house Bill H.R. 1324
Expanding the Boundaries of the Colorado’s Arapaho National Forest
Argument in favor
Adding more territory to the Arapaho National Forests will help preserve these environments by putting them under federal protection.
04/27/2015
Until the public is better educated and privately act in a way that is not detrimental to the environment, protecting these places is important. This would add to the Park and is estimated not to require any extra funding. Might as well.
04/27/2015
National parks were created for the purpose of preserving our nations forest and landscapes. Such actions are within the boundaries of federal authority and must be done to assure that such land will preserved for the pleasure of future generations.
···
04/28/2015
It is important to recognize that the ecological impact of developments that do currently, and can in the future, expand throughout the forests are intrinsically tied to and affect our economy. We no longer see individual cabins being made here and there but, rather, corporate developers carving out huge swaths and building California style neighborhood developments. Preserving as much area in the mountains as possible is important to the ecology there that affects everything down to the water that eventually gets to California.
Argument opposed
There’s no clear indication that a 93 acre land increase will economically benefit the Arapaho National Forest or Colorado at large.
05/23/2015
This should be a decision for the people of Colorado's to make.
···
05/02/2015
What the heck for? It clearly says to be never used or seen or run naked in.
···
04/27/2015
The federal government has neither the money nor resources to manage yet more land. The government needs to get out of the real estate / land ownership business.
Until the public is better educated and privately act in a way that is not detrimental to the environment, protecting these places is important. This would add to the Park and is estimated not to require any extra funding. Might as well.
This should be a decision for the people of Colorado's to make.
What the heck for? It clearly says to be never used or seen or run naked in.
National parks were created for the purpose of preserving our nations forest and landscapes. Such actions are within the boundaries of federal authority and must be done to assure that such land will preserved for the pleasure of future generations.
The federal government has neither the money nor resources to manage yet more land. The government needs to get out of the real estate / land ownership business.
Sounds like another federal LAND GRAB to me! I wonder how the people of Colorado feel about it! Forests play an important role in our air quality. Is Colorado not doing a good enough job of managing their forests?
If passed, this bill would not allow "common adventurers" and other people who frequent the area to access those lands by vehicle — unless they own non-federal land within the federally owned area. This will impact ALL of us, including handicapped people, the elderly, and children who might want to visit this area.
It is important to recognize that the ecological impact of developments that do currently, and can in the future, expand throughout the forests are intrinsically tied to and affect our economy. We no longer see individual cabins being made here and there but, rather, corporate developers carving out huge swaths and building California style neighborhood developments. Preserving as much area in the mountains as possible is important to the ecology there that affects everything down to the water that eventually gets to California.
The last thing people in Colorado want is more federal land taken from the state.
Our Federal Government, especially the BLM, has not proven itself capable of doing its business in an efficient and even-handed way.
Leave land to the States. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to ANY land other than Washington DC.
The government currently has more than enough property it can't handle.
If the people of Colorado wanted the land to be a park then the state of Colorado would be making it a park! The federal government has no business running parks! It can't even run an outhouse effectively! They say this will cost nothing but reality is that it will cost Colorado in lost land that has value and it will end up costing many millions because the parks department will now have an excuse to hire more park police, buy more vehicles and anything else they can come up with.
As Teddy Roosevelt would agree with, preserving our natural beauty is one of the key features and goals of America.
This is a state issue, not a national one. We need to get the national government out of the rights of the states.
Absolutely not. Our Federal Government keeps adding more state lands under the guise of protecting natural resources. Just a simple unconstitutional executive act.
This should be up to Colorado. The gov can not own land 10 square miles outside of dc, unless for bases or ports, and they still need the state's permission. Also, the BLM is an illegal organization and should be scrapped.
This would be a call the state, localities and most importantly the land owners, should make