This fight will be won by nature

I keep hearing the same complaint from ranchers and Western Slope residents: wolf reintroduction was decided by Front Range voters who don’t have to live with the consequences. It’s a compelling story, but it’s also incomplete.

Colorado’s public lands belong to every Coloradan, not just the people who live closest to them. And the idea that Front Range residents are insulated from wildlife and wildlands doesn’t hold up. We fight the wildfires that start in those same forests, and we have a stake in how that land is managed, same as anyone.

That shared stake is exactly why Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s escalating lethal removals deserve more scrutiny, not less. Since June, CPW has killed at least two wolves for depredation, including a yearling from the One Ear Pack shot in August. To CPW’s credit, nonlethal tools were tried first. But it’s worth asking harder questions about who bears the cost when they fail, because many of the ranching operations most affected by wolf predation graze cattle on federal public land at rates well below market value, subsidized by all of us. When CPW kills a wolf to protect that livestock, taxpayers are paying twice: once for the discounted grazing and again for the wolf’s death.

If ranchers want a bigger say in predator management, that’s a conversation worth having. But it should include a conversation about the public subsidy their operations already receive on land we all own.

Wolves are back in Colorado because they belong here and deserve to be on the land they originally roamed. This fight is one that will ultimately be won by nature.

Felicia Lee

Colorado Springs

Another side to the story

I read Sunday’s Gazette article about the first women entering the Air Force Academy with great interest — and a somewhat different perspective. I was there.

As a member of the Class of 1977, I was one of the upper class male cadets responsible for training the Class of 1980 when 157 women, along with more than 1,400 men, arrived at the Academy in 1976.

The Gazette recounts disturbing memories from some of those pioneering women — being told they didn’t belong, being encouraged to quit and enduring treatment they considered demeaning. Their recollections deserve to be heard. But so does ours.

The article risks leaving readers with the impression that the extraordinary pressures placed upon these young women were primarily intended to harass them or force them out. That is not the Basic Cadet Training I remember.

Basic training was intentionally — and unapologetically — difficult. We yelled. We demanded instant responses. We enforced standards relentlessly. Basic cadets were exhausted, stressed and frequently uncomfortable in the “crucible” of basic training. And much of that was happening to the men standing beside the women.

Did some cadets oppose admitting women? Absolutely. Were inappropriate comments sometimes made? Almost certainly. None of us can account for every interaction among thousands of cadets half a century ago.

But that is very different from suggesting that an entire training system — or the upperclassmen administering it — were engaged in systematically mistreating women.

One important statistic missing from the Gazette’s account provides some perspective. Women did indeed leave the Class of 1980 in substantial numbers. But proportionately, fewer women left than men. Historical data cited from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) put attrition at approximately 38% for women and about 45% for men. My own class – 1977 – had an attrition rate of 41%.

That hardly supports the notion that the training system succeeded in driving women away. If anything, it demonstrates just how determined those pioneering women were and how hard we worked to help ensure their success.

And look at what that class produced…

One of those basic cadets became the first woman in Air Force history to earn four stars. Another became an astronaut, lived aboard the International Space Station and retired as a lieutenant general.

Many of their classmates — women and men — went on to distinguished careers in military and civilian life. They deserve enormous credit for those accomplishments.

But perhaps the demanding training by hundreds of us – and the Academy itself – deserves a little credit as well.

Those of us charged with training the Class of 1980 were confronting something unprecedented. The Academy was integrating women for the first time in its history, and we were expected to accomplish that while maintaining demanding military standards in 1976.

Did we do everything perfectly? Of course not.

Have expectations, Air Force training standards and our society evolved? Absolutely.

But most of us weren’t trying to make women fail. We were trying to make all of the basic cadets succeed.

Fifty years later, the remarkable achievements of the women — and men — of the Class of 1980 suggest that we got more right than Sunday’s article acknowledges.

David S. Zelenok

Colorado Springs

Let the public be heard

As El Paso County prepares for the Buc-ee’s appeal, residents deserve an answer to a simple question:

If evidence matters to the Board of County Commissioners, why is the public being given fewer tools to present it?

At the July 23 hearing on P261/P262, residents spent weeks preparing a coordinated, fact-based presentation tied directly to the approval criteria. Speakers organized their evidence, practiced their remarks and worked to avoid repeating one another.

Then, shortly before testimony began, the Chair announced that public speaking time would be limited to 90 seconds, down from the customary three minutes, and residents could not transfer their unused time to another speaker.

The community adapted. Residents reorganized during lunch, practiced and timed their presentations and delivered evidence anyway.

During the Board’s discussion, Chair Carrie Geitner emphasized the importance of evidence repeatedly. At approximately 6:16:48, she stated, “our job is to evaluate evidence.” She also said she wished the opposition had provided more specific evidence concerning traffic and safety. Residents had presented evidence on those issues.

Now, as the Buc-ee’s appeal approaches, residents have been told the public may have as little as 60 seconds to speak and will not be permitted to use PowerPoint or digital presentations.

That raises a legitimate concern.

The Buc-ee’s appeal involves whether the proposed use fits within the County’s Land Development Code. That requires evidence, comparisons and explanation, not simply opinions.

No one is asking for unlimited public comment. The Chair has a responsibility to manage a large hearing.

But fair process should also mean giving the public a meaningful opportunity to present the evidence the Board says it needs to make its decision.

If evidence matters, let the public present it.

This isn’t anti-development. It is a request for something every participant deserves: a fair opportunity to be heard.

Marti Zehr-Breedlove

El Paso County