In the Lafayette News this week, the description of the removal of prairie dogs (read: poisoning - ugly but still legal) from a parcel along 95th Street included a curious comment attributed to the property owner Tom Garvin. Although the article quotes an exterminator describing what occurred on the property, Garvin says he did not know of any extermination.
Misquote, sarcasm or a renegade exterminator?
And what to make of the citizen complaints from people nearby whose homes obviously lie atop previous prairie dog colonies? The indignation can only be paper thin; any deeper has to be a delusional failure to recognize their own involvement in the oppression of the p'dogs by developers. "Now that I'm here, the killing must stop!"
Here's a rough image though: The poison used releases aluminum phosphite gas, which results in diarrhea, cyanosis, difficulty breathing, pulmonary edema, respiratory failure, tachycardia (rapid pulse) and hypotension (low blood pressure), dizziness and/or death.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Misquote, sarcasm or a renegade exterminator? The smart money is on renegade exterminator. Just kidding. The exterminator was hired by either the land owner or the farmer who leases it. Nobody else would have the desire or the authority to remove prairie dogs from the property.
Are the nearby residents "using" the prairie dog situation to further another agenda? Perhaps. Was the land they now live on once inhabited by prairie dogs? I don't remember that being the base but it is possible.
Was poisoning the prairie dogs using aluminum phosphite gas a humane course of action? Absolutely not.
Any prairie dog colonies that might have been in existence prior to the homes at Indian Peaks would also have to predate the Beauprez family farm. As successful farmers/ranchers, the Beauprez' no doubt kept prairie dogs off their land to protect their crops and livestock.
Oh look, it's doktorbombay.
doctorbombay is correct, sir.
IP was started back in 1993. The subdivision that abuts the Garvin property to the south started development around 2003. The only prairie dog issue I am aware of in IP was an encroached of the colony near the water tank between IP and Waneka Lake, invading a couple of homeowners' backyards from the city land. That was mitigated with the city.
The IP subdivison abutting the Garvin Property has opposed the plan which would run a major outlet street into their neighborhood. That is the fallacy with these neighborhood watch programs when new developments get connected to existing ones, allowing contractors, delivery trucks, and strangers to drive thru the established neighborhoods for years. Ten years in my neighborhood.
What is the problem with being connected to the main roads of the town you live in? I heard the same concerns from people when I researched the Erie Airpark/Safeway connection on Bonanza issue.
At various times, those contractors or delivery trucks come to your house. The strangers to you could be the family and friends of people a couple doors down. Does it really just come down to wanting a quieter road vs any other momentary convenience connections offer? Perhaps this needs to be a new thread...
I agree. The road issue is a local concern only, with little thought to the overall value to the community. As far as I'm concerned, planning has the major road alignment already figured out, and this is for the benefit of those who already live there and will live there in the future.
At this time Lafayette has a few islands of communities that have only 1 or 2 exits to major arteries. Some of these communities are adjacent to other communities with no connection between them. In some cases this makes sense, to eliminate dangerous short-cuts through residential communities, but often it seems that these are defined by class gaps not public safety. Examples would be gated communities, where the idea is clearly to keep the unwanted out.
I see a vision in the major roads as they are planned and if you follow it there will be a continuous connection of streets that will access all areas of the city in a reasonable manner.
My interest, of course, is a nice bikeway through town, that is quieter than Baseline/Arapahoe/So. Boulder. You could go from Indian Peaks Tr. West of 95th through IP east of 95th, south around Waneka on Caria, north behind the new Walmart, then east on Lucerne. From this route you can access other roads that take you anywhere in town quickly. Very nicely laid out and well planned.
Let me clarify what I was talking about regarding connecting neighborhoods. All the new residential developments I'm aware of connect to a major arterial, like 95th, 287, Baseline, So. Boulder, etc. It is the second outlet that can cause big problems since the second outlet usually connects to a local street, not even a collector such as Indian Peaks Trail. For example, take Pascal east from 95th (south of the Burger King) and you end up in a quiet neighborhood. No problem until the big Markel development comes in and drivers exit east because of the traffic backing up at Pascal and 95th.
The reason there is the Thomas Open Space today is because the original 110 unit development was going to exit not only on Caria and jam up Caria and Baseline even more but go through Waneka Point on a quiet local street.
Until you have lived in a developing neighborhood and watched the semis and cement trucks come through with building material, steaming along 10 to 15 mph above the speed limit, it is hard to believe. And remember people are living, biking, and walking along these roads as the development fills out. Or witness the construction workers zooming along late for work or zooming out at 5 p.m. It used to be a weekly occurence to find boxes of empty booze bottles at the stop sign next to the golf course club house. Orange flavored cheap vodka was the drink of choice. Or areas filled with construction trash and boxes of empty beer bottles. Nightly theft on these sites was also a normal occurence.
So the issue is public safety, not neighborhood elitism. I'd also be careful of biking along IP Trail as almost every year some drunk driver can't negotiate the curves and blind spots and ends of plowing through the fences into someone's back yard. If you see a young tree among the mature ones, it's because some driver took out the older one. The neighhood kids bike on the sidewalks.
Of course, the funniest thing I saw was the city street sweeper careening along the Trail at least 20 MPH above the 25 MPH speed limit. Didn't realize they could go that fast.
And we have a neighborhood watch now.
Back to the Prairie dog issue....
This issue is on the agenda for the next meeting of LOSAC. While the city has a prairie dog management policy for public land, the city backed away from trying to regulate private land since this would very likely lead to a host of legal challenges. However providing the option of designated public land for relocation from private land is not something we have ever explored. The most likely properties are large ones we share ownership with the county, so if this moves forward we will need to get the county involved.
Hawk Ridge only has one entrance and it is off Arapahoe. It is very hard to merge into traffic. A second outlet should have been planned.
The big problem with prairie dog relocation is that there is not enough land for relocation. It would be good if the County found space but I don't think it is likely.
Or, perhaps Lafayette could invest in several black-footed ferrets thus putting the prairie dog issue back in the hands of mother nature.
Post a Comment