Our little corner of Colorado has finally been noticed. We have done a great job of taking care of the land, but now "they" want the land, but they don’t want you.

They want to protect and manage the land for future generations. "Protect" means to lock up; "manage" means to restrict the uses. How is this good for future generations?

If you are young and able-bodied, or remain healthy enough, you can put on a backpack and walk out and see the land. What about the rest of us? What about our multiple, historical and traditional uses of the land?

You sat at the TV or you were too busy to get involved, so you lost those freedoms and rights so many sacrificed for. What about our elected officials? Shouldn’t they stop this from happening? Nope — not unless you get involved, phone them, write them or e-mail them about your concerns. What if they don’t listen? You have the power to elect someone who will.

How are they stopping our historical uses of the land? They are putting it into national conservation areas, or national monuments, or wilderness, or conservation areas, or roadless initiatives, or by reintroducing certain species which allow them to use existing land to remove more and more people from the land.

The lynx — are they endangered? There are thousands north of here. Someone should be concerned for the rabbits; there are not many of them left because of the coyotes, bobcats, hawks and eagles.

What should we do in regards to the national conservation area? If you support it, there will be 165,000 acres, or maybe 265,000 acres (they have been studying this but they are not sure yet) of land which will be closed or restricted forever.

Is it right to give up the rights of a few so a few others can have greater rights? If you support the proposed NCA, you are removing our options to correct this illegal land grab. If you support it, you are relieving the Secretary of the Interior of any responsibility for not following existing laws. Are we breaking the law by following through on the secretary’s directive?

Remember one thing: If this proposed legislation becomes law, the secretary "shall allow only such uses of the conservation area as the secretary determines will further the purposes for which the conservation area is established." The purposes are to protect and enhance the listed resources only. We are not part of the listed resources.

What happens if the President declares the area a national monument?

1. Nothing. NCAs and national monuments are the same in their legislative and allowable uses. NCAs can be more restrictive in that they must be managed in accordance with their purpose.

2. Nothing, unless Congress approves or ratifies it. The President can only stop future development; Congress manages the land.

3. We can ask Congress to withdraw or abolish the designation (it has been done twice previously in Colorado) because the secretary hasn’t followed the law.

4. At least we can attempt to have the size of the area reduced to something more realistic.

5. We can file a lawsuit to have the designation overturned, again because they haven’t followed the law.

We have several options available if we oppose the NCA. We have no options if we support the NCA. If the NCA is passed into law and a future secretary decided to allow our historical uses, environmental groups would sue, and they would win, because any judge would have to follow the law.

All public-land decisions should be made in accordance with existing laws, out in the open to public review and comment, not by a select few behind closed doors.