sleepystork.com

This summer, millions of Americans are hiking, camping, fishing, and making lifelong memories in our national parks, forests and other public lands. But something troubling is taking place behind the beautiful views: The federal agencies that safeguard these places for us are being hollowed out.

Staffing and budget cuts at the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet. They are empty ranger stations during peak season, trail crews that never arrive, and wildfire teams stretched so thin they can’t keep up.

During the four years when I led the BLM, from 2021 to 2025, I saw what it takes to care for hundreds of millions of acres of public lands. It takes committed, dedicated people — wildfire crews, wildlife biologists, planners, law enforcement rangers — and it takes funding. Today, both are being stripped away at historic rates.

We can already see the consequences. As I write, flames tear through the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, burning down the historic lodge and scarring over 100,000 acres. The fire has raged for weeks since a lightning strike started it on July 4, and it may continue for weeks more.

Fire is part of the West’s natural cycle, but climate change and decades of suppression have made today’s fires hotter and more destructive. It just doesn’t make sense that the Trump administration is gutting the agencies responsible for managing fire risk when we need these experienced and dedicated people most.

More than 1,600 wildfire-qualified staff have been driven out of the Forest Service in recent months, and as many as one in four firefighting jobs remain vacant. To make it worse, firefighters are being pulled from the fire lines to tend to logistics for some forests, even in one of the most dangerous wildfire seasons in memory.

The administration has even proposed removing firefighting from the Forest Service entirely, a dangerous move that separates the rangers who know the land best from those dousing the flames.

People of all backgrounds celebrated when we collectively stopped Congress from selling off our public lands earlier this summer. But now, a clear and dangerous pattern is emerging: Shrink these agencies until they break, then claim that selling off or industrializing our public lands is the only fix.

This should alarm anyone who values the freedom these lands provide. Public lands are a great equalizer–places where all Americans have the same right to hike, hunt, fish or camp. And to unplug and touch nature. If we lose the people who manage these lands, our access will shrink under wildfire closures, roads will be gated and campgrounds will close. We’ll lose our freedom to wander.

It’s also a direct threat to conservation. Our public lands deliver clean water, clean air and wildlife habitat. Cutting conservation programs and abandoning fire-smart management will leave forests overgrown and ready to burn — with wildfires too big and too hot.

Worse still, future generations are going to inherit the choices made today. When the administration guts our parks and public lands to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, they saddle the future with parks and trails that are closed, crumbling roads and buildings, forests prone to even worse fire, smoky skies, and “No Trespassing” signs. The cherished traditions we pass down — teaching a child to fish or hunt, camping under a night sky, chasing butterflies — will no longer be available to all.

Westerners know what’s at stake. Poll after poll shows that people across the political spectrum want to keep our public lands public, healthy and accessible. That consensus is powerful, but only if we use it now. Either we protect the agencies that protect our public lands, or we watch the slow-motion sell-off unfold.

We must demand full staffing and funding for the agencies that manage our lands, and we must all stand together — hunters and hikers, ranchers and rafters, anglers and climbers — in defense of the places that belong to us all, and to future generations.

Tracy Stone-Manning is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. She is president of The Wilderness Society and a former director of the BLM. Like millions of Americans, she is spending her summer vacation on public lands.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

When Gov. Jared Polis announced a special session to address a so-called “budget hole,” he and partisan Democrats were quick to point their fingers at Washington, D.C., blaming Republicans in Congress for our state’s fiscal troubles.

The real problem isn’t in Washington. The real issue is right here at home, under the Gold Dome.

As a member of the Joint Budget Committee, I have a front-row seat to Colorado’s fiscal reality. The truth is, regardless of what happened in Congress, the Colorado state budget was already projected to start the next fiscal year at least $700 million in the red. Why? Because of years of overspending, a lack of priorities, and zero budgetary discipline from the majority party.

Over the last seven years, Colorado has added more than 7,000 new full-time state employees. We’ve created a brand-new department and several new offices. That is not the behavior of a state with a revenue problem; it’s the behavior of a state with a priority problem. One-party control placed more importance on growing the size of government and creating new programs than on funding the essentials like K-12 education, health care, roads, and public safety.

Rather than taking responsibility for their choices, Polis and his allies want to raise taxes again, only this time they’re aiming squarely at the people who can least afford it. Their plan includes ways to exempt Colorado taxes from the recent federal tax breaks — increasing taxes on overtime and doing the same for taxes on small businesses and job creators. These aren’t just “wealthy corporations”; these are the neighborhood restaurants, family-owned shops, and the very workers who are already struggling with the highest inflation in a generation.

This approach is cynical. It’s shortsighted. And it’s wrong.

“Right now, we don’t have the cash to pay our bills.” That’s not me saying it; that’s from the governor’s own budget director. So where is the governor’s plan to reduce General Fund spending, and why hasn’t he promptly implemented it? Did he suddenly forget how to issue an executive order?

Past governors, facing far greater economic challenges after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Great Recession, immediately cut spending and discontinued non-essential services. If Polis truly wanted the legislature’s help, he would have given us the authority in the special session to cut spending.

But in spite of the governor’s lack of action and unwillingness to work with Republicans, my colleagues and I are introducing a bill to save $663 million, and not a single person’s tax bill will go up. By pausing the refund in the family affordability tax credit that sends hundreds of millions of dollars out the door each year, we can close the entire budget shortfall without raising taxes on anyone. It’s a simple, responsible step to keep our budget balanced and protect essential services.

Colorado’s families are tightening their belts every month to make ends meet. It’s time their state government learned to do the same and keep more money in the pockets of hardworking families, small business owners, and employees, exactly where it belongs.

We need a serious conversation about spending priorities. That means reining in the out-of-control growth of state government and respecting the will of Colorado voters who have repeatedly said “no” to higher taxes.

I’ll say it plainly: we don’t need a special session — we need an intervention.

State Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer represents Senate District 23 and serves as the ranking Republican member on both the Joint Budget Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

A Denver Post news exposé on DoBetterDNVR’s lack of transparency and indifference to accuracy steamed a teapot tempest on talk radio and social media this past week. A national right-wing site, The Federalist, repeated the false allegations from an anonymous source, that The Denver Post reporter cooperated with the mayor’s office to doxx several DoBetterDNVR past contributors.

The victim narrative read like this: fight city hall and elites will try and intimidate you into silence!

The trouble with that story is that there was no cooperation between the paper and the government. Nobody was doxed — that requires addresses and malicious intent — and no one is trying to intimidate anyone.

For defending the reporter and journalism generally in my column last week, DoBetterDNVR fans littered my social media account with the word “communist” (and other c-words that cannot be repeated here), the usual vitriol, and miscellaneous fabrications. They get points for creativity for the Goebbels comparison; “fascist” is so overused.

Joking aside, this week’s teapot tempest prompts a serious question: how did an anonymous social media influencer gain the trust of 144,000 followers, and dupe a reputable newspaper to beleive they were doxed.

A city in trouble

I get the attraction to DoBetterDNVR, the anonymous social media influencer which posts videos of lawless behavior along with anti-administration commentary, facts, rumors, and misinformation. Not long ago, vagrants stole my sister’s bikes. A friend confronted one thief and got a bike back. Police were called. They did nothing but watch as another miscreant dallied about on the other set of stolen wheels. Unless my sister could recite the bike’s serial number, the police said they would not intervene.

Another family member was run over by a drunk driver and left for dead with 30-some broken bones. The culprit, though known, remains free on a technicality.

These instances of crime and injustice in the Denver Metro Area are infuriating, but I know they do not paint a complete picture. The plural of anecdote, after all, isn’t data.

In fact, crime trends in Denver are moving in the right direction. There have been fewer thefts, homicides, and drug and alcohol crimes in 2025 than there were during the first half of 2024, according to the Common Sense Institute. Though crime rates for most categories remain higher than they were in 2020, the homicide rate is at the lowest level in a decade. Though Denver could do better, the city did not make the most recent top 20 most dangerous cities list at U.S. News and World Report (Pueblo, however, ranked 11th).

These facts do not diminish victims’ pain or insulate authorities from criticism, but they do create a more accurate depiction of Denver than can be gleaned from individual experiences.

But if you believe that Denver’s crime rate is increasing, such facts are unsatisfying, and those who report them are unreliable. The human tendency to seek out information that confirms what we believe — confirmation bias — will drive you to a source on the Internet that corroborates false impressions. That’s why videos of criminal activity posted on social media are compelling. I can’t get my sister’s bike back, but I can look at a video showing a bum’s pile of disassembled stolen bikes and hope Denver Mayor Mike Johnston takes some heat for not sufficiently cracking down on these crimes.

While understandable frustration drives Denverites to an anonymous social media poster to “see what’s really happening,” they are ill-served by the quality of information they find there — a mix of facts, rumor, scandalous images, and misinformation. DoBetterDNVR seeks to hold city government accountable for enabling lawless behavior like vagrancy, public drug use, urban camping, and vandalism by exposing and posting it, a laudable aim, but its means are less than ethical. Good goals do not excuse dodgy deeds. That is likely why those named in The Post’s story went to such great lengths to pressure the paper not to publish their names.

Confirmation bias, partisan dislike for the current city administration, populist distrust of institutions, legitimate public policy differences, and the frustrations of city living explain some of it.

Also, the internet lacks the standards and institutions of older information technology that help consumers distinguish between information and misinformation. Social media, in particular, treats them indistinguishably.

The future of social media journalism

If history is any guide, however, such guardrails will evolve in time. This has happened with each iteration of information technology from the printing press to radio and television. Information technology democratizes access to information and the ability to synthesize and disseminate it. Conventions and institutions that enable people to distinguish fact from fiction, the honest from the dishonest, follow.

For example, the invention of the printing press fueled an astronomical rise in the number of books published. Anyone with access to a press could print anything. Manuals, like Malleus Maleficarum, published in 1487, claiming to show readers how to identify witches, became popular. Witch hunts, rare up until then, became common, leading to the unjust prosecution and execution of some 45,000 people, mostly women.

Critics of these books also used printing presses to express skepticism and demand evidence. Over time, the public started to demand the same. New conventions like footnotes and peer review arose and new laws governing copyright and libel. Over time, reputable publishing houses pushed out less honest ones.

Newspapers, likewise, have evolved. A 16th-century German invention, the initial broadsides reported anything writers found pertinent — rumor, opinion, fact, and falsehood. Benjamin Harris’s Publick Occurrences Both Forreign and Domestick, the first newspaper in the American colonies, published in 1690, was no different. Funded by political parties and subscribers, such papers were thoroughly partisan and parochial. With the mid-19th-century invention of advertising and the debut of wire services, papers became less expensive, less partisan, more factual, and less opinionated.

Papers also became a more lucrative business. Feeding their massive media empires, media barons like William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer competed for readership by printing sensationalist stories, gossip, and exaggerated claims. The era of yellow journalism did not last forever, however. Public outcry prompted reform. Papers adopted codes of ethics that demanded transparency, accuracy, and objectivity. These norms are shared by reporters on television, radio, and many news websites.

The internet with its websites, blogs, podcasts, videos, and social media platforms, has not yet caught up. People use proxies like site quality, number of followers, and agreement with content to determine trustworthiness.

But as this week’s controversy over DoBetterDNVR shows, these proxies are insufficient. In time, new standards and conventions will evolve.

Truth will prevail over error. In the meantime, consumers must do better in discerning the difference.

 Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Colorado does not have a wild horse problem as a recent Denver Post headline states. The real issue lies with the meat industry’s grip on our public lands. The federal government authorizes ranchers to graze an exorbitant amount of cattle in wild horse herd management areas. It is this industrial use of our public land that degrades it.

Instead of confronting the outsized influence of private industry on public lands, the state of Colorado looks the other way and scapegoats wild horses.

Evidence of this problem abounds in the data publicly available from the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) allotment reports. There are four grazing allotments in the Piceance-East Douglas herd management area, where a staggering 10,960 cattle are allowed to graze at various times throughout the year. Yet the Bureau of Land Management insists the area can sustain just 235 wild horses based on BLM’s outdated “aappropriate management levels” or population targets. Only 362 wild horses are allowed to graze in Sand Wash Basin, yet a staggering 12,026 sheep and 300 cattle are allowed to graze in three allotments there at various times throughout the year.

There are a measly 1,516 wild horses left in Colorado on 365,988 acres of land, according to the BLM’s 2025 program data. The fact that the state is now paying the federal government to deploy paid professional darters to expand its birth control darting program in lieu of violent helicopter roundups may make it look like Gov. Jared Polis is listening to public concerns.  But the truth is, Colorado’s wild horses are being managed to extinction. A model for the West? It should be anything but.

Research shows PZP sterilizes wild horses after multiple uses and results in risky out-of-season foal birth and behavioral changes that can affect the overall health of the herd. The widespread use of PZP is contrary to the true core intent of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, which was to restore wild horses as harmonious components of the public land ecosystem.

Colorado should not be throwing taxpayer money on fertility control merely to perpetuate the broken system that sacrifices the protections Congress afforded wild horses to the meat industry and other commercial interests. We have tried to get a meeting with Gov. Polis to question why he accepts BLM’s efforts to reach arbitrary population targets that it calls “Appropriate Management Levels,” or AMLs.

As the National Academy of Sciences reported in 2013, “How AMLs are established, monitored and adjusted is not transparent to stakeholders, supported by scientific information, or amenable to adaptation with new information and environmental and social change.”  The BLM, which commissioned this report, has never sought to correct these problems.

It is a national disgrace that there are now more wild horses in captivity — 59,622 — than roaming free. There are only 53,797 wild horses left on federal public lands.

It is high time to halt the roundups and the birth control and to stop blaming wild horses for the severe damage the meat and other industries inflict on federal public lands.  Of the 245 million acres of public land managed by the BLM alone, 155 million is open to livestock grazing. By contrast, BLM restricts wild horses to less than 27 million acres. In all, roughly 2 million cattle graze public lands, not to mention sheep, and the government has authorized thousands of oil, gas and mineral extraction projects on these areas as well.

Recent studies show that wild equids are key to healthy ecosystems and play a vital role by increasing ecosystem resiliency and buffering against negative impacts of climate change. The Equid Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Species Survival Commission recommends minimum populations of 2,500 individuals for the conservation of genetic diversity. Currently, no single herd management area has a minimal viable population for the long term, nor does the entire state of Colorado.

In The Denver Post article, a darter comments that “the wild horses don’t like them very much.”  Well, who could blame them? They are literally fighting for their survival.

Jennifer Best is the director of Friends of Animals Wildlife Law Program based in Greenwood Village. FoA is an international animal advocacy group founded in 1957.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

When I think about artificial intelligence gone wrong, the first image that comes to mind is the unblinking red eye of HAL 9000, the AI from “2001: A Space Odyssey.” HAL was designed to assist humans, but when his logic conflicted with his programming, he made a chilling decision: eliminate the crew. “I’m sorry, Dave,” he says coldly, “I’m afraid I can’t do that.” 

That fictional warning from 1968 is starting to feel real here in 2025. AI can now make decisions today about who gets a mortgage, which job candidates are interviewed, what content our kids are exposed to online — and who might fall through the cracks. The risks are no longer science fiction. 

That’s why Colorado passed the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (CAIA), aiming to prevent algorithmic discrimination and ensure more transparency in high-risk AI systems. It was an ambitious step — but like HAL itself, it now risks becoming a system built with good intentions but poor oversight. 

The law is replete with buggy programming, including vague definitions and technical assumptions that don’t reflect how AI actually works. It expects companies — many of them small or mid-sized — to explain exactly how complex machine learning models make decisions. But these models are often statistical black boxes, trained by third-party developers. The result? A regulatory system that’s difficult to comply with, hard to enforce, and likely to fail in holding the worst actors accountable. 

And just like in “2001,” when HAL’s creators gave him an impossible set of instructions, we’ve now put businesses in the same position: follow unclear rules, or risk being shut out of Colorado’s market. Some companies doing good work in health care, education and clean energy innovation are already choosing not to relocate here — or worse, planning their exit. Not because they fear regulation, but because they can’t survive the ambiguity. 

Meanwhile, the very harms this law was meant to prevent — algorithmic bias, price gouging, discrimination in lending or housing — may still occur. 

But there’s a way forward. As Colorado lawmakers prepare for a Special Legislative Session, we urge our lawmakers in Boulder and across the state to help reboot the system — this time with the right inputs. 

Core ideas must include a stronger, smarter foundation, including: 

• Clear disclosure when someone is interacting with AI instead of a human, particularly in sensitive services like health care, education, or housing;

• Explicit prohibition of discriminatory uses of generative AI under Colorado’s civil rights laws;

• Making it clear that “the AI did it” is not a valid excuse when harm is caused;

• Giving the Attorney General the tools to pursue bad actors using AI to deceive or exploit consumers.

Improvements like this don’t reject regulation — they upgrade it. They create clarity for innovators, protect consumers from real harms and ensure we don’t end up locked in a battle with the very tools we hoped would help us. 

According to the “Mapping AI Readiness” report, Boulder is one of the top ten U.S. metro areas most competitive for AI jobs. We rank high in AI research, talent and venture investment. Our university ecosystem, tech startup community and national labs give us a unique edge. In fact, Boulder is the #1 small metro in the country for AI job density per capita. At a time of major cuts to the City of Boulder’s budget, as we risk losing the ability to fund our infrastructure and human services, this growing industry could kickstart our economy and save the services we hold dear. 

In “2001,” HAL couldn’t be reasoned with. In Colorado, we can still be reasonable. It is time to fix this law — before it becomes a malfunctioning system that harms the very people it was meant to serve. 

Let’s not wait for a real-life HAL moment to show us why clarity, accountability and smart design matter. Let’s lead the nation not just by being first, but by being right. 

To our Boulder lawmakers: We’re counting on you to take the controls during this Special Legislative Session — and chart a smarter course for AI in Colorado. 

Jonathan Singer is the Senior Director of Policy Programs at the Boulder Chamber of Commerce.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

DIA smart to add nuclear as it’s now officially “clean”

Re: “DIA to explore nuclear energy as power option,” Aug. 7 news story

I commend Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and the CEO of Denver International Airport, Phil Washington, for taking a forward looking step toward addressing DIA’s future energy needs by seeking proposals to study the feasibility of building and operating a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) onsite. As air travel demand and electrification accelerate, ensuring a reliable, carbon-free power source will be essential to keeping DIA both competitive and sustainable.

Small modular reactors offer the promise of steady, around the clock electricity without greenhouse gas emissions — a critical complement to Colorado’s renewable energy portfolio. This year the Colorado legislature passed, and Gov. Jared Polis signed House Bill 1040, adding nuclear power to the list of clean energy resources that can be used to meet State clean energy goals. By exploring this option now, Denver positions itself to meet future demand with innovation, resilience, and environmental responsibility.

We should welcome this study as a smart investment in our region’s energy and economic future.

Art Curtis, Lakewood 

 Cutting mRNA research threatens cancer patients like me

Re: “RFK Jr. cancels $500M in funding for vaccine development,” Aug. 6 news story

As a cancer survivor three years in remission, I am deeply alarmed by the Trump administration’s recent decision to cancel $500 million in ongoing mRNA research. This move is not based on science but on political appeals to anti-vaccine sentiment.

My own chemotherapy and surgeries failed; only immunotherapy worked. The same mRNA technology now being abandoned for vaccine development is also at the forefront of cancer treatment research. It holds the promise of training the immune system to attack tumors with precision–offering hope to millions battling cancer now and in the future.

By cutting this funding, the U.S. is surrendering its leadership in medical innovation and delaying life-saving therapies. If my cancer returns, I want my oncologist to have access to the best, most advanced immunotherapies possible–not treatments held back because political leaders chose ideology over science.

This decision does not just jeopardize pandemic preparedness–it undermines the future of cancer care for patients like me.

Gregory Sullivan, Littleton

Don’t talk down to Democrats

Re: “Democratic Party needs to allow space for different voices” Aug. 8 commentary

I am sure Jenny Robins’ opinion column was well-intentioned, but it was also emblematic of why people are leaving the party. Her statement wreaks of elitism: “That means welcoming and not dismissing people who are still learning, evolving, and trying to do better.”

It implies that people who are not part of the Democratic Party are somehow ignorant or don’t understand, and consequently, are not on the same level and need to improve. She also goes on to imply that unless an individual embraces all principles of the Democratic Party, they are somehow less than perfect.  I found her statements to be very condescending.

Perhaps Robins should take a step back, let go of her sense of superiority, and try to understand that people are leaving the Democratic Party because they are actually informed. More to the point, perhaps the Democratic Party needs to learn, evolve, and try to do better to increase its numbers.

Rick Accountius, Longmont

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.