Concerning the recent community discussion about closing Boulder Parks and Open Space to night use, I have a few thoughts I’d like to share.

Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks already has a ban on parking in trailhead and other open space lots between midnight and 5 a.m. This prohibition should be sufficient to keep people off the trails during that time, and it’s a whole lot easier to patrol parking lots and look for violators there than to hike all over the open space system looking for wandering miscreants. I’m guessing the biggest threat after 11 PM is from beer parties (formerly called “woodsies”), but I think these should be pretty easy to locate if there are folks out patrolling. I certainly support closing habitat conservation areas to human use during the night, as these are the only areas we have left that are primarily devoted to wildlife habitat.

Camping at the Mosel River in Germany (istock.com)

Second, since I first arrived in Boulder as a poor graduate student/public school teacher in 1970, I’ve always thought our community’s greatest shortcoming was an absence of public camping facilities. I can camp legally closer to London or Chicago than I can to Boulder. In Nebraska, I can camp legally and often for free within 10 miles of virtually any town or city, including Lincoln and Omaha. Think about it. Our nearest public campgrounds in the mountains are at least 45 minutes away from town (by car that is, more like 24 hours by foot) at Golden Gate Canyon State Park, Kelly-Dahl, Buckingham Park, and Rainbow Lakes. And you can’t even camp in the national forests in Boulder Canyon or Lefthand Canyon. One of the first things you see when you drive up Boulder Canyon is an unfriendly-appearing signs saying “No Camping Next 18 Miles.”

There is a campground at the Boulder County Fairgrounds in Longmont and a small one at Meadow Park in Lyons, but nothing, really, in the foothills and mountains west of Boulder.  We need to construct an in-town campground to accommodate homeless people and several smaller, appealing (meaning a handful of dispersed sites in the woods) close-to-town campgrounds to accommodate visitors. It’s a shameful situation that makes us look a little like we’re operating a police state.

I’m particularly sensitive to this because I grew up in Northern California where it’s now almost impossible to go camping without a credit card (I’m not making this up). I believe that a society that deprives humans of the innate right to sleep unencumbered on the green Earth is a pretty pathetic society. Blame it on overpopulation if you will, but if they can accommodate campers throughout Europe, we should be able to do so in relatively uncrowded Boulder County.

One reason this shortcoming has not been rectified is because no local agency wants to take on the expense and responsibility of building and maintaining campgrounds. This is perfectly understandable. What we would need to do is get all the agencies together (especially Boulder City Council, the Boulder County Commissioners, and the Arapaho National Forest) to come up with a blueprint for creating small, attractive, and reasonably secluded campgrounds close to Boulder. As to the free public campground within Boulder, that would require a thoughtful community process, directed by Boulder City Council.

Finally, one of the sad things of living at this time is that most of us have lost contact with the most magical and spiritually powerful part of the 24-hour cycle: nighttime. We should be encouraging people to reconnect with the darkness, responsibly, not banning them from doing so. If we want to ban something, how about banning all external lighting and all non-emergency machinery (including cars, except for necessary commuting, and airplanes) from midnight to 5 a.m.?

Boulder County market farm (photo by Meaghan Huffman)

Democracy is decidedly out of fashion in 21^st-century American political culture. Indeed, one could argue that democracy has been out of fashion for decades. At this time, it seems almost truistic to note that what is often styled “representative government” is all too frequently representative of little more than private interests, special interests, and corporate interests. We have become narcotized to the contemporary reality that corporations and lobbyists often dictate law and policy—and unabashedly do so to a most disturbing and unprecedented extent.

The reasons for the demise of American democracy are not far to seek. For decades, tens of millions of Americans have routinely abdicated their right and responsibility to vote. Long work hours, incessant entertainment, bread and circuses of all kinds have kept many, if not most, Americans entirely out of the political process. And from at least as early as the 1970s, American corporations have been rapidly consolidating power and influence at the expense the American people. In his well-received 1995 book, When Corporations Rule the World, David C. Korten noted: “what we are seeing is a frontal assault on democratic pluralism to advance the ideological agenda of corporate libertarianism.”[1] The above-mentioned influences—and there are many others—have spawned our current political system, an impenetrable network of bureaucracies which have little desire or use for public “intervention”: we the people are expected to leave policy to the politicos.

This is no longer acceptable, as if it were ever acceptable. The evidence is all too clear: blind faith—or any faith—in our current political process and leadership is neither prudent, responsible, nor democratic. The nation-wide “Occupy movement” would seem to be an inevitable consequence of the decades-long status quo of corporate control of our political institutions. Meanwhile, here in Boulder County, an epicenter of all things organic, the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the county’s publicly owned open space has been a source of alarm to the majority of residents of Boulder County in recent years. Boulder County citizens, highly informed and deeply concerned about the irrefutable dangers of GMOs, have found themselves consistently “shut out” of the crafting of public policy, and the governing bodies of Boulder County have consistently resisted public input.

In response to this unacceptable and undemocratic state of affairs, a local gathering of concerned citizens has recently forged The Citizen’s Cropland Policy, which is based upon the policy statement proposed by Boulder County Parks and Open Space. The Citizen’s Cropland Policy significantly improves and expands upon the original document in such a way as to preserve and sustain tens of thousands of arable acres of open space for future generations.

Context and Chronology

To better understand the background of the Citizen’s Cropland Policy, it might be helpful to briefly revisit the recent history behind the current GMO controversy in Boulder County. In 2003, local farmers were given permission by the Boulder County Commissioners to plant genetically modified BT corn on land they leased from open space in Boulder County. From 2001 to 2011, the area allotted for Bt corn expanded from 347 acres to over 2000 acres. At the time, few Boulder County citizens were aware that GMOs were being grown on 25,000 acres of their Open Space croplands.

The watershed year in the controversy was 2009.  That year six Boulder County farmers sought permission from the Boulder County Commissioners to plant genetically modified sugar beets on Boulder County Open Space. The still unresolved request ignited a public outcry, raised local awareness of the presence and implications of GMOS on publicly owned open space, and precipitated regional, national, and international press coverage.

To address mounting discontent throughout Boulder County, the Boulder County Commissioners created the Cropland Policy Advisory Group to assist the staff at Parks and Open Space. Two central goals of the consortium were: 1) to explore the purported benefits and potential risks of GMOs; and 2) to apply findings to the end of creating cropland policy. In 2011, the nine-member Cropland Policy Advisory Group (CPAG) comprised “three conventional farmers, two organic farmers, a representative from an organic dairy, and three at-large citizens.”[2] And in February, they began the process of crafting the policy. The 2011 Boulder County Parks and Open Space Cropland Policy Draft notes the following:

CPAG meetings were open to the public for observation; public comments were taken in written form and forwarded to CPAG for review; at the request of members of the public, a public input session was added the to CPAG schedule.[3]

In spite of such “appeals” for public observation and input, not a few Boulder County citizens felt their presence and input decidedly unwelcome at the CPAG meetings held in Longmont, Colorado in 2011. Moreover, their pleas for caution and their own extensive research—over 1000 pages of peer reviewed studies, articles, and public comments providing information on the dangers of GMOs—were summarily ignored in the final CPAG documents. And aside from minority reports filed by a few members of CPAG and a mere two articles, no documentation was to be found other than sources provided by Monsanto. Clearly, a new vision was in order.

So in true democracy fashion, a group of citizens, scientists, growers, farmer and policy wonks, took it upon themselves to craft the Citizens’ Cropland Policy to put forth as an alternative management policy for the 35,00 acres of Boulder County citizen owned Parks and Open Space agricultural lands. The eight guiding principles for the management of Boulder County Open Space agricultural lands are as follows:

1.  Boulder County Open Space (BCOS) agricultural lands will be managed with a focus on soil quality and health & sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices.
2.  The use of BCOS agricultural lands will be prioritized for food, fiber and fodder production that support local markets and provide direct benefit to the citizens of Boulder County.
3.  A multi-characteristic mapping and inventory of all BCOS agricultural lands shall be conducted and maintained to identify and rank the Highest and Best Use of all parcels.
4.  Testing and monitoring for soil health and other factors will be performed yearly and the data maintained as part of the mapping and inventory of all BCOS ag lands.
5.  GMOs are prohibited on BCOS agricultural lands.
6.  Glyphosate and neonicotinoid pesticides are banned on BCOS agricultural lands.
7.  A moratorium on the use of biosolids (sewage sludge) will be implemented until a thorough evaluation can be completed on the risks to BCOS agricultural lands.
8.  As with cropland, grazing land and livestock operations should be preferentially managed using sustainable and regenerative agricultural production principles and prioritized for local food and fiber production.

The Citizens’ Cropland Policy was grafted alongside and within the original CPAG document so the two documents may be compared side-by-side. This table can be accessed at www.bcccp.info.

On Thursday, December 8^th, the County Commissioners will be holding a public hearing beginning at 6:00pm at The Longmont Conference Center, 1850 Industrial Blvd in Longmont to hear public testimony regarding the Open Space Cropland Policy. Sometime this month, they will decide if they will continue to allow the planting of GMOs on Open Space lands.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

A critical joint meeting of the Boulder County Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee and the Food and Agriculture Policy Council took place in Longmont, Colorado on November 15th. The Citizen’s Cropland Policy was presented and was met with immediate praise that evening. Twenty-four hours later, the Boulder County Food and Agriculture Policy Council rejected the continuation of GMOs on Boulder County Open Space, advocating a phasing out of the undesired technology. And 24 hours after that, the Parks and Open Space Advisory Council voted 5 to 4 for a phase out of GMOs from Open Space land.

Shanan Olson, an organic farmer and member of Boulder County’s Food and Agriculture Policy Council stated:  “In my lifetime, this is an unprecedented act of democracy that I’ve never seen before.” As Americans struggle to reclaim their long lost freedoms, let us hope that what is now “unprecedented” may one day become the norm.

Boulder County Open Space wheat (photo by Meaghan Huffman)

A PLAN-Boulder County forum at Sherpa’s Adventurers Restaurant and Bar on the evening of Monday, November 14, about the wisdom of banning genetically engineered crops from Boulder County Open Space may have generated more heat than light, with the four panelists disagreeing, sometimes emphatically, on almost all aspects of the issue.

More Food Production

One of the panelists, Daniel Bush, a professor and chairman of the biology department at Colorado State University, asserted that more genetically engineered crops are needed in order to increase food production for an expanding human population, which he predicted will exceed 9 billion by 2050. He called for people to not shy away from such food because of irrational fear. But another panelist, Mary Mulry, who holds a Ph.D. in food science and operates Food Wise, a consulting firm dedicated to the creation of organic and natural foods, contended that there is and can in the future be an ample supply of food without more genetically engineered crops. She claimed that waste and poor distribution are the major detriments to the food supply, not inadequate crop breeding, and argued that diverse crops should be grown on small plots by farmers dispersed among consumers in the Third World.

Human Health

Bush argued that the genetic engineering of crops—involving the “splicing” of genes from other plants and animals—is essentially just a more efficient form of traditional cross-breeding, which has been commonly practiced without controversy since 1900. He also claimed that genetically engineered crops have been harvested for over 15 years without any harm to human health. Another panelist, Mary Smith, who co-founded GMKnow, a Boulder County organization that promotes organic food and opposes genetically engineered food, turned that argument on its head, insisting that 15 years of experience is too short a period of time to prove the safety of genetically engineered crops.

Bush also maintained that genetically engineered crops are carefully regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency, while cross-bred crops, which pose essentially the same risks, escape such regulation. Smith argued that federal regulation is lax and the federal agencies only consider tests conducted by the seed companies themselves. Bush refuted that assertion and stated that the government agencies commissioned studies by independent researchers and also ran tests themselves.

Environmental Impacts

A major, if not the major, purpose of genetic engineering of crops is to develop plants that will not be harmed by certain pesticides, principally glyphosate, which is often sold as “RoundUp.”  By extensively spraying pesticides on their fields farmers can control weeds much more easily and cheaply than through other means. Mulry argued that glyphosate remains for years in water and air and binds important minerals in the soil, preventing plants from absorbing them and reducing their nutritional value. Smith stated that some seeds are dipped in a pesticide, Bt, which can contaminate the soil for 100 years.

But Bush asserted that that same pesticide is used by organic farmers without any demonstrated, ill effects. Another panelist, Dea Sloan, a member of the Boulder County Cropland Policy Advisory Group, pointed out that glyphosate and another common pesticide 2,4-D have been in use for 35 years and have  generally proven to be  less harmful to various animals, including birds and worms, than other chemicals. She recounted driving between adjacent parcels of Boulder County open space farm land and private farm land in Weld County. The open space farms, she said, were required to use “a cocktail of six chemicals,” while the Weld County farms used glyphosate and/or 2,4-D. She observed that the soil on the Weld County farm was healthier and the crops more robust.

Sloan acknowledged that “super weeds” that are resistant to glyphosate have appeared in the American Midwest. But she asserted that this development was the result of continuous use of glyphosate, which does not occur on Boulder County Open Space, where farmers rotate crops. She pointed out that a farmer growing genetically engineered sugar beets and corn on open space land would only apply glyphosate two times in four years, which she indicated would not be nearly enough to create “super weeds.”

Cross-pollination

A possible environmental impact of genetically engineered crops is cross-pollination of non-genetically engineered crops, thereby potentially creating new hybrids. Mulry asserted that plant breeders have to rely on original crops and that cross-pollination impedes their work. She claimed that it is difficult to confine crops to the fields where they were originally planted. However, Bush and Sloan separately asserted that buffer zones between fields have shown great effectiveness in preventing cross-pollination of corn.

Discouragement of Farmers

Smith proclaimed that only 70 farmers lease Boulder County Open Space land and that their convenience should not be allowed to override the expressed desires of the citizens of Boulder County, who own the open space land and generally want genetically engineered crops prohibited from it. She also contended that many future farmers without leases are clamoring to use organic methods on Boulder County Open Space and other lands.

Sloan and Bush sharply disputed Smith’s claims. Sloan, while conceding that the amount of organic farming has grown dramatically in the last two decades, pointed out that nevertheless it accounts for only a tiny portion, .7 percent, of food production in the United States. She predicted that a ban on genetically engineered crops would demoralize farmers and result in much, if not most, of Boulder County’s Open Space agricultural land lying uncultivated. She contended that most Boulder County farmers already act as careful stewards of the land and committed environmentalists. Bush asked why, if there is such a large supply of potential organic farmers, so little food is now produced organically.

Mulry called for a transition period to move farmers away from traditional practices to organic methods. She claimed that a lot of farmers’ decisions are based on habit and idiosyncratic, personal preferences for particular crops and predicted that most could be gradually shifted to organic agriculture.

One subject on which the panelists did agree was the need for more local processing of food in Boulder County. Mulry observed that locally grown food is almost always shipped to California or another state for processing and then shipped back to Boulder. She remarked that many more vegetables used to be produced by Japanese farmers in Boulder County, and that beans can be grown successfully here. Sloan claimed that Boulder County farmers would welcome having their crops processed locally and called for canning factories and mobile processing plants to be established here, as well as for the expansion of marketing opportunities through the formation of grower co-operatives.

Boulder County Commissioner Will Toor, who was a member of the large audience packed into the upstairs room at Sherpa’s, commented that Boulder County has been trying hard to increase organic production on its open space land by giving preferences to organic farmers in the selection of lessees and operatiang a program to train organic farmers. However, he reported that, despite those concerted efforts, only about 2,000 acres—or about 10 percent of open space agricultural land—is now or soon will be farmed organically. That percentage, though, is still well above the national average.

Another member of the audience who is a prominent, local honey producer asserted that what he called “systemic pesticides” have proven to be terribly destructive to bees. He disclosed that last year his honey crop was the smallest it has ever been. He also noted that native pollinators have declined by 80 percent in Iowa and that it is commonly perceived that the number of bugs getting stuck in car grills and smashed on windshields have dropped dramatically across the country.

from Boulder County Parks and Open Space poster (http://bit.ly/pcX5BJ)

The issue of genetically-engineered (GE), or genetically modified organisms (GMO), crops is not an easy issue for our community to tackle. It’s proven to be divisive in Boulder in the past and it touches on two things many of us hold dear, food and preserving open space land.  The challenge for Boulder County Commissioners and Parks and Open Space staff will be to find a way to balance the concerns about GE crops with the need to do what is best for county-owned cropland.

On the one hand is the anti-GMO activist perspective based in large part on a deep mistrust of Monsanto, the company that developed the technology, and the biotech industry in general. On the other hand is the argument that GE crops should be considered on open space land because they help farmers to soften the impact that farming has on the environment and help farmers to remain financially viable.

The topic is relevant today – and is rapidly heating up – because Boulder County Parks and Open Space staff have put together a draft Cropland Policy for the county-owned agricultural lands.  According to the county website:

The Cropland Policy is designed to address the gap between the Parks and Open Space department’s daily management practices and the County Comprehensive Plan’s directives regarding the management of open space and agricultural land. The policy will outline the guiding principles that our staff will use to make management decisions on open space properties managed as cropland.

The anti-GMO activists would like to turn publicly-owned cropland into a place to take a stand in the war against Monsanto, the biotech industry, large corporate agri-businesses and globalization.  They are urging the Boulder County Commissioners and POS staff to take a stand on this issue by just saying no GMOs on public land.

In many cases, an underlying assumption of the anti-GMO position is that the fallback position is organic farming. It’s an easy mistake to make — at the grocery store, if we want to avoid genetically modified foods, we buy organic.  Unfortunately, from a farming point of view, that just isn’t the case. Rather, the alternative to GE crops is conventional non-GE crops — the decision to make the transition to organic is not simple and looks at a whole different set of criteria.

While we all might like to see more organic farming in Boulder County, the route to more organic production isn’t likely to come from banning GE crops. The barriers to entry for organic include both production and marketing challenges. Organic has proven successful on relatively small acreages, for instance 3-12 acres for a market farm or, in the case of a wholesale vegetable operation, up to 200 acres. However, scaling organic up for larger tracts of land and for crops like wheat, corn, barley, alfalfa and oats is a challenge that has not yet been successfully tackled in Colorado on a wide-scale basis.

In addition to the production problems, there is the fact that there isn’t ready market or infrastructure in Colorado for organic grains and other field crops. Encouraging more organic farming in Boulder County and Colorado means tackling both production and marketing challenges.  There is work being done in both of these areas, but solutions will take time.

A big part of the reason that so many farmers have adopted GE technology over the past decade is that the technology allows them to lessen the impact of farming on the environment, something that matters to farmers even more than it matters to the rest of us. Without the option of using genetically-engineered technology, farmers will have no choice but to revert back to using conventional non-GE seeds and in the process, undo many of the conservation improvements that have been made over the past decade that have lessened agriculture’s footprint on the environment.

The alternative to taking a political stand on the issue is to pursue a policy that is based on local environmental and economic considerations. The introduction of GE crops have enabled farmers to substitute less risky pesticides for more risky pesticides and adopt practices, like conservation tillage, which help to reduce soil erosion and improve soil health.

No matter what happens with the GE policy, a core part of the Boulder County Parks and Open Space policy moving forward is likely to be the adoption of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy framework with the goal of minimizing pesticide use on county-owned cropland. Boulder County is lucky because we already have many progressive farmers who have adopted many of the core IPM practices but these tactics should be encouraged and supported moving forward for all tenants.

The challenge for Boulder County policy makers is to look past the exhortations to use our cropland as a battleground, to respond to the legitimate and relevant concerns about GE technology and to adopt a policy that promotes a way of farming that is healthier for farmers, healthier for the environment and healthier for the rest of us.

While it might sound good to just say “No” to GE crops as a policy for Boulder County Open Space, it is important to not lose sight of the fact that there will be instances where a GE crop, used within an IPM program, could provide significant environmental and/or economic benefits to the county. In those cases, we need the option to say “Yes” to specific crops as a means towards protecting our environment (including people, water, soil quality, birds, insects and biodiversity) and promoting the overall economic well-being of the county.

Today, November 7

Cropland Policy Open House, 5-8 p.m.

Boulder County Fairgrounds: Exhibit Building
Come learn about the policy and ask questions during this informal open house. A short staff presentation on the process will begin at 6 p.m. Public comments will be accepted.

The open house will cover the policy proposed by the Cropland Policy Advisory Group, introduce some of the existing programs for promoting local food and growth in the agricultural economy, and highlight some of the work POS does with its farmer partners.

Monday, November 14

PLAN-Boulder Forum: Should Genetically Engineered Crops Be Banned from Boulder Open Space?

7:00-9:00 p.m. Sherpa’s Restaurant, 825 Walnut St., Boulder, CO

Panelists will be Professor Daniel Bush, Chairman of the Biology Department at CSU, and others to be announced.

November 15

FAPC and POSAC Joint Session

November 15 at 5:30 p.m.
Longmont Conference Center
Staff will present the policy to a joint session of the Food and Agriculture Policy Council (FAPC) and the Parks and Open Space Advisory Commission (POSAC). Public comments will be accepted.

November 16

FAPC Special Meeting

November 16 at 5:30 p.m.
Longmont Conference Center
FAPC will vote on whether to recommend approval of the policy to the Board of County Commissioners. Public comments will not be accepted.

November 17

POSAC Special Meeting

November 17 at 5:30 p.m.
County Courthouse: Commissioners’ Hearing Room
POSAC will vote on whether to recommend approval of the policy to the Board of County Commissioners. Public comments will not be accepted.

Outgoing City Council member Crystal Gray

My beautiful, good friend Crystal leaves stylish council shoes that will be very hard to fill. She is a fierce activist and a neighborhood-loving downtown denizen. She is indomitable, optimistic and a force of nature. I’ve often joked to people that like Oprah or Marcelee, Crystal doesn’t need a last name.

Crystal, first and foremost, speaks for Boulder’s neighborhoods – and has for decades.  As a landscape architect with a keen eye for design, she recognizes and advocates for regulations and public and private projects that benefit our town’s neighborhoods. Trees, trees, trees and the maintenance of public spaces are her passion. But know that this passion is based on a landscape architect’s credo that shade and beautiful public spaces are really surrogates for a vibrant and caring community.  Historic preservation has the same meaning and importance to her.

She served a term on the Open Space Board of Trustees and knows our open space lands as well as anyone. Before Crystal was on council but after her term on the OSBT, she would show slides during Open Comment of open space properties that had been recently purchased.  She rightly believed that each acquisition was cause to celebrate, and that both the council and the larger community should be aware of each new piece of our common ownership.

Crystal has been a staunch supporter of open government. When a majority on the City Council (including me) voted to put a charter change on the ballot that would allow for council executive sessions, she spoke eloquently against this change. Her view prevailed with the voters. She has been a watchdog for breeches of council rules and for the right of all citizens to see open and honest council deliberation, not pre-cooked decisions.

Crystal almost always walks to our council meetings, while I drive. Our unspoken tradition has become that I drop her off at home after council. It’s always dark, often late. At Crystal’s direction, we’ll often drive through downtown, marveling at the people out on the mall or the beauty of our town.  We talk over the evening’s topics and decisions, often giddy with happiness at the way the night has gone. I will miss these times terribly.

It doesn’t take a PhD to understand the outcome of Tuesday’s City Council vote, despite the Daily Camera’s (11-3-11) efforts to explain the election through a national anti-incumbency lens. I believe City of Boulder voters were simply voting with two main issues in mind, and those resulted in incumbents George Karakehian and Ken Wilson receiving fewer votes than two newcomers to the Council.

The first issue the Camera correctly identifies: both Karakehian and Wilson opposed measures 2B and 2C, with Wilson’s campaign materials even toeing the line with Xcel’s and other opponents’ scare-mongering arguments.

However, the Camera fails to identify a second, perhaps more important issue that led to Karakehian and Wilson receiving fewer votes than Suzanne Jones, Liza Morzel, and Tim Plass: Open Space use policy.  Both Karakehian and Wilson voted to support building a mountain bike trail on Anemone Hill in October, whereas Morzel opposed it and was reelected with the second highest number of votes.  Karakehian and Wilson were also two of four candidates supported by the Boulder Outdoor Coalition (BOC), which “advocate[s] stewardship, access and appreciation of public lands,” per their web site.  “Access” is their key word, in case there’s any confusion.  The BOC’s other two endorsed candidates failed to win seats on the council.

I believe that Boulderites support stewardship, access, and appreciation of Open Space, but we also recognize that we have something special, particularly in the West TSA that shouldn’t be seen merely as another playground.

For mountain biking specifically, Boulder has developed off-road biking opportunities on three sides of town, what with the new Valmont bike park and the recently opened trails in the Dowdy Draw area (which I use regularly and will note are suffering from ever-widening trails from bikers and hikers traveling the edges).  The West TSA, however, remains the equivalent of Boulder’s national park, an area of special attention for preservation, and more of a space for nature and of spiritual retreat than a playground.  I suspect many other voters in Tuesday’s election support this view, and voted accordingly.  So consider Tuesday’s results not as an anti-incumbency reaction, but one instead of thoughtful consideration of what values our community should hold going forward.

Anemone Hill, ca. 1909-1916 (Carnegie Library)

I am 93 years old, arrived in Boulder in September, 1946, and lived in the uppermost cottage (701) in Chautauqua. I had grown up in New York City, but had been a young naturalist since age 5. When I was twelve I became an  avid birder, and learned my first botany in the field using a book on the trees and shrubs of the New York City region in winter condition. I was given a mint copy of Gray’s Manual of Botany by a biology teacher who had to have the book for a college course but had never opened it. With the help of a lady from the New York Botanical Garden I learned to use this, my first botany book, sitting in the meadows and learning how to use the keys.

By the time I was hired at the University of Colorado, I had already learned the flora of New England and New York State, spent three years in Iowa studying the flora of the mid-western prairies, and five years in the Pacific  Northwest studying the floras of the Canadian Rockies, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. My early experience was extremely useful here in Colorado, because it is here that all of these geographical elements merge in a very interesting way.

Anemone Hill Trail-Open Space Board of Trustees Recommendation (http://1.usa.gov/rJmBst) click to enlarge

The area now including the Mountain Parks and Open Space was already famous because of the occurrence, in Long Canyon, of the eastern North American Paper Birch, Betula papyrifera, and the colony of a fern, Asplenium  adiantum-nigrum, on Ricky Weiser’s property at White Rocks. There were few trails, and few people, no horses, and no dogs.

I helped the staff of Parks and Open Space in assembling an herbarium of the vascular plants. In addition, Ron Wittmann and I have assembled and provided the open space herbarium with a set of the bryophytes (mosses) as far as we have discovered them. Jim Corbridge and I have published a little book of colored pictures of 75 species of the mostly easily recognized lichens. Urless Lanham’s daughter published a popular account of the plants of the Mesa Trail. My books on the entire Colorado Flora were preceded, in1949, by a mimeographed book on the flora of Boulder County. I have trained a great many students in my field courses by using the Mountain Parks as their outdoor laboratory. One of these, Tim Hogan, has published a new catalog. Perhaps it is not generally realized how much scientific work has been published about this remarkable area (see references). It is internationally recognized as a ecosystem treasure.

When I arrived in Boulder the Flatirons were recovering from an earlier period of exploitation. A quarry scarred the lower face, and great numbers of trees had been burned or cut by the early settlers. Our little town numbered 14,000 residents. We had no idea that population pressure would soon descend on this extraordinary area, so rich in vegetation and wildlife. The mere press of bodies with feet, the automobile exhausts, and deliberate defacing of the rocks soon began to tell, and many residents made plans to move to higher ground close to nature.

Some foresighted individuals got together and began to resist this development. I was active in the preparation of arguments supporting the Blue Line Amendment, and I was a member of the citizens’ committee to oversee the construction of NCAR. The cooperation of the scientists was a strong beginning to a serious effort for preservation, and at the time preservation was the most important mission.

Times change, and memory goes as we oldsters disappear. The turnpike, more water from the western slope, the population explosion, the growth of the university, and our vigorous climb out of the Great Depression has made Boulder a resort. Not only has the town become a city re-created from its lowly birth, but it is now recreated (without the hyphen!). Extreme recreation is the current rage. Climbing, bouldering, mountain biking, and horse riding have taken over. Preservation? Aren’t there other immense areas of mountains and forest easily available?

We no longer have neighbors, we don’t greet each other on the street, we don’t walk, but we have dogs. I love dogs. I had two papillons. My daughter has seven Border Collies, and she trains dogs, but she has to go far afield to find a barn where dogs could get proper training. How many people who love dogs take the trouble to train them, or to train themselves to be considerate of other dogs or people? Where is the millionaire who would donate a center for the training of people and their dogs in what I am beginning to feel is the doggiest town in America. Dogs are just as happy walking beside us on the street.

It was my student in General Biology in 1947 who missed classes before a weekend, and when questioned about his absence, he replied that he had been in jail. It was Joe Matesi, later a physician in Indiana. He had gone up on the third Flatiron at night and painted CU on the face. Subsequently, the CU was modified by the an Oklahoma fan to OU, and later to ICU. The modifications were only temporary, and an attempt was made to erase the original letters. But in the proper lighting, the CU is still visible after 65 years! How many folks riding the Skip even look out the window to see it?

I myself was guilty of a early insult to the area. In the search for a small Christmas tree, Sam Kipp and I cut two small Douglas-fir trees from the upper Bluebell Canyon. At the time, there were evidently no restrictions, but the guilty memory will not be erased.

Centuries after Man has wreaked his havoc on the last places on earth that can be said to be at all pristine, our “protected” places will still recover and outlive us all, but is it too much for us Boulderites to remember the real reasons why we have tried to save what we still have? A week or so ago, I took some of my family to the west end of the bike path in lower Boulder Canyon. I intended to show them the display of mosses that I had seen on the steep slope by the trailside. This was one of the only spots where I had easy access to my four-wheel walker. The slope was totally denuded of mosses. Human feet loosened the soil, resulting in landslides. The mosses, still alive, were only surviving in the ditch at the bottom. Some one or ones simply had to get to the climbable cliff above! Bit by bit, we chew on our finest local scenery and the ecosystem that occupies it.

Let’s agree finally to leave our open space alone!

References

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1905. Tables for the identification of Rocky Mountain Coccidae (Scale Insects and Mealybugs). Univ. of Colo. Studies 2:189–208.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1907. The bees of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 4:239–260.

Cockerell, T.D.A,. 1907. The Protozoa of the University Campus. Univ. of Colorado Studies 4:261.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1911. The fauna of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 8:231—236.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1912. The fauna of Boulder County, Colorado, II. Univ. of Colorado Studies 9:41–52.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1917. The fauna of Boulder County, Colorado. III, IV. Univ. of Colorado Studies 12:5–26.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1927. Zoology of Colorado. Univ. Of Colorado Centennial Series, Vol. 3. 262 pp. Illustr.

Dodds, Gideon S. 1908. Geology and physiography of the mesas near Boulder. Univ. of Colorado Studies 6, No.1.

Hogan, Tim. 1993. A floristic survey of the Boulder Mountain Park, Boulder, Colorado. Natural History Inventory of Colorado No. 13. 63 pp. Univ. of Colorado Museum.

Froiland, Sven Gordon. 1952. The biological status of Betula andrewsii. Evolution 6:268–282.

Henderson, Junius. 1904. Paleontology of the Boulder area. Univ. of Colorado Studies 2:87–94.

Henderson, Junius. 1904. Additional list of Boulder County birds. Univ. of Colorado Studies 2:95–106.

Henderson, Junius. 1909. An annotated list of the birds of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 6: 215–218.

Hicks, Charles H. 1926. Nesting habits and parasites of certain bees of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 15:215–248.

Juday, Chancey. 1904. Fishes of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 2: 113–114.

Ramaley, Francis. 1908. Climatology of the mesas near Boulder. Univ. of Colorado Studies 6, No. 1.

Ramaley, Francis, & Leon Kelso. 1931. Autumn vegetation of the foothills near Boulder, Colorado. Univ. of Colo. Studies 18:239–156.

Robbins, W. W. 1908. Distribution of deciduous trees and shrubs on the mesas. Univ. of Colorado Studies 6, No. 1.

Robbins, W. W. 1912. Preliminary list of the algae of Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies

Rohwer, Sievert A. 1909. The Bembicid wasps of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 6:243–248.

Rohwer, Sievert A. 1913. The sawflies of Boulder County, Colorado. Univ. of Colorado Studies 9:91–104.

Weber, W.A. 1946. Botany of the Boulder area. [in] Natural History of the Boulder Area. Univ. of Colorado Museum, Leaflet 13. Pp. 43–46.

Weber, W. A. 1948. White Rocks. Green Thumb, October. Pp. 6–8, 5 photos.

Weber, W. A. 1949. The flora of Boulder County, 200 pp. Mimeographed. Dept. of Biology.

Weber, W. A. 1965. Plant Geography in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Pp. 453-468, in The Quaternary of the United States (H. E. Wright Jr., & D. G. Frey, eds.)

Weber, W.A.2003. The Middle Asian Element in the Southern Rocky Mountain Flora of the western United States. Journal of Biogeography 30:649–685.

Weber, W. A., & J. N. Corbridge. 1998. Colorado Lichen Primer. 48 pp. 72 color plates. Univ. of Colorado Press.

Weber, W. A., & R. C. Wittmann. 2011. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope. (In press) University Press of Colorado.

Weber, W.A. 2001. Colorado Bryological Hot Spots. 1. Boulder Mountain Park. Evansia 18(4):1430–146.

Weber, W, A. 2007. Bryophytes of Colorado: Mosses, Liverworts, and Hornworts. 222 p., 8 plates. Pilgrims Process.

Weber. W. A. (With S. V. Clark and Vera Komarkova). Map of mixed prairie vegetation, Rocky Flats, Colorado. Inst. Alpine & Arctic Res., Occasional Paper 35:1–66, map.

Weber, W. A. (With Richard Zander). 1997. Didymodon anserinocapitatus (Musci, Pottiaceae), new to the New World. Bryologist 100:237–238.

Weber, W. A. (with Richard Zander). 2003. Anoectangium handelii (Pottiaceae, Bryopsida) in the New World. Bryologist 107:48–49.

Zander, Richard H., & Ryszard Ochyra. 2001. Didymodon tectorum and D. brachyphyllus in North America. Bryologist 104:372–377.

http://www.bouldercounty.org/find/library/environment/cropposter.pdf

LONGMONT — Four generations of the Zweck family have farmed on the west edge of town, but when the fifth opted out, the 230-acre operation seemed doomed to development. “The city limits are right on our fence,” said John Zweck, whose great-grandfather George Zweck purchased the property in 1863 from a Civil War veteran. Instead of selling their riverfront property to developers, the Zwecks offered their land to Boulder County’s Open Space Agricultural Resources Division.

Read the entire article on the Denver Post:  Boulder County agriculture division helps keep urban sprawl at bay.

Keith Bateman at his farm (photo by Dea Sloan)

Over the past few decades, Boulder County has seen the departure of a lot of farmers, making Keith Bateman’s long-term commitment to farming a notable one.

Keith grew up in Lafayette where his grandparents owned a dairy. Until he was 17, Keith farmed alongside his father in fields around Waneka Lake and up and down Baseline Road until his dad decided to get out of farming. A year later, Keith borrowed $800 to start farming on his own. Today, decades later, Keith is still passionate about the art of farming and being a good neighbor.

If you live in a house in Lafayette that is less than thirty years old and located between Indian Peaks golf course and the Lafayette Library off of Baseline, chances are your home sits on land that once was farmed by Keith, his father, his grandfather, his great-grandfather or his great-great-grandfather. Nowadays, Keith farms with his son and, god-willing, Keith’s grandkids will grow up to be the seventh generation of Batemans to farm in and around Lafayette, Louisville and Erie.

Each year Keith and his son grow brewing barley for Coors and wheat for bread, as well as corn, alfalfa hay, grass hay, and oats. They also raise about 80 calves. For the first time in 2011, they are growing high-fiber barley – a whole grain that can play a role in healthy diets to help to prevent diabetes, heart disease and obesity. This year Keith looked at adding organic wheat to his repertoire of crops, but he couldn’t find a suitable buyer for his crop.

One of Keith’s main crops is dryland wheat. He grows it up and down Highway 52 as well as in Louisville, where he leases a field on the Harney Lastoka Open Space that sits next to the Growing Gardens’ Kerr Garden, the historic farm and the ball fields, just south of the intersection of Highway 42 and South Boulder Road.

Keith is well versed in the art of growing dryland wheat and every bit of his artistry goes into that field. He leaves stubble in the field each year to protect the soil from wind erosion and to increase stored soil moisture which leads to healthier, pest resistant wheat plants.

Like most Colorado farmers, he uses pesticides judiciously and only as a last resort when the weeds reach a level that threatens the value of his crop. Keith takes extra care when the field on the Harney-Lastoka Open Space must be sprayed. The typical buffer zone for an organic field is about 100 feet, but to protect the organic vegetables in the Kerr Gardens, Keith has expanded the zone to 200 feet.

When he needs to resort to herbicides to protect the crop, he brings in a team of experts to help with the job, even though he could do it himself. The team carefully monitors the wind, air temperature, humidity and other factors to precisely adjust the droplet size and spray volume. Their fine attention to detail ensures that they use only the amount of pesticide needed to do the job and not a droplet more. As they work, Keith uses sensitive monitors, called drift cards, near the edges of the field to confirm that no spray gets away. One time he set up a drift card just a few feet from the spraying operation and even there there was no sign that spray was going anywhere other than it’s intended target.

You’re likely to see Keith or his son out working in their wheat fields when they are planting the winter wheat sometime between the beginning of September and mid-October. They are back again the following summer to harvest that crop. In between planting and harvesting, Keith regularly monitors his fields to make sure everything is growing as it should. Weather permitting, in a good year Keith and his son grow enough hard red winter wheat to make 435,000 loaves of bread.

Learn more about How Wheat Works , a great interactive program from the Wheat Foods Council that provides the full farm-to-fork experience as you plant, harvest, mill and bake a crop of wheat.