On the topic of Fires...

In another thread, a post was made about us living in the forest and on mountainsides and ridges and the threat of fire, etc. I think this is the perfect time to talk about Staunton Park--at Shaffer's Crossing, with housing developements all around, including Elk Falls Ranch, Conifer Mountain, Mountain View Lakes, and Woodside. This park is slated to open later this summer to day use only for hikers, horseback riders and bikes. However, the next phase is the one that includes Happy Campers.

Yes, campers. Complete with fire pits. Now the State Parks Dept says that fire is simply not a danger in their parks. They've never had a state park fire start from one of their fire pits. No worries. Do you buy that? I sure don't. And yes, I live in Woodside, which will go up in smoke when the park goes up in flames, so I'm a bit passionate about stopping this absurd and dangerous plan.

State Park's goal is to generate 80% of their operating costs. The most lucrative things to them in their business? Yep, you guessed it, Camping and Boating. Since there is not enough water on Staunton to promote boating, they must look at camping to make money. And don't think for a minute that it's not business with the aim at making a profit.

I am hoping that everyone will look at the situation, pull up a map (a topo would be the best that shows housing in the area), and contact the State Parks Dept to tell them your concerns regarding their stupid plan to have fires and camping. Personally, I wish they'd just build a Marriott on the corner and allow Day Use Only.

Contact info I have is:

Jennifer Marten, Park Manager IV

Staunton State Park

303-816-0912

Thanks I will contact them.

I don't live in the area and certainly wouldn't consider living near a powderkeg considering I already live near one on the south side of Burland. I am sure they are going to say that the firepits are safe. Yes, they are, when they aren't there making less chance of human error.

Isn't this Staunton Park already a done deal? Are the plans still up for comment and review?

The park is a done deal, but not the camping. They are going to open the park in phases. I do believe we still have a voice. We've stopped them before--or at least slowed them down--and I think that enough hoopla and noise, heck, they have to pay attention.

Two things. 1. It's a State park, and so the entire state has a say. If you could camp at Chatfield or here, which would you choose? The battle will be difficult.

2. There is ONE ingress/egress. ONE road in and out. Campers, hikers, etc, plus the people who live in Elk Falls Ranch all would need to get out. Picture that mess!

3. I know, I said two, but the other thing is the traffic on 285. Last estimate I heard was that there will be 1.4 million more vehicles to be expected per year on 285. Nice. (I do not have verification on that number right here, so don't nail me on it, I'm trying to find the proof right now!)

I'd vote for day-use only. Not sure it would stop the fire pits though, a lot of day use areas allow fires for cooking. It might help some.

Maybe you should post a sample letter we could all edit/email to the contact?