sen. Wayne Allard, also helped designate the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve in 2004.)

“It means a great deal because it’s getting more difficult to get that done, as more people are opposed to any special designation for national land,” Campbell said. “I don’t even know if I could get that done now.”

The future of the national park

The 1999 legislation extols the tens of thousands of wilderness acres it protects for both their recreation value and opportunities for solitude. Indeed, those who visit get more privacy than at other, more popular destinations.

The Black Canyon is the state’s least visited national park, welcoming about 357,000 people in 2023 who drove, hiked and camped along its two rims.

Rock climbers come to scale the steep canyon walls, while anglers drive down to the Gunnison River to enjoy its gold-medal fishing waters. The park is open 24 hours a day, enabling people to take advantage of its Dark Sky Park status, and travelers who visit both rims also get a tour of numerous Western Slope towns since they have to drive around the Black Canyon to reach the other side.

The national park has paid off for local economies over the last quarter century. A spokesperson for the city of Montrose said tourists come from around the world to visit the canyon, filling hotel rooms and restaurants. For many years, the town’s slogan was “Look Deeper,” a nod to the Black Canyon.

The National Park Service estimated visitors to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison spent $25.6 million in towns nearby last year, contributing an overall economic impact of $31.9 million between supporting local jobs, businesses and more.

Looking to the future, superintendent Stuart West sees opportunities to build upon the recreational experience and update facilities to meet the demands of increased visitation. He’ll soon start creating a plan to address road and pedestrian traffic, add infrastructure and amenities for guests, and potentially construct new trails to make hiking more dynamic.

“We know that for 80% of our visitors, the park experience is going to the visitors center, then driving to and walking out to overlooks, and then they leave the park,” West said. “In general, the experience is a little one-dimensional in my mind. So with proper planning through a front country management plan, we could make visitors have a more all-encompassing experience when they go to the park.”

West isn’t bothered that The Black Canyon is Colorado’s least trafficked national park. That’s one of its selling points, he said. The fact that the park is also surrounded by protected wilderness means there’s endless exploration for folks who make the journey.

What’s one hidden gem visitors shouldn’t miss? “I think it’s for them to find out on their own,” West said.

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, The Adventurist, to get outdoors news sent straight to your inbox.

The Denver Fur Ban initiative was placed on the ballot by Pro-Animal Future, which is also behind a proposed slaughterhouse ban.

Proponents of the proposed ordinance argue a ban is merited for an industry that mistreats and abuses animals. Opponents, including the leader of the National Western Stock Show, argue it would hurt business owners and undercut part of Colorado’s culture and history.

What would 308 do if passed?

The initiative would prohibit the manufacture, distribution, display, sale or trade of certain animal products within Denver city limits, providing only limited exceptions.

Unlike some other cities that have enacted fur bans, Denver’s proposed ban encompasses more than just furs. According to the language in the submitted petition, “fur means any animal skin or part thereof of hair, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto, either in its raw or processed state; or such hair fleece, or fur fibers detached from any animal skin and re-attached to another material.”

Under this language, the measure also would ban sales of cowboy hats if they’re made of beaver, rabbit or hare hides, and it also could ban certain fly-fishing flies if they include animal fibers.

Not all fur bans are written the same way. In West Hollywood, California, where a fur ban took effect 2013, the prohibition was restricted only to animal furs that were attached to the hide of the animal and had been made into a wearable garment.

What do supporters say?

Proponents say the use of real animal products is unnecessary, citing technology that has enabled producers to make these products without killing animals. They also say that the conditions that animals are raised in for fur harvesting are inhumane and bad for the environment.

What do opponents say?

Opponents say the ordinance would hurt businesses by reducing the types of products they can sell. They also say that the measure would undermine Colorado’s western culture and heritage.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Other than that, there are no rules, a point that helps to explain why fur production is considered one of the worst and cruelest industries in existence. Common killing methods include electrocution and neck-breaking, and it’s been documented multiple times that the industry’s animal victims are sometimes skinned while still alive and conscious.

There are no regulations or federal laws protecting the animals as they languish in small, wire-bottomed cages for their entire lives. Multiply that cruelty by the tens of millions, and that is the international fur industry. All that violence, all that misery and all that brutality for a handbag, hat or jacket.

With a “yes” vote on the 308 ballot initiative in the November election, the people of Denver have an opportunity to stand up and be counted as advocates for those millions of foxes, mink, raccoon dogs, rabbits and beavers. In dissociating ourselves from such cruelty, we can save countless lives and strengthen the market for eco-friendly alternatives increasingly being embraced by global fashion brands.

Since most fur products come from China, which kills over 10 million animals annually for their fur, ending fur sales in Denver is the single most meaningful step our city can take to signal our rejection of that cruelty.

Boulder, which ended fur sales in 2021, is one of 16 other municipalities across the U.S. to take this step. So has the whole state of California, and over 20 countries, whose people and governments have banned fur farming because of the cruelty involved and the risks it poses to public health, since fur-farmed animals can pass viruses like COVID-19 and avian flu to humans.

Denver’s citizen-led initiative, like the one in Boulder, makes commonsense exemptions for used or vintage fur, fur used for Native American cultural purposes, and products that come from livestock: leather, wool and fibers from a wide range of species such as cows, buffalo, alpaca, sheep and goats — domesticated species that have at least some protections under law — are all permitted.

Hunters and trappers can sell fur they legally obtained, and anglers can use that fur to make fishing lures. These exemptions should make it possible for all citizens, including those with concerns about their livelihoods and hobbies, to support a transition to other, more humane materials, understanding that certain industries and practices closely tied to cultural practices or outdoor activities will not be impacted.

But the lives of so many animals will be impacted, in the best possible way. In the wild, foxes and mink play, swim, dig, run and care for their young, enjoying themselves in their natural habitats and life and fulfilling their important roles in our ecosystems. But as captives on fur factory farms, they are stripped of everything that is natural to them. Because of that, they go insane, pacing back-and-forth in cages and resorting to self-mutilation. If you haven’t seen what the inside of a fur factory farm looks like, you can search the internet for video and other documentation from undercover investigations that give a glimpse of the grim horrors these animals must endure every day.

Yes on 308 gives us a chance to turn the page, not just for Denver, but for the broader world that has increasingly come to reject fur’s myriad cruelties. While it may be hard to imagine that this sort of cruelty still exists in modern life and for something so non-consequential as fashion, it is easy to see the value in our joining together to consign it to history. There is no reason for Denver to condone an international fur trade that continues to deal out such terrible suffering to innocent animals.

Please visit Yeson308Denver.org for more information.

Aubyn Royall is a 13-year Denver resident, an attorney and graduate from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, and the Colorado state director for the Humane Society of the United States.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

He wanted to become a “Master Angler” — a goal the ambitious 10-year-old fisherman had been feverish pursuing.

But the prize Geiger would walk away with that day was one that even he couldn’t have fathomed.

On that late-spring day, Daniel — with a slight assist from his father, Ryan Geiger —hauled in an absolute behemoth on a mere piece of corn.

Daniel caught a fish about 2/3 as big as he is, a 37-inch grass carp.

It was a fish bigger than most people’s dogs.

It turned out to be a new Colorado state length record for the species.

More than three months later, Daniel vividly remembers the moment the once-in-a-lifetime fish struck — a moment that will be ingrained in his memory forever.

“The pole started to move a little,” Daniel said. “I had to keep the line slacked or else the carp will drop it as soon as they take the corn. The line started going. And I hooked the fish, and I could feel its weight. But most carp fight pretty hard. When we got a first glimpse, I was super happy, and I was yelling.”

Daniel and his father knew, immediately, Daniel finally had his Master Angler-worthy fish.

It needed to be just 30 inches for Daniel to receive his Master Angler certificate and patch. The state’s Master Angler program rewards fishermen for catching trophy-sized fish. Each species has its own length requirement.

But when Ryan waded into the pond’s murky waters to lift the giant over the pond’s rock-lined bank, Ryan quickly suspected the monster his son had reeled in might just qualify as a bit more than a mere Master Angler fish.

Ryan quickly searched for info on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife website and saw that the state’s common carp length record is 35 inches.

Ryan and Daniel followed CPW’s very specific directions for accurately measuring the fish, they snapped a photograph and released the bottom-feeding behemoth back into the water — as required by CPW for a fish to be eligible for a length state record.

Elated, Ryan and Daniel knew the fish would easily surpass the state’s common carp length record.

There was just one potential problem.

It turns out this was actually a grass carp, a fish native to the Pacific Far East, much less common in this area. The feisty, scaly specimen has existed on this earth since the Jurassic Period, and it definitely looks the part.

Daniel and Ryan weren’t even previously aware that this small, neighborhood pond was home to this particular species of carp.

It turned out, however, Daniel’s carp beat out the previous grass carp record by a mere 1/2 inch. Good thing for the Geiger duo’s insistence on exact, precise measurements.

“I looked up the common carp record, and we did all the measurements,” Ryan said. “I told Daniel, ‘You’ve got the common carp record!’ And, then I got home and I was looking at pictures of his fish, and I was like, ‘Oh, whoops. Daniel, you might not have the record.’ Then I looked up the grass carp record and took a sigh of relief.”

They would anxiously wait several weeks for CPW to confirm the potential record. CPW completed the process and informed the Geigers in August.

Though catching a state record fish isn’t exactly something even the most accomplished of anglers would expect, in Daniel’s case, it wasn’t exactly an accident, either.

Daniel had long fine-tuned his skills in preparation for such a moment.

That much is evident in the way Daniel patiently keeps the bail of his spinning reel open, waiting for the slightest indication of movement before giving the savvy, finicky carp all the time it needs to engulf the bait before Daniel puts all of his strength into setting the hook.

Now, Daniel can move on to pursuing his next Master Angler species. — maybe a 12-inch-or-larger yellow perch, one of Daniel’s favorite species.

Who knows? Maybe that next Master Angler Award-winning fish will again be a little more than Daniel bargained for.

“It’s just really cool to watch (Daniel) fish and enjoy it as much as I did when I was little,” said Ryan, who is also an avid fisherman alongside his son. “But I could not imagine being 10 years old and catching a state record.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.