Today, they did it again:
But surrendering to the blight is a recipe for disaster. Unless we want to be living in a moonscape, and to see the state’s tourism economy tank when the browning and blackening of Colorado becomes even more obvious, we must ignore the public lands pacifists and demand that Ritter and other “leaders” mount a response, no matter how costly or controversial with green extremists.
Man’s meddling, combined with “natural” forces, created these conditions. But that there’s a “natural” component to what’s happening doesn’t absolve human beings from a responsibility to respond, in an attempt to save what forests we can.
Cancer, too, is “natural.” But few people argue that we shouldn’t fight it when a dire diagnosis is handed down. Most of us fight, even though the fight might prove futile. Yet when it comes to Colorado’s forests, some people are calling for surrender.
From where is this defeatist drumbeat coming?
From politicians such as [Mark Udall, Ken Salizar, John Salizar, and Bill ] Ritter, who hope they’ll escape blame for the ecological and economic devastation, and avoid the need to deal with it, if they convince the public that 1.) it’s all just natural and 2.) it’s impossible to prevent.
The Gazette is dead on, even though it didn't call out by name the Colorado politicians (except Ritter) who will be most responsible for the browning of Colorado. Those politicians can see the disaster they and the Sierra Club have created but just can't seem to keep themselves from adding to it with really dumb stuff like Mark Udall's Roadless amendment and Ken Salizar's holding up the confirmation of a BLM nominee.