fbpx

Category: Colorado News

  • Human-bear conflicts in Colorado continue to be dominantly linked to trash

    Human-bear conflicts in Colorado continue to be dominantly linked to trash

    DENVER – One-third of all bear reports in Colorado last year have been traced back to having trash involved as an attractant.

    Colorado Parks and Wildlife received 4,943 bear reports in 2020 and 1,661 (33.6 percent) had trash documented. Trash is not the only problem leading to human-bear conflicts. Bird feeders (411 reports), unsecured chicken coops (254) and livestock (391), among others, are all pieces of the puzzle wildlife officials document when tracing conflicts.

    Overall, the 4,943 reports filed on bears was down slightly from the 5,369 in 2019. Reports were up in the southeast (up 23.6 percent) and northeast (up 6.3 percent) regions of the state, but down in the northwest (23.5 percent) and southwest (18.6 percent).

    “Unfortunately I would classify 2020 as a fairly ‘normal’ year for bear activity,” said Area 8 Wildlife Manager Matt Yamashita. “‘Unfortunate’ is in reference to the still substantial number of conflict bear calls across the state. Compared to 2019 statistics it appears that human-bear conflict numbers have decreased and the situation is improving. However, wildlife managers are hesitant to draw conclusions from a comparison between two years.

    “As with many aspects of wildlife management, managers look to identify trends in data over several years to ensure that change is persistent and meaningful.”

    Read the full Q&A on bear conflicts with Area Wildlife Manager Matt Yamashita.

    CPW euthanized 120 bears in 2020 and relocated 89. The number of bears put down and relocated in the previous five years: 2019: 92 euthanized, 44 relocated; 2018: 63 euthanized, 24 relocated; 2017: 216 euthanized, 109 relocated; 2016: 36 euthanized, 16 relocated; 2015: 65 euthanized, 40 relocated.

    Trash and bird feeders are typically a bear’s first association with people. It is their first step that leads them to becoming habituated, or losing their natural fear of humans. After learning this house or neighborhood has easy calories available to them in those forms, the next place they may look to for more is in an open garage, or pet food on your deck, or even break into your car for a treat it can smell.

    Being rewarded with food over time makes a bear willing to take greater risks to get the calories it needs. The next and most dangerous step they may take is to break into a home. In 2020, CPW documented 362 reports that had bears breaking into homes, cabins, dwellings and garages (forcible entry into a garage, not walking into one left open).

    Breaking into a home is the leading cause of bears being put down. If residents want to take action to keep Colorado’s bears safe, securing their trash and not having a birdfeeder out from March until after Thanksgiving is the most important step that should be made. They should also ask their neighbors to do the same, because it takes a community-wide effort to remove attractants and reduce bear conflicts.

    CPW listed 687 reports associated with other attractants. Those can be pet food, BBQ grills, coolers or attractants in tents while people are out camping, fruit trees in your backyard, compost and others.

    Bear conflicts with livestock were documented 391 times in 2020 with most of those associated with sheep, goats or unsecured livestock feed. In addition to those numbers, there were 254 reports of bears getting into chicken coops and 74 beehives.

    For information on what you can do to reduce human-bear conflicts, please visit our website. Communities are encouraged to work with their local wildlife officers to identify the source(s) of conflicts where they live and proactively work together to mitigate the problems which lead to negative interactions with our bruins. 

     

    SPREAD THE NEWS

    COMMENT, Like, Follow & SHARE @I70Scout

    CURRENT EDITION

    WEATHER & TRAFFIC    PUZZLES    RECENT NEWS    ADVERTISE WITH US

     

  • South Fork PD Seeks Information in Missing Person Case

    South Fork PD Seeks Information in Missing Person Case

    Police are seeking information about a 49-year-old South Fork woman missing since early January.

    Marlena Rena Mizell (DOB: 03/02/1971) was last seen leaving the Rainbow Motel (30359 HWY 160, South Fork CO) in South Fork just before noon on January 2, 2021. She has had no contact with family or friends since.

    Mizell has brown hair and blue eyes. She’s 5’1” tall and weighs 140 lbs., and was last seen wearing black pants and a black shirt.

    The motel manager indicated Mizell drove from the motel in a blue Ford Focus hatchback (similar to the photo shown). The vehicle has a Texas license plate number of NMK6052. The front bumper fairing is secured by wire on the driver’s side, and the paint chipped away under the rear spoiler on the back making it appear like a gray stripe. Additionally, the rear window wiper is missing.

    Mizell was reported missing by her boyfriend on January 3, 2021.

    The South Fork Police Department is requesting assistance from the public in locating Mizell. Please call the South Fork Police Department at 719 873-1040 with any information connected to this case.

    “Our investigators have been working this missing person case for nearly a month and are seeking any new information that might lead to the location of Ms. Mizell,” said South Fork Police Chief Hank Weber.

    The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has been requested to provide additional resources in this case.

    Please see the images below of Mizell and the likeness of the car she was last seen driving attached to this news release.

     

    SPREAD THE NEWS

    COMMENT, Like, Follow & SHARE @I70Scout

    CURRENT EDITION

    WEATHER & TRAFFIC    PUZZLES    RECENT NEWS    ADVERTISE WITH US

     

  • Vaccination Update: Telephone Town Hall

    Vaccination Update: Telephone Town Hall

    Arapahoe County will lead a virtual town hall to discuss the latest COVID vaccination developments as they pertain to the counties overseen by the Tri-County Health Department. Officials from Arapahoe County will be joined by leadership from Adams and Douglas counties, and Tri-County Health officials will be on hand to take questions and provide updates.

    At the time of the event, join the conversation at www.arapahoegov.com/Townhall or call in at 855-436-3656.

     
    Date: February 4, 2021
    Time: 6:30 PM - 7:30 PM
    Address: Littleton, CO 80120
     

     

    SPREAD THE NEWS

    COMMENT, Like, Follow & SHARE @I70Scout

    CURRENT EDITION

    WEATHER & TRAFFIC    PUZZLES    RECENT NEWS    ADVERTISE WITH US

     

  • Stronger Building Codes And Other Rules Can Save Homes From Wildfires. Why Doesn’t Colorado Have A Statewide Law Mandating Them? Created

    Stronger Building Codes And Other Rules Can Save Homes From Wildfires. Why Doesn’t Colorado Have A Statewide Law Mandating Them? Created

    By Michael Elizabeth Sakas, CPR News

    When the East Troublesome fire hurtled towards Matthew Reed-Tolonen’s Grand Lake home last October, he made sure to lock up his family’s fireproof safes before they evacuated.

    “That was like the marriage license, birth certificates, all that kind of stuff,” Reed-Tolonen said. “I thought I was good. I was like, ‘All right, it’s closed.’ And this is an expensive safe, we’re good. It didn’t do anything, just ash.”

    Hundreds of Colorado homeowners now face the tough choice of whether or not to rebuild after last year’s historic wildfires ripped through mountain communities like Grand Lake. For Reed-Tolonen, rebuilding was never a question. He and his wife grew up in the area, and they got engaged on the empty lot where their mountain home would eventually be.

    “I’m kind of bummed out that it’s a question for so many people,” Reed-Tolonen said. “I get people are nervous because they had their dream home for so many years and it’s gone. But maybe that’s why it’s so much easier for us. We just got into ours.”

    Their home stood for less than a year.

    To better prepare their new home for a future disaster, as climate change fuels more fires that are bigger and more destructive, Reed-Tolonen said he’ll likely keep trees further away from the structure. He’ll also rebuild with metal wainscoting four-feet up on the house’s exterior.

    “Other than that, it’s going to be wood siding again,” he said.

    There are other siding materials that are more resistant to wildfire like brick, stucco and cement-fiber.

    But unlike in California, there are no statewide laws in Colorado that require people like Reed-Tolonen to build with certain materials or mandate how they manage their land.

    Thoughtful changes to both can greatly increase the chances of a home surviving a wildfire, according to the National Fire Protection Association.

    “There are many layers of difficulty with doing something like that,” said Lisa Dale, a lecturer at Columbia University in the sustainable development program.

    A task force learned that in a local-control state, it’s hard to pass statewide laws — even when they would save homes.

    Dale was part of a 2013 Colorado task force that looked at the best ways to protect people and property after one of the state’s most destructive wildfire seasons ever. The previous year, six people were killed, more than 640 structures were destroyed and more than 30,000 people were forced to evacuate.

    The group’s final report suggested the state create a model ordinance for homes built in areas at risk for wildfire. That mandate could include building codes since the use of fire-resistant building material has been found to be one of the most effective measures at preventing a home from burning down. It could also establish defensible space requirements, which would specify how the area around a home is landscaped and maintained.

    California has laws for both. The state adopted a mandatory building code for new homes built in wildfire-prone areas in 2008, and recent fires suggest that the change is likely keeping homes from burning down.

    The Colorado task force recommended that either the wildfire code be mandated for areas at risk for wildfire by the state or that the model ordinance would be something local governments could adopt.

    “We had people in the group from the insurance industry, from the building industry, from conservation groups. And we really thought, well if we can come to some agreement within the group, then surely that agreement will also be reflected out there in the real world,” Dale said.

    Eight years and numerous disastrous wildfires later, no model ordinance exists. The effort died at the State Capitol. Dale said she’s not surprised.

    “Those elected officials were also being contacted by lobbyists, who represented some of those industries that were really concerned about these recommendations,” Dale said. “Legislators would have had to sort of override some of those pieces of feedback that they were getting from their constituents.”

    A 2014 committee tasked with proposing wildfire legislation rejected a bill that would have mandated a building code for areas threatened by wildfire.

    Democratic State Rep. Tony Exum Sr. of Colorado Springs was part of the group. He said they did get pushback from industry representatives on points like construction costs to homeowners and developers, who wanted to see those decisions kept to a local level.

    “We’re a local-control state,” Exum said. “It’s tough for us to create laws that override the local control in those areas.”

    A 2020 report from NPR showed that home builders groups felt that local governments should determine their own codes and rely on educating homeowners about wildfire preparation through outreach.

    “I think we question the efficacy of a statewide [wildland-urban interface] code, because we support local codes,” Ted Leighty, CEO of the Colorado Association of Home Builders, told NPR. “We believed, and still do, that codes are best developed, implemented and enforced by local governments. Each local area has unique issues and circumstances and geography.”

    What can a town or city do if homeowners want to take the risk and keep the trees in their yard?

    Some places, like Boulder and Colorado Springs, have adopted laws on how new homes should be built in wildfire areas. In 2009 the Breckenridge town council tried to address fire hazards to existing properties with an ordinance that required residents to create a defensible space around their home. That meant cutting down some trees.

    Breckenridge Mayor Pro Tem and town council member Jeffery Bergeron remembers the heated community meetings. Residents were worried about “draconian government overreach,” and they didn’t want to cut down their “prized bristlecone pines,” Bergeron said.

    “It was like going to a knife fight with a Q-tip,” Bergeron said.

    Bergeron said the backlash is a prime example of why the state should take the lead on wildfire mitigation laws. Breckenridge residents were angry. Erick Buck, a local real estate broker, started a petition that collected enough signatures to force the town to kill the ordinance.

    “If the local people decide that that’s not the way they want to address the issue, then you know, that really is up to them,” Buck said.

    After his petition killed the mandate, Buck sat on a committee to help the town figure out how to encourage residents to voluntarily clear fire hazards around their property. Eventually, Buck cut down trees on his property and encouraged his neighborhood group to do the same.

    Buck said his community’s voluntary efforts show that codes and mandates aren’t the right way to address wildfire mitigation on private property.

    “If my home is going to burn down and I’m willing to take that risk because I want to have trees in my yard, that’s really up to the individual owner to make that decision, not the town to tell them,” Buck said.

    In Grand County, where Matthew Reed-Tolonen is rebuilding his home, county commissioner Richard Cimino said they would appreciate it if the state came out with a model wildfire code. But even if that happened, Cimino said the county would promote its guidance as voluntary and likely wouldn’t make any of it mandatory.

    SPREAD THE NEWS

    COMMENT, Like, Follow & SHARE @I70Scout

    CURRENT EDITION

    WEATHER & TRAFFIC    PUZZLES    RECENT NEWS    ADVERTISE WITH US

     

  • New administration offers hope for rightsized Forest Service road system

    On 20-year anniversary, Forest Service Roads Rule remains an unrealized opportunity

    Missoula, MT – January marks the 20-year anniversary of a Forest Service rule meant to rein in the agency’s vast, unsustainable network of roads—mostly dirt, and the serious environmental damage they cause. Commonly referred to as the “Roads Rule,” its purpose is to reduce, or rightsize, the sprawling forest road system— a legacy of logging, grazing, mining and poorly-managed motorized recreation. After two decades, progress has been anemic overall, and for most of the 193 million acres managed by the Forest Service, the agency has yet to identify a minimum road system that it can afford to maintain and that is environmentally sustainable. Now is the time to make good on the Roads Rule.

    When the Forest Service first enacted the Roads Rule, there were over 384,000 miles of roads resulting in serious harm to fish and wildlife. Today, 20 years later, there are still over 370,000 miles—representing just a 3.6 percent decrease in miles. And the lack of agency funding leaves 90% of these miles of road unmaintained. The intent of the Roads Rule was to move the forest road system toward a more “sustainable” condition, one that balanced ecological, economic, and social needs. Toward this end, the Forest Service made some progress—fixing over 1,000 road/stream crossings to reconnect fish habitat, and removing 900 miles of road in a single year. In addition, until 2018 new road construction had been on a downward trajectory. Yet, overall achieving a road system that is both environmentally sustainable and affordable has languished. The persistent lack of funding, coupled with climate change, puts that goal further out of reach. In addition, due to the Forest Service’s continued emphasis on wildfire suppression and timber production, the agency is now building more roads, even as it removes others.

    “Altogether, the Roads Rule is a policy that has yet to be realized or meaningfully implemented,” said Sarah McMillan, Conservation Director at WildEarth Guardians. “After 20 years the Forest Service road system is still as unwieldy as ever, still choking streams with sediment, and still fragmenting habitat that wildlife need to thrive. In the midst of the dual climate and extinction crises, we ask the incoming Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack to implement the Roads Rule to remove roads, improve wildlife habitat, and improve water quality.”

    “Roads chop up wildlife habitat on a landscape scale, to the great detriment of grizzly bears, spotted owls, wolves, elk, and many other species,” said WildEarth Guardians’ Chris Krupp “If wildlife are to have any chance to thrive and adapt to climate change, the Forest Service must greatly step up removing roads, not replacing them or building more.”

    “The Forest Service has a backlog of over $3 billion of road-related deferred maintenance leading to hard choices about which roads don’t get fixed each year,” said Marlies Wierenga, with WildEarth Guardians. “This Russian roulette approach means road failures deliver a big punch – blocking access for recreationists, dumping sediment into salmon and bull trout streams, and costing exponentially more to fix in the long run.”

    “Due to its myopic pursuit of trying to stop climate-driven wildfires across vast landscapes, the Forest Service believes most every road is necessary to reach remote areas for logging and fire suppression,” said Adam Rissien with WildEarth Guardians. “The agency’s hubris ignores research showing people cause a vast majority of wildfires, and that roads provide the access for many of those ignitions.”

    Background: While extractive industry always demanded road access across national forest lands, construction rose exponentially after World War II. Congress supported the logging industry by dedicating millions of taxpayer dollars to the Forest Service to construct forest roads everywhere and anywhere; through floodplains, up river valleys, along steep hillsides and over mountain tops. The desire to cut trees was the primary driver for road construction with little thought or planning as to the impacts from the roads.

    By the late 1990’s, as timber markets changed, the Forest Service began to acknowledge the growing body of evidence illustrating the harmful consequences from its poorly located, constructed, and managed forest road system. At the same time, the billions of dollars in Congressional appropriations that largely paid for building the road system were decreasing at a rapid pace. Conservation groups, fueled by a groundswell of public support, pushed the agency to change. As a result, in 1998 the Forest Service initiated a process to overhaul its road management policies. The multi-year effort resulted in the landmark 2001 Roadless Rule, that most people are familiar with, protecting millions of acres of national forests from logging and road building. At the same time, then Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck signed the Road Management Strategy Rule and Policy that went into effect on January 12, 2001, otherwise known as the “Roads Rule.”

    The “Roads Rule” was developed to deal with the vastly oversized and harmful forest road system. It required the Forest Service “to set a standard that each forest identify the minimum road system required to balance access objectives with ecosystem health goals; and to use a science-based roads analysis to identify the road network needed to serve the public and land administrators.” The new Roads Rule also required the Forest Service to identify unneeded roads for decommissioning, or other uses, and to prioritize those that pose the greatest risk to public safety or environmental quality. The Roads Rule’s intent was to move the forest road system toward a more “sustainable” condition, one that balanced ecological, economic, and social needs.

    Since its emergence, the field of road ecology has exposed the magnitude and breadth of ecological impacts attributable to forest roads. We now understand that transportation infrastructure harms aquatic and terrestrial environments at multiple scales. In general, the more roads and motorized trails, the greater the impacts. The construction, presence and use of forest roads can dramatically change how entire watersheds function, which leads to reductions in both quantity and quality of aquatic habitat. Roads produce both chronic and catastrophic erosion and sediment. Every time it rains, sediment from road surfaces washes into streams. Roads also harm wildlife in a number of ways, including: direct mortality (poaching, hunting/trapping), changes in movement and habitat-use patterns (disturbance/avoidance), as well as indirect impacts including altering adjacent habitat and interference with predator/prey relationships. Some of these impacts result from the road itself, and some result from the uses on and around the roads (access). Ultimately, studies show that roads reduce the abundance, diversity, and distribution of several wildlife species. For more information, see WildEarth Guardians special report, “The Environmental Consequences of Forest Roads and Achieving a Sustainable Road System, March 2020.”

     

    SPREAD THE NEWS

    COMMENT, Like, Follow & SHARE @I70Scout

    CURRENT EDITION

    WEATHER & TRAFFIC    PUZZLES    RECENT NEWS    ADVERTISE WITH US

     

  • CRIME ALERT

     

    SPREAD THE NEWS

    COMMENT, Like, Follow & SHARE @I70Scout

    CURRENT EDITION

    WEATHER & TRAFFIC    PUZZLES    RECENT NEWS    ADVERTISE WITH US

     

     

  • Colorado launches new COVID-19 vaccine hotline

    The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment launched a new call center for the public to ask questions specifically about the COVID-19 vaccine. Now through the end of January, the vaccine call center is open Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. – 10 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. Beginning Feb. 1, hours will extend to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The new toll-free number is 1-877-CO VAX CO (1-877-268-2926).

    Vaccine call center staff are trained to answer COVID-19 vaccine-related questions, provide information about vaccine providers across the state, and give general information about COVID-19. Fifty operators are available to answer calls and can provide information in multiple languages. Staffing will expand as call volume requires. 

    The 1-877-CO VAX CO number is the go-to for vaccine-related questions for the general public, but they should continue using the Colorado Health Emergency Line for the Public (COHELP) and 2-1-1 Colorado for general information about COVID-19, such as the number of cases in Colorado, the list of symptoms, or how you can protect yourself. 

    COHELP can be reached Monday – Friday, 9 a.m. – 10 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m.- 5 p.m. by dialing 303-389-1687 or 1-877-462-2911. 

    2-1-1 Colorado Community Resource Navigators are available to help by phone, Monday – Friday from 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. and can be reached by dialing 2-1-1 or toll-free 866-760-6489, or by visiting 211Colorado.org

    Right now, Colorado is in phase 1A and 1B above the dotted line of its vaccine distribution plan, which means frontline health care workers, first responders, and people age 70 and older are eligible to receive the vaccine. Until the vaccine is widely available and used, and community immunity is achieved, it is important to continue taking precautions to slow the spread of the virus, like wearing masks, avoiding large gatherings, and practicing physical distancing. More information about Colorado’s vaccine efforts is available at covid19.colorado.gov/vaccine.

    Continue to stay up to date by visiting covid19.colorado.gov.

     

    SPREAD THE NEWS

    COMMENT, Like, Follow & SHARE @I70Scout

    CURRENT EDITION

    WEATHER & TRAFFIC    PUZZLES    RECENT NEWS    ADVERTISE WITH US

     

  • 2020 Wildlife Rehabilitation Grant Awards will support rehabilitation efforts across Colorado

    These great horned owl chicks went to the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program for rehab after their nest tree was cut down.

    DENVER – Ten recipients of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s third annual Wildlife Rehabilitation Grants have been announced. The grants are offered by CPW to support wildlife rehabilitation efforts across the state.

    “These ten grants reach across the state,” said CPW Director Dan Prenzlow. “They include investments to expand rehabilitation facilities for the long-term and funding to help keep existing facilities open to meet public demand.”  

    “We had more than $48,000 in funding requests but only $16,200 in funding available,” said Jim Guthrie, Program Coordinator for the Wildlife Rehabilitation Grants Program. “There’s a big need out there. A lot of Colorado rehabbers run on shoestring budgets. They put in tremendous personal effort for the love of helping animals recover from accidents or injury.”

    “The rehabilitation of Colorado’s wildlife species often happens quietly, by a relatively few number of qualified and licensed professionals around the state,” said John Gale, Chair of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Grants Board. “They provide critical services across a diversity of species – large and small – often at great personal expense. Colorado’s grant program provides important support to wildlife rehabilitators, increasing resources and allowing them to help more animals.”

    The work supported through this year’s Wildlife Rehabilitation Grants includes:

    • Flight cages and equipment to overwinter bats at the Colorado BatCREW facility in Conifer
    • Continued construction of a new rehabilitation facility at the SonFlower Ranch in Brighton
    • Food and medical supplies at the Rocky Mountain WildHeart center in Colorado Springs
    • Veterinary and medical expenses at the Rocky Mountain Raptor center in Fort Collins

    The grant program was created through House Bill 17-1250. Funding for the grant program comes primarily from the nongame tax check-off program, along with fines from nongame wildlife-based offenses and interest income. For the first $250,000 raised annually, 10 percent is allocated to the Wildlife Rehabilitation Grant Program, which aims to provide funding specifically for wildlife rehabilitation centers. For many rehabbers, this kind of funding fills a critical gap.

    “On behalf of my fellow committee members and Colorado Parks and Wildlife professionals,” said Gale, “I want to extend our appreciation to Colorado taxpayers for their generous donations and continued investment in this highly successful grant program.”

    Applications for Wildlife Rehabilitation Grant Awards are due each year in early November. For more information on the grant program and application materials, please visit the Wildlife Rehabilitation Grants page.

    2020 Wildlife Rehabilitation Grant Awards

    Rocky Mountain WildHeart – Colorado Springs

    Lynette Carson – Beulah

    Colorado BatCREW – Conifer

    Emily Davenport – Sedalia

    North Park Wildlife Rehabilitation

    Wild Bird Rescue – Englewood

    Shellee Lawson – Bailey

    Rocky Mountain Raptor Program – Fort Collins

    SonFlower Ranch Wildlife Rehabilitation – Brighton

    Bill Main – Colorado Springs

    Caption for photos below: This red-tailed hawk was struck by a vehicle and had severe spinal and head trauma when it was brought to the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program for rehab. With time and care it was released back to the wild again.  

    SPREAD THE NEWS

    COMMENT, Like, Follow & SHARE @I70Scout

    CURRENT EDITION

    WEATHER & TRAFFIC    PUZZLES    RECENT NEWS    ADVERTISE WITH US

     

  • Latest Colorado Outdoors podcast episode discusses backcountry winter safety

    Latest Colorado Outdoors podcast episode discusses backcountry winter safety

    DENVER – Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s latest podcast episode discusses how to get in front of backcountry danger in the winter. 

    Click here to listen to this episode. All episodes of Colorado Outdoors can also be found on your favorite podcast platforms such as Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, Spotify, Pandora and more.

    Outdoor agencies across Colorado have seen an increase in park visitation and off-grid winter recreation. Recreating in the backcountry requires certain precautions and equipment to ensure a safe outdoor experience.

    Podcast host Mark Johnson talks with two CPW experts on winter backcountry recreation. Ben Plankis is the trails coordinator for the northeast region of the agency and Michael Haskins is a park ranger at Chatfield State Park who assist backcountry search and rescue teams with rescue missions.

    For more information on backcountry winter safety courses, visit colorado.com/WinterBackcountrySafety and take the Colorado Backcountry Winter Safety Pledge.  

    TOPIC LIST:

    2:40 – what do people need to consider when they head up into the high country

    3:56 – know before you go – Check Avalanche and Weather Forecast atcolorado.gov/avalanche 

    4:37 – equipment to keep you safe should you be caught in an avalanche

    5:40 – avalanche awareness classes

    6:38 – what to know if new to Colorado

    7:28 – what should you look for when in potential avalanche terrain

    8:05 – advice for experienced backcountry visitors

    9:40 – snow conditions this year and more people venturing out in the backcountry

    10:10 – guidelines for heading up into the backcountry

    11:38 – easy access into the backcountry can lead people into a false sense of security

    12:30 – what to do/know/have if you need help

    15:20 – COTREX trails app and cell phone GPS capabilities

     

    SPREAD THE NEWS

    COMMENT, Like, Follow & SHARE @I70Scout

    CURRENT EDITION

    WEATHER & TRAFFIC    PUZZLES    RECENT NEWS    ADVERTISE WITH US

     

  • State Fire Agency Announces Community Risk Reduction Week 2021

    The Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control (DFPC) is taking part in Community Risk Reduction (CRR) Week. CRR Week is a grass-roots effort by an informal group of fire safety professionals from across the nation. The goal of CRR is to reduce the occurrence and impact of emergency events for both community members and emergency responders.

    CRR Week 2021 will take place Monday, January 18, 2021, through Sunday, January 24, 2021. It will kick off on Martin Luther King Day, which is a national day of service.

    The idea is to help promote the awareness of CRR within the fire service by having a week where everyone can do CRR programs and demonstrate its importance to the fire service.

    Throughout the week, DFPC will publish one video a day, discussing the importance of community risk reduction.

    Follow CRR on social media via YouTube, Facebook and Twitter @CRRweek. 

    Learn more at crrweek.org

     

    SPREAD THE NEWS

    COMMENT, Like, Follow & SHARE @I70Scout

    CURRENT EDITION

    WEATHER & TRAFFIC    PUZZLES    RECENT NEWS    ADVERTISE WITH US