President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 15, 2009 01:48 AM UTC
19 Comments
I support Ritter for reelection.
I’m not a yes man, though. I’ll voice my opinion when I disagree.
Sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best policy.
do not support the current draft of the proposed Colorado roadless rule.
More time to comment is good–but conservationists are not happy with its current form that would open up new areas to coalmining, allow logging far into the backcountry, allow new utility lines to cut through roadless forests, leaves in place about 100 oil and gas leases on inventoried roadless areas, many without adequate surface protections.
Some of these flaws may indeed be fixed (the last time the public got to see the draft–which was really bad–was last Summer). But a conservationist saying that the extra 60-day comment period is good is not conservationists saying they support either this state rule (they don’t) or any state rule (these are national forests and deserve to managed under national policy–this is the position of many groups).
I do have links to articles and all sorts of materials supporting all my claims made herein. I will have to dig them up.
I have been considering a diary on this very subject–why the proposed Colorado Rule is fundamentally flawed. I figured I’d wait now until the draft state position on the rule is released for comment so as to not argue against the old (draft, 2008) but to consider and critique the latest iteration.
It makes sense to wait. I would imagine having the Bush Crew out of the driver’s seat, an engaged governor, and a strong Democratic majority in the state’s congressional delegation will create the breathing space to genuinely revise these rules.
like the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, or via legislation (hopefully soon to be introduced in Congress).
The proposed CO rule is a relict of the Bush administration and
timber lobbyistUndersecretarytimber lobbyist Mark Rey.Only Idaho and Colorado took Bush’s bait. Idaho has a final rule–which is much stronger than the proposed Colorado Rule–AND a GOP controlled state. The current draft plan for Colorado would leave our roadless forests here with less protection than in any other state.
In each of the 5 comment periods to date–including during the state task force process here in Colorado–the vast majority (9:1) have supported the protections that exist in the 2001 RACR. This comment period will demonstrate the same thing.
During the TF process the CDOW field biologists recommended that all of CO’s inventoried roadless areas receive 100% protection. Instead various special interests split the pie: (under the proposed rule) lands would be taken out of roadless inventory for ski area expansion, completely new coalmining (miles and miles and miles away from any existing mines or permitted minerals). While some lands were added into the inventory for the CO (proposed rule) just as many were dropped out. New roads for reservoirs, dam sites, utility lines, and other purposes would be allowed.
Logging, allegedly to protect communities, would be allowed far into the backcountry, with roads. Roads actually increase the risk of fire starts in many cases. In any case, the science is clear–to protect homes and communities, fuels mitigation needs to be in proximity to homes and communities, not a mile and a half into the backcountry.
President Obama has been a supporter of the RACR in the past, and Sect Vilsack’s ‘time out’ was a good first step–now we need a strong national roadless policy and all national forests roadless lands(including those that happen to be in Colorado) deserve to be managed accordingly. Colorado should not have a lesser standard–which is where the proposed CO Rule is headed unless significant changes are made.
Check out http://www.ourforests.org and http://www.roadless.net for more information.
For now I am waiting, but I have an extensive archive on this stuff.
I’m digging into the federal health care bill and am going to track it through CQ, but I’ll look at your material, certainly.
The only thing we would add is that the moves perceived as good by Ritter’s base, and those considered bad moves, can all be judged individually. He can certainly please environmentalists, for example, on one issue while displeasing them on another.
It aggregates to a full picture that voters make their decision based on, which most won’t make for at least another year. There is plenty of time to redress previous mistakes, and make new ones.
We are accused of “fashionably” taking down just about everybody who finds themselves on the defensive politically. On the other hand, if we don’t talk about these things we’re accused of “covering” for people.
Our solution is to call it like we see it. We don’t please everybody all the time but it works out pretty well overall.
don’t let anyone tell you different!!!!
(note the exclamation points, darlings!!!!!)
Not sure what the spontaneous display of affection is for, but we’ll take it. This website loves you right back, even though excessive punctuation is one of our pet peeves.
People he has appointed, family and people that would vote Dem no matter what. That’s where the 44% comes from. That number shrinks as more and more Dems just decide not to vote for him at all.
Pols…you can put lipstick on a pig but afterall it’s still at pig. Nice try on trying to hype Judge Ritter.
I think most who voted for Ritter feel a profound disappointment in his “performance” as disinterested Governor. His polling is still fair, cash at hand strong, but you have to question his desire to make more than self-serving deals; when even if you take the man at his word every single time and give him the benefit of the doubt you still have too many awkward pratfalls(and this is being overly sympathetic) to feel confident that he knows what he’s doing and cares about the people he’s supposed to represent.
Who’s advising him, that time and time again, his actions seem to give the shiv to unions, environmental groups, activists, and even the base?
But a lot of people love Ritter. At the business thing yesterday one of our interns went with me to it and when I said we could leave before Ritter’s speech she told me no way. She think’s he is great.
No connection to him – just a voter. And she will be pounding the pavement for him – happily.
He who lost Ref I.
He who tossed Hick under the bus concerning picking a Senate replacement.
He who will lose Ritter.
Pretty tough task to lose when you a Dem eh?
Thanks all for these comments on roadless. I wanted to take the opportunity to post the full news release from yesterday.
The new proposal will be out in a couple of weeks, with details about the comment period, etc.
I would like to make one other point: we need a rule for Colorado that recognizes some of our unique issues. For example, there was not a bark beetle problem when the 2001 rule was issued. And no other state has as many ski areas on national forest land. A “one size fits all” rule for all roadless areas is not workable, frankly. The original Colorado rule proposal was put together by a broad stakeholder group, and subsequent versions have also had broad interest and input.
I think people will like the improvements in the new proposal, and Gov. Ritter looks forward to hearing reactions.
Thanks for the chance to post.
Jim Carpenter
NEWS RELEASE
OFFICE OF GOV. BILL RITTER, JR.
http://WWW.COLORADO.GOV/GOVERNOR
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, JULY 13, 2009
CONTACTS
Theo Stein, 720.448.5567, theo.stein@state.co.us
Terry McCann, 303.275.5356, terrymccann@fs.fed.us
Evan Dreyer, 720.350.8370, evan.dreyer@state.co.us
COLORADO TO SEEK COMMENTS ON REVISIONS TO ROADLESS RULE
Gov. Bill Ritter announced today that the state is proposing revisions to the draft Colorado roadless petition and will seek additional public comment and review later this summer.
The proposed Colorado roadless rule was published in July 2008. Since then, the state has been working with the U.S. Forest Service and stakeholders on a range of improvements to the draft state petition, which would create a permanent conservation framework for the 4.1 million acres of roadless lands within the 11 national forests in Colorado.
“From my first day in office, I have worked to provide lasting protections for Colorado’s backcountry and roadless heritage,” Gov. Ritter said today following a meeting with Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Rick Cables. “Colorado’s roadless rule process has been crucial to this effort, and over the past year my administration has been working closely with the Forest Service and numerous stakeholders to improve the 2008 proposal.
“I remain committed to crafting a roadless plan that addresses Colorado’s unique circumstances, including the need to respond to the bark beetle epidemic; to ensure that our recreation, tourism and natural resource industries are able to grow; and to help our local communities and economies on the Western Slope thrive,” Gov. Ritter said. “I look forward to continuing to work with the US Forest Service, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack and others in the Obama Administration on achieving the right solution for Colorado.
“Gathering additional input and review from the public and interested stakeholders will add to the transparency and accountability of this process,” Gov. Ritter added.
Later this month, Colorado will issue a revised draft of its recommendations and solicit further public input during a 60-day public comment period. Following the comment period, the state will consider additional suggestions before finalizing its recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In the past 12 months, the state and the Forest Service have updated the roadless inventory to add approximately 160,000 acres of high-quality roadless forests. As a result, the state rule would now conserve 400,000 acres not included in the national 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule inventory.
The state has made additional recommendations to better balance the need to protect mountain communities and water infrastructure at the edge of roadless areas from fire risk with the overall goal of conserving roadless values.
The Colorado recommendations would also eliminate a loophole in the 2001 rule, the so-called “linear construction zone exemption,” that allows pipelines to bisect roadless areas. Additional revisions by the state also would eliminate new roads for grazing.
Cables said after the meeting that he supported giving the public an additional opportunity to review and comment on Colorado’s recommended changes to the petition.
“The very best solutions take time, deliberation and thinking together with all of the stakeholders,” Cables said. “It’s critical to maintain the collaborative spirit that has characterized this rule-making process thus far. Another round of public review will help us to build a durable solution that provides lasting protection for the roadless areas in the national forests in Colorado.”
In 2005, Colorado began the process of drafting a state-specific roadless rule under former Gov. Bill Owens. A draft rule was published in the Federal Register in July 2008.
“Roadless areas are important to our economy and they are irreplaceable sources of clean water and wildlife habitat,” Ritter said. “We are committed to continuing this process in a transparent way until we get it right.”
# # #
it’s appreciated. I look forward to reviewing the state’s proposal and will post my full reaction at that time.
Can you point me to the science that supports logging and roadbuilding a mile and a half into roadless areas to protect homes and communities from wildfire?
The USFS’ own studies show that fuels mitigation work is effective proximate to communities, but not far into the backcountry. I have seen and reviewed lots of the data on this matter, but yet to see any that suggests that allowing new roads this far into the backcountry to treat fuels is effective–either in protecting communities or fiscally. Thanks for any data you can provide.
Club Twitty, I will try to find information on the topic you raised.
Can you make a rational argument about why this issue needs MORE public comment? Isn’t it the most studied and commented on public lands issue of our time?
Seems to me that the bottom line here is that the governor pissed off the only base he has left (radical enviros) with his “position” on the FRAC legislation so he needed to scramble to find a give away to make them happy. Love it or hate it, it’s his brand of “leadership.”
“I actually did support my own roadless plan before I was against it.” — Bill Ritter, Jr.
you’re an idiot.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, and in this case, I do. Your regurgitated talking points (i.e. if, in the numerous comment periods so far those have supported roadless protection–under the RACR–by about 9:1, how come it is the 90% that you see as ‘radical enviros’?) carry no weight with me.
Contribute some substance and I might think you are more than a reactionary, none-too-bright shill.
The public deserves a chance to consider and have input into a policy affecting over 4 million acres of Colorado’s (national) public lands–which has changed significantly since there was any other public comment. Indeed, depending on the significance of the changes it may be that an SEIS is needed, not just a state comment period.
As always we’re all SO impressed with your depth of knowledge, twitty. I’m sure the Governor’s chief of staff appreciates your you shilling for him.
It’s nice to see Obama and Ritter are embracing the analysis paralysis strategy.
of the proposed Colorado Rule? I DO NOT support it. I DISAGREE with the state’s position on this, I prefer a national policy for national forests. I think the proposed CO rule significantly weakens roadless protections and includes too many special interest giveaways.
I don’t care to impress you. Or Unimpress you. I am not ‘shilling’ for the COS. I am merely pointing out that you really don’t know what you are talking about, not that that has ever stopped you before from offering your talking points–devoid of fact, cites, or other useful information.