Debates rage over how, and whether, to return the animals to Colorado

Number 293, as she was known, was born and raised in the Swan Lake pack of northern Yellowstone National Park before she became the first confirmed wild wolf Colorado has seen in 60 years.

A restless yearling, the 1 1/2-year-old gray wolf was not the dominant female of the Yellowstone pack, which in wolf society meant that she could not start a family of her own yet.

Frustrated, she set off alone to find a mate, weaving a five-month, 420-mile trek across Wyoming before encountering the “Berlin Wall” of wildlife migration — Colorado’s Interstate 70, a mammoth, sometimes eight-lane, swath of asphalt directing a furious stream of heavy traffic through the Rocky Mountains.

Scrambling out onto the highway 30 miles west of Denver, witnesses said, she dodged several vehicles and managed to cross but struggled to squeeze under the opposite guardrail. Panicked, she doubled back and was struck by oncoming traffic. Within days, biologists investigated and confirmed that the wolf, wearing a transmitting collar, was indeed from Yellowstone, and had wandered there on her own before being killed. Her last meal had been a deer.

But 293’s fatal encounter last June was not in vain. Her discovery and remarkable story helped to inspire a new set of management guidelines that protect wide-ranging wolves who will inevitably migrate to Colorado from packs in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico. Moreover, recent key court decisions favor more wolf recovery in the West and have spurred momentum to help return the symbolic predator to its former Colorado range.

Recovery mother lode

Wolves who do wander here will be protected, agreed a 14-person panel appointed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife a year ago to confront the issue.

Following six public meetings, the working group — made up of two sportsmen, four wolf advocates, four livestock producers and two local government officials — submitted rule recommendations to the Colorado

Wildlife Commission outlining what should happen when wild wolves arrive in the state by themselves. “The recommendations are not a recovery or reintroduction plan,” emphasized Gary Sciba, a wolf biologist with the CDOW who provided technical assistance for the group.

“The focus was on migrating wolves only and the consensus was that they should be left alone to live when they arrive.”

The plan addresses negative and positive impacts wolves have on communities, habitat, big game and livestock. It lays out parameters for dealing with problem wolves, compensation guidelines for livestock loss due to wolf predation, management of prey populations and education.

It foremost states that wolves should be allowed to “live with no boundaries where they find habitat” but that “wolf distribution will ultimately be defined by the interplay between ecological needs and social tolerance.”

Other key components focus on methods to minimize livestock-wolf conflicts and provide monetary compensation for livestock, including:

• Allowing CDOW to re-locate or kill wolves causing problems with livestock or directly threatening humans.
• Establishing a state-operated wolfdamage fund for livestock losses that pays 100 percent of confirmed losses and 50 percent of probable losses. Those funds shall not be derived from sportsman dollars and should not encroach upon other game-damage payments earmarked for predators such as mountain lion, bears and coyotes.
• Having the CDOW, over time, bring the wolf into existing management programs and policies for other carnivores.
• Repealing an outdated bounty law for wolves.

“This is a good first step,” said Rob Edward, a working-group member and director of carnivore restoration for Sinapu, which advocates restoring predators to the southern Rockies. He points to the south San Juan Mountains near Pagosa Springs as prime habitat for wolf recovery because it has the fewest people and roads, plus vast acres of remote public lands.

“A recent Fish and Wildlife survey that showed 71 percent approval in Colorado for reintroducing predators proves this is what our citizens want,” he told a packed house of Fort Lewis College students last month. “The 25 million acres of public lands in the southern Rockies is a mother lode for wolf recovery that connects the south with established northern state populations.”

Judges rule for wolves

The possibility of a more definitive re-introduction plan for wolves in Colorado received a boost last month when U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones ruled for environmentalists in a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Under the Endangered Species Act, wolves must be recovered into a “significant portion” of their former range, before being downlisted from “endangered” to the less-protected “threatened” category. But in 2003, when the USFWS moved to take the wolf off the endangered list nationwide, giving ranchers more legal power to shoot them, it violated the act, contended Nina Fascione of Defenders Of Wildlife, one of several environmental groups that filed suit.

“So the judge ruled that wolves must be returned to the endangered status because the USFWS plan to de-list included some areas, like Colorado, that did not have legally or biologically recovered wolf populations,” she said.

However, in the Northern Rockies states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, wolf-recovery programs have been very successful, pointed out Ed Bangs, northwest wolf recovery coordinator for the USFWS. Those areas host 835 wolves, with the vast majority in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.

“It’s been an incredible success story; we have more wolves in more places with fewer problems than we ever thought,” Bangs said. “Yellowstone is the best place in the world to view wolves, but it will not be a total suc- cess until we get the wolves off of the endangered-species list. It is a bureaucratic challenge now.”

The USFWS is still reviewing the decision, he said, adding it is unclear what the recovery parameters are now for wolves.

The answer is the powerful legal language of the Endangered Species Act that demands more substantial wolf populations nationwide, said Defenders’ Fascione. “It doesn’t work to say wolves are recovered in Colorado just because they are in Yellowstone, that’s premature. A more suitable plan for the service would be to say, ‘OK, we have wolves recovered in some areas but they still need federal protection in others.’”

Mexican grays under fire

Meanwhile in the Southwest, the Mexican gray wolf has been brought back to some degree along the New Mexico-Arizona border in the Blue Mountain Range. Fifty-one wolves wander the desert mountains there, but have suffered under heavy gun-fire from opponents.

It is a felony for a private citizen to shoot animals listed as endangered, unless people are under direct attack, a virtually unheard-of occurrence with wolves.

On the same day that a federal judge ruled for more wolf recovery nationwide, a New Mexico judge dismissed a lawsuit by ranching organizations challenging the reintroduction program there. Judge Christina Armijo wrote that the livestock-owning plaintiffs’ claims lacked merit and had raised false allegations.

“The decision vindicates the hard work of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in putting Mexican gray wolves back in their rightful place, in the forests of the Southwest, and affirms the importance of science, not fear in this work,” said Susan George, Defenders of Wildlife senior counsel, on their web site.

Environmentalists applaud the Southwest program for its commitment to wolf recovery in an area with so much opposition. Defenders said Colorado’s plan is also pro-active and is improved in that there are no boundaries set for migrating wolves. In the Arizona-New Mexico project, when wolves cross a political boundary established for their range, they must be captured and returned.

“That’s goofy — wolves are not reading the recovery plan,” Fascione says. “They can’t be trained to not cross this line or that one.”

Ranchers’ fears real

But livestock depredation by predators is not an illusion, respond industry officials, and steps need to be taken to better compensate for losses.

“We couldn’t support wolf re-introduction because it is one more expense and problem we have to deal with, but we know the issue is unfortunately not going away so we have worked towards solutions,” said Bonnie Kline, executive director of the Colorado Woolgrowers Association, who is also a member of the wolf working group. “However we are not in the business to raise food for wolves.”

A key component of the recommendations is establishing separate funding for livestock confirmed killed by wolves.

“It should not come from funds that cover losses from other predators,” Kline said. “If Colorado wants wolves, they need to get out their checkbooks and figure out how to pay for it because sportsmen and the livestock industry should not have to shoulder that cost.”

Already cattle and sheep ranchers battle with predators such as coyotes, mountain lions, bears and eagles, said Casey Brown, who runs cattle in the San Juans. Adding another to the mix is not palatable and leads to revenue losses.

“How would you feel if you lost $7,000 worth of income in one year?” he asked. “That is what we’re up against. But there could be pluses (to wolf reintroduction) because they prey on coyotes and they are a real menace to ranchers, more so than wolves.”

So-called undocumented depredation losses are what pinch operations, Brown said. Defenders of Wildlife began a program in the mid-1990s that has paid $400,000 to ranchers who confirm predator losses with wildlife officials. But only 50 percent of an animal’s value is offered for probable losses, and many more are a total loss because there is just no evidence left.

“After all the other animals feed on the carcass, a hoof here, an ear there, you can’t tell what killed it so there is no compensation,” Brown said. “Our local wildlife guys work hard to get us a fair return, but the higher-ups say no because the proof isn’t there.”

Budgeting more money for loss of livestock would go a long way towards easing fears of wolf reintroduction in the state, he said. Other solutions could be increased guard dogs and stopping the practice of de-horning cattle so they can better defend themselves. To avoid wolves getting a taste for beef, carcasses should be removed from grazing allotments quickly.

Smith said it is critical that wildlife officials and agencies follow through with the promises they give. “If you religiously deal with problem wolves, whether they are killed or quickly relocated, then your credibility is going to go up, but it has to be consistent.”

Natural balance

It is a misconception that wolves by themselves will cause an elk population to decline, said Doug Smith, an expert on wolves, Yellowstone’s wolf project leader, and co-author of the upcoming book “Decade of the Wolf.”

“It is a combination of factors including drought, severe winters, hunting rules and other predators,” he said.

“But it’s true that you will have a better ecosystem integrity with wolves, than without them.”

The poetic saying: “What whittled the antelope so swift but the wolf’s tooth””applies to elk as well. They are alert, powerful animals precisely because of wolves preying on them through the ages.

Smith said research shows, with wolves in the area, elk move toward heavy stands of timber instead of remaining in meadows where they are more vulnerable. This improves stream ecology, restores cleansing wetlands,, prompts more aspen growth and also makes hunting more of a challenge.

“Their browsing patterns change and so they don’t camp out in riparian areas and willow stands eating to their heart’s content,” he said. “With wolves back in Yellowstone we have seen vigorous willow growth and this in turn has improved songbird and beaver habitat.”

This angers some hunters, because while the elk will likely still be in the same drainage as last year, they won’t be in the same meadow where they were handily shot before.

In Colorado, elk herds are growing out of control, and wolves could play a role in helping keep the population down to a more healthy number. Beyond that, say advocates, restoring the natural balance is a virtue worth saving.

“Where there are wolves, a primeval light turns back on in elk, they begin to move around more, they are more vigilant, the dance is restored,” remarked Edwards of Sinapu.

A ‘people problem’

“Wolves are actually very tolerant animals, it’s people that can’t live with them,” said Bangs. “The hopes and fears about wolves are exaggerated. They are not as good as some people hope, and not as bad as others fear.” Wolves tend to stick with traditional prey of deer, moose and elk, he said, noting that only 6 percent of wolves in the Northwest attack livestock, but because some do they have garnered an unfair reputation as indiscriminate killers of pets and livestock.

“We kill problem wolves to nip that behavior in the bud, but most do what they learned as puppies, to go for traditional prey. They are afraid of new things, like livestock, and most pass them by,” he said. “As a comparison, mountain lions eat twice as much big game as wolves, are more likely to attack pets and livestock than wolves and will stalk and attack people, which wolves virtually never do. There are hundreds of mountain lions in the state but you don’t see anyone arguing that there should be zero.”

There are no documented cases of a healthy wolf attacking a human being in modern North American, according to the Denver Post.

Smith agreed. “Wolves are a very polarizing issue and not many minds are changed; if you start out not liking them then nothing changes your mind and vice versa.”

He said in Montana, loss of sheep and cattle to wolves is “minuscule” compared to the damage done by bears, coyotes and cougars. Also, because wolves are so adaptable, reintroduction in the Northwest has done nothing to limit other land uses such as mining, road-building and logging.

But livestock producers disagree with numbers given by government biologists. Kline said the frequency of wolf-livestock depredation is actually much higher, especially on private property, because the statistics used don’t reflect the unconfirmed kills.

“Even a few wolves can cause a lot of damage,” Kline said. “Added stress on the sheep and cattle leads to low conception rates, there is increased management time with more predators, more guard dogs are expensive and all this means less overall value of your product.”

The argument that wolves “pass up” beef for dinner is suspect, Kline said. “In Colorado, where would the wolves go? There is a false notion out there that because we have a lot of public lands they can live there,” she said. “But that is the high country in summer. In the winter, wolves will migrate lower along with elk and deer where the habitat is much more fragmented with deeded property, people and livestock.”

Will other wolves make the long journey that 293 did, prompting more excited calls of possible sightings? Probably, biologists say, but whether that will be enough to result in a population of wolves here any time soon is unlikely.

Reintroduction will allow wolves to recover faster and therefore improve the chances of de-listing the species, allowing local wildlife officials more management control, but “that will be an uphill battle,” Smith said, “because with wolves nobody wants to know the truth.”

Geyser Trail dispute exemplifies conflicts when public, private lands meet

Disagreement is bubbling hot over the future of a remote Southwest Colorado trail that leads to the only natural geyser in the state.

The 1 1/2-mile Geyser Hot Springs Trail, located near Dunton off the West Dolores Road, is a primitive pathway. Sometimes hard to discern, the trail crosses private land and requires hikers at one point to ford the West Fork of the Dolores River, which can be 2 feet deep there.

To solve those problems, San Juan National Forest officials have proposed re-routing the first part of the trail, building a bridge over the river, and creating a 10-vehicle parking lot at the new trailhead.

The proposal has garnered support from the landowner whose property the trail crosses, as well as from the Mesa Verde Backcountry Horsemen and a number of citizens.

“It’s a simple solution to a simple problem,” said Erin Johnson, an attorney representing the landowner in question. However, some neighbors near the trail have weighed in against the plan, and a few other persons have voiced concerns that the improvements might be a prelude to charging fees at the site.

‘Like a Jacuzzi’

The dispute shows the problems that can arise at sites where public and private lands adjoin.

The landowner in question, Tom Griffith of Cottonwood, Ariz., says he doesn’t want to see major changes at the site, but that something must be done because visitors frequently trespass — sometimes accidentally, often knowingly — on his land.

In the process, he said, some tramp through a marshy area, scare nesting birds, leave trash, and cause him concerns about liability when they detour off the trail to use a bridge he built across the river to reach his house.

“There are people that have no respect at all for the fact that it’s private and they’re going to use it whether you like it or not and cuss you out for asking them not to,” he said.

The trail leads to the Geyser Hot Springs, which is touted in some brochures and on web sites as the state’s only natural geyser. However, the “geyser” isn’t akin to something at Yellowstone: Every half hour or so, the water bubbles modestly.

“It’s like a good Jacuzzi,” Griffith said.

The hot springs aren’t terribly hot, either, with the temperature in the 80s. Parking is limited to a small space off the road.

Nevertheless, the site sees occasional visitors. Some are well-behaved; some aren’t, Griffith said.

“Locals especially and the environmentally aware people respect the property rights and go where they think the trail is, which has been a problem because the Forest Service has not marked the trail well and they have bounced it around in different locations.”

Griffith said he built his bridge using an old railroad flat car placed on engineered footings, per Army Corps of Engineers recommendations. He said it’s extremely solid, but the Forest Service has declined his offers to allow them to make the bridge part of the trail if they would also assume the liability.

“I’ve heard the Forest Service rejects using railroad flat cars for bridges,” he said.

Many people faithfully avoid the bridge and wade the river, although, Griffith said, “it’s not a real good place on the river to wade, especially in the spring when the water’s up.”

But then there are others, he said, including “the local schoolteachers that come up and plead that they need to take their third-grade class across the water. Well, they knew that water was there when they came up.

“My problem isn’t with them using that bridge,” Griffith added. “I’ve offered it to the Forest Service since even before it was built, and they’ve refused to accept it.

“My problem is liability, plus the fact that people don’t stay on the trail and don’t respect the fact that this is private property. They throw trash and cans, they have picnics, they let their kids throw rocks in the river where there are fish.”

He said the worst offenders tend to be from out of state or even out of the country.

Filing suit

Griffith bought the 10-acre tract about eight years ago. Five or six acres of that lies well within the floodplain and can’t be built on, he said.

“We live in Cottonwood, which you may have seen on the news recently (because of flooding),” he said. “We are in that floodplain, so I’m very familiar with floodplains on rivers. The West Fork hasn’t flooded in who knows how long, and so there’s a lot of people that are ignoring what is really the floodplain on that.”

Another four acres is extremely steep, which meant that his options for home-building were limited to a site on the far side of the river close to the national-forest boundary.

Griffith built his house, a summer home, about five years ago. He said that triggered conflicts with the Forest Service when his contractor sometimes parked construction vehicles on national-forest land.

“I wasn’t up there very much then so I didn’t know about it till too late, unfortunately,” he said.

Relations further soured when contractors ran a water line across a short section of national forest so Griffith could get water from the Geyser Creek, he said. The pipeline has since been cut at both ends and vacated.

Eventually, because of the problems with people trespassing, he filed a civil suit against the agency demanding that the trail be closed altogether. “We didn’t want to eliminate the trail, but it was a way to get them to the table,” Griffith said.

A settlement agreement was reached under which the Forest Service is required to put up signs clearly marking the path and to conduct an analysis and seek comments for re-routing part of the trail.

“I’m confident Penny (Wu)’s going to put up the signs to properly mark the trail,” Griffith said. “She’s always been good to deal with.”

Wu, an outdoor recreation planner with the Dolores Public Lands Center, could not be reached for comment for this story.

“An unsightly springboard”

The center published a notice last winter seeking comments on the project, which includes building a new bridge for hikers, plus a 10- vehicle parking lot on public land in a meadow area.

A number of comments came in, some before the January 11 deadline, some after and apparently prompted by an e-mail from Johnson. Most were positive.

“Constructing a parking lot capable of holding up to 10 vehicles would be a valuable step toward making this interesting trail more safely accessible to the public,” wrote Michael Cochran of Dolores.

“The current parking is too limited and dangerous, and the trail across the river is slippery and dangerous as well. . . . I’m happy to hear this improvement is finally under consideration,” emailed Theresa Titone of Dolores.

But the law firm representing the nearby Dunton Hot Springs Resort sent a five-page letter vigorously opposing the plan.

“(I)t appears that the Forest Service is attempting to settle a dispute with a disgruntled, absentee landowner whose property is crossed by the existing Geyser Trail in a manner that is going to substantially displace and create new impacts to Forest lands and adjoining private property,” states the letter from Stephen Johnson of the Bendelow Law Firm, representing the Specie Ridge Holding Company, Inc. The corporation is owned by Christoph Henkel, who is an owner of Dunton as well as the neighboring Paradise Hot Springs property.

In the letter, the attorneys contend, “Issues involving unauthorized use of the private bridge, and proximity of the trail users to the new landowner’s residence, are a matter of easement administration, signage, education and enforcement. Such issues do not rise to the level of creating a need for the Forest Service to spend limited recreational funds to relocate the trail, build a new parking lot, and install a new bridge.”

The letter also argues that visitation to the Geyser trail is “minimal” and that William Moffat, who lives at Paradise Hot Springs, has seen just two to three vehicles maximum at the trailhead, except during hunting season. “There is no demonstrated need for construction of a ten vehicle parking area,” the letter states.

Griffith said he agrees about the small number of cars and believes the Forest Service wants a larger

parking lot to accommodate horse trailers for the outfitters who use the area during hunting season.

Moffat, who recently sold Paradise Hot Springs to the Specie Holding Company but retains a lifetime

lease as a resident, sent his own letter of opposition to the project.

“As a 25-year permanent resident of the adjacent Paradise Hot Springs property located to the south of the proposed parking lot, I find it totally inconceivable that the Forest Service would negotiate with a part-time land owner to settle a court issue. . . in a manner that greatly intrudes on the neighboring property where I live. . .,” he wrote.

“You apparently want to construct a parking lot in the middle of a pristine open pasture, which will serve as nothing more that [sic] an unsightly spring board for all the abuses and intrusions (including overnight camping) that will inevitably follow,” he said.

The Bendelow attorneys raised similar concerns about the environmental impact of the plan, writing that there is a saltlick across the river from the proposed parking lot and “locating a parking area in the middle of this meadow, in full view of the saltlick and winter habitat area, will invite abuse by hunters…”

Spending priorities

“They want to control everything around there,” Erin Johnson responded. “They just don’t want people up there. If this was across either of their front yards, they would be in the same spot that Tom is.”

But the Bendelow Law Firm insists that no increase in parking is justified, and if any additional parking is provided, the Forest Service should consider building a small lot for three to four vehicles along County Road 38, the West Fork Road.

Building a large parking lot would just draw more visitors to a fragile area that can’t really handle them, foes of the proposal contend. They point out that deer and elk winter and calve in the vicinity and it is prime habitat for the threatened Canada lynx.

“Given the pristine nature of the meadow area where the parking area trailhead is proposed to be located, the sensitivity of wildlife in this region, and the unique geothermal features nearby. . . exportation of these impacts from the existing landowner’s property to the adjoining Forest Service strip and the Paradise Hot Springs property, seems unwarranted,” the letter states.

Another letter of opposition to the project came from a citizen in Monticello, Utah, who questioned the need to spend money in such a remote locale.

“If you have money to spend in the recreation budget, why not maintain some of the many existing trails,” wrote Michael Wolf, adding, “If the Forest Service is going to spend money on projects that are not needed they better not come back later and claim that they need to charge the users of the public lands to pay for such projects.”

Griffith responds that, according to recorded easements and various accounts, the original Geyser Trail included a bridge (apparently since washed away), so the Forest Service is not doing anything more than restoring what was originally there.

According to Griffith, the Forest Service has until July 2006 to complete its analysis, balance the pluses with the concerns, and decide whether to proceed with the project.

“If people would obey the rules, I’d just as soon see (the site) stay without a new bridge and parking lot,” Griffith said, “because you’ll get a lot of people up there. But I don’t see any alternative.”

The bad news is only 14 readers took the time to respond to our survey on “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Our Area” in our January issue. The good news is the responses were all interesting and thought-provoking. It should be noted, by the way, that we staff members at the FCFP resisted the urge to fill out surveys ourselves, so these came from readers. Below is a roundup of answers. Not everyone answered all questions, and some people gave more than one answer. Where one answer predominated, we listed it in boldface. Otherwise, we just said “no consensus.”

1. The worst thing about living in your county:

(Readers were asked to fill in the county where they lived. All our replies came from Montezuma County except for one from San Juan County, Utah.)

NO CONSENSUS

There was a variety of answers:
• The meth problem “and the child neglect and crime that go with it.”
• Alcohol-related problems.
• Lack of shopping choices. “Wal-Mart is the only game in town which is affordable (awful place to shop),” said one respondent. “Not enough clothing stores,” said another.
• “Muriel Sluyter’s poisonous, hate-filled commentary in the Cortez Journal.”
• Pollution from the New Mexico power plants.
• “I can’t get an ungarbled reception of National Public Radio.”
• “Limited choices for air flights and the horrendous cost of airfare to get out of here.”
• Potholes in streets.
Other readers criticized attitudes and local views:
• Politics: “council and newspaper.”
• “The pervasive lack of progressive thought and action.”
• “Good-old-boy and -girl attitudes.”
• “Lack of respect for others, property, and the law, as demonstrated by violence and vandalism.”
• “People’s willingness to accept mediocrity in education, business, health care, etc.”
• “The unfriendly attitude toward newcomers; negative thinking.”

2. The best thing about living in your county:

RECREATION AND SCENERY

Nearly everyone mentioned the views, weather, and access to a variety of recreational opportunities. Other answers:
• Friendly people.
• Major landscapes with no lights (Mesa Verde and Sleeping Ute).
• Low crime.
• Little traffic.
• The Dolores Public Library.
• Cortez City Park; Parks and Recreation.

3. The most over-rated attraction in the Four Corners area:

THE FOUR CORNERS MONUMENT

This was the hands-down winner, with half of the votes. One reader called it “a joke.” Other answers:
• The Ute Mountain Casino and casinos in general, which received several votes.
• Churches.
• Cortez itself.
• The Cortez Rec Center.

4. The public official (local or regional) you believe is doing the best job in office:

STATE REP. MARK LARSON

The Republican from Cortez received 7 votes and many favorable comments. Sheriff Joey Chavez came in second with 3 votes. Others getting a single vote apiece:
• Canyons of the Ancients Manager LouAnn Jacobson.
• Mancos Mayor Greg Rath.
• Montezuma County Judge Todd Plewe.
• San Juan County Commissioner Manuel Morgan.

5. The public official you believe is doing the worst job in office:

NO CONSENSUS

No one received more than one or two votes. Those mentioned:
• Gov. Bill Owens.
• Sheriff Joey Chavez.
• County Commissioner Dewayne Findley.
• County Administrator Tom Weaver.
• Cortez economic-development specialist Bruce Johnson.
• District Judge Sharon Hansen.
• Sanitation District Chairman Bob Diederich.
• Former District Attorney Joe Olt.

6. What is the worst road or highway in the area and why?

HIGHWAYS 160 AND 491 (STILL COMMONLY CALLED 666)

Both received many votes. Among the comments:
• “Highway 666 north of Cortez, because of the high speeds at which many vehicles travel; too many people passing over double yellow lines at intersections; center lanes allowing vehicles to pass below the crests of hills (which they do without knowing what is in that lane over the hill); frequent very slippery and dangerous winter road conditions combined with reckless drivers.”
• “A toss-up between highways 491 and 145, with poor road conditions and careless drivers.”
• “Highway 491 south from Cortez to Towaoc. Too many drunks. Should be four lanes!”
• “Highway 491 – alcohol and drug-related accidents and some really amazing potholes.”
• “East/west Highway 160 between Cortez and Durango during sunrise and sunset.”
• “The stretch of 666 that is a bit north of Arriola – it’s coming apart.”
• “Highway 160 south to Towaoc, congested and very dangerous.”
• “666 south of Cortez. People drive much too fast.”
Other choices:
• McElmo Canyon road — “narrow, icy, no speed control.”
• “Cortez’s Main Street – potholes.”
• “Many roads are in poor condition, especially the gravel ones.”
• “No opinion. I think all roads are amazing.”

7. What is the most dangerous intersection in the area, and why?

NO CONSENSUS, BUT MANY OPINIONS

• South Broadway and Seventh St. This received two votes, with one adding, “Someone is going to be killed. Needs a light.”
• The four-way stop at the school-house on Lebanon Road. “Many run the stop sign from the north and south.”
• Main St. and Sligo in Cortez – “awful. Lights are set bad and the sun is awful both morning and evening.”
• Highway 491 (666) and CR M near the sale barn.
• 491 and Main Street – “confusing.”
• 491 and Road L — “Northbound traffic in a small vehicle cannot see southbound traffic coming over a hill.”
• Montezuma and Mildred – “confusing and dangerous.”
• Main Street to 666 by the Ute Café.
• “Any intersection in Cortez, if you are a pedestrian. This area is definitely not pedestrian-friendly.”
• 160 and Totten Lake Road, “Even with improvements, it’s still in a high-speed zone where drivers don’t anticipate others turning on or off the side road.”
• “All intersections with yield signs.”

8. What is the ugliest thing in the Four Corners?

TRASHY-LOOKING HOMES OR AREAS; TIED WITH POLLUTION FROM POWER PLANTS IN NEW MEXICO

The thoughts about the pollution were fairly similar, with several readers referring to it as either a yellow-brown or a blue cloud hanging in the sky.

Comments about trash were more varied:
• “A number of private properties with appalling accumulations of trash – junk vehicle parts, junk construction material, etc. (vehicles with flat tires parked on the streets).”
• “Shacks in Cortez residential areas.”
• A specific trailer on Highway 160 that a reader called “a sad introduction to Cortez.”
• Sandy’s Trash & Treasures on Main Street. “What does this show to people going through town?”
• “The whole area by the M&M – not a very welcoming sight for visitors.”
• The South Broadway industrial area, which received several votes. “The industrial wasteland look of Cortez as one approaches from the south,” one reader called it.

9. What is the most beautiful thing in the Four Corners?

THE NATURAL BEAUTY

Readers described the crisp colors and blue sky in autumn, the beauty of canyons and mountains, sunsets, sage-brush and wildflowers, and the view from the lookout at Mesa Verde. One reader cited Hovenweep, and another Cortez’s City Park.

10. What problem is most in need of attention by your county or town officials?

GROWTH AND ZONING

Montezuma County readers commented, “LIZ (Landowner-Initiated Zoning) won’t stand up to any challenges” and, “Need zoning code.” But there were many other answers:
• “The county really needs a Lady Bird Johnson-style ‘Keep Our County Beautiful’ program to keep trash-dumping and litter under control.”
• “Methamphetamine and the children who are neglected and abused because of it.”
• “Dogs barking, pooping, running on other people’s property. Dogs, dogs, dogs!”
• “There’s a sense of embracing ignorance and distrust that could be countered by local officials, if they would be so inclined.”
• “Short-sighted decision-making with an inspired vision for our area for the future, especially in land use, social services, and education.”
• “Change local attitudes toward preservation so the economy might be boosted by attracting tourists.”
• “The entire sheriff’s department and its turnover. Roads are second.”
• “Updating Colorado’s outdated laws that protect ranchers from taking responsibility for their livestock.”
• “We need tenants for all these empty storefronts and businesses.”
• “More streetlights throughout the town. It’s sad that our side streets are so dark.”
• “Bolster the local economy with existing resources.”

“And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given to him; therefore is he justified. But if one or other of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed . . . .” — Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith, from his Doctrine and Covenants, which includes the requirement to live polygamy.

In 1998 Mike Leavitt, then Utah governor and recently appointed U.S Secretary of Health and Human Services, said he believed polygamy was a protected freedom. After being informed that the practice of men taking multiple wives is illegal in Utah along with the rest of the United States, Leavitt then retracted what appear to be his true feelings on the subject.

The fact that the man now entrusted with the welfare of all American women could hold this benign view of such a scurrilous practice is just one of the many startling revelations in God’s Brothel, Andrea Moore-Emmett’s close-up and personal tour of polygamous cults conducted by former “wives.”

Unfortunately, Leavitt is far from alone in tacitly condoning the widespread and growing practice, which in grim reality couldn’t be further removed from the beatific visions of shared love and happiness presented by polygamous leaders to the public as well as to female recruits — many of them young, even prepubescent, girls obeying “revelations from God” conjured up by horny old cult leaders on the make. For instance, the book includes a bizarrre example of these March/December unions that took place at the compound of the decrepit Rulon Jeffs, a highly respected leader in Colorado City:

“As a houseguest, Leona (one of the profiled former wives) was able to attend one of the prophet’s many weddings. ‘It was right after he had a stroke,’ she says. ‘He was marrying a couple teenage girls from the Steed family, and he had to be held up and reminded of what his name was.’ By 2000, Rulon Jeffs, age 90, had an estimated 60 wives.”

Still, most political and religious leaders in positions to fight polygamy choose to look the other way.

America’s polygamous population is estimated at between 50,000 and 100,000 and growing, but other than prosecuting the most sensational cases of murdered women (referred to as blood atonements by the cults), child molestations and welfare fraud, authorities in states where these proliferating cults and families reside (30 presently, including all Four Corners states) do little or nothing, having no answers to the knotty questions that would arise if the laws were enforced. Should the parents all be arrested and jailed? What happens then to the plethora of kids? Should they go to foster homes or institutions? Where does the money come from for such a huge and most likely futile undertaking? And would it deter the practice in the slightest?

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in the border-straddling twin cities of Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah, openly practices polygamy with the full awareness of state authorities, yet it continues to grow. The FLDS Church recent built and populated a large settlement near Eldorado, Texas, and purchased two tracts of land outside Mancos (Free Press, January 2005), which is widely feared to be the church’s next community development project.

Many FLDS families, which commonly have dozens of kids, depend on welfare and food stamps to subsist. Multiple wives present themselves to social workers as single mothers while the patriarchs hide, smugly taking delight in “bleeding the beast,” their term for defrauding the hated government. The simple truth is that even its most vociferous opponents don’t know how “plural marriage,” which frequently involves incest, child rape, torture and other physical abuse of its female members and children, along with welfare and tax fraud, can be stomped out.

Morre-Emmett sets the stage for 18 women’s personal accounts of living their hell on earth with an overview of present- day polygamy in America — a movement that includes a host of renegade split-offs from the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (which renounced plural marriage in 1890), as well as a few fundamentalist Christian groups.

While the Mormon groups base their legitimacy largely on the writings of church founder Joseph Smith, the Christian polygamists rely on some obscure Bible verses for their claim of being divinely ordered to this lifestyle, giving fresh meaning to the old saw about the devil quoting scripture for his purpose.

But, as one discovers in listening to this sad chorus of voices, polygamy has little to do with religion, and everything to do with sex and power — i.e., supplying the dominant males in these cults with a variety of sexual pleasures through their power to pick and choose the fairest young females from the ever-increasing supply. Women are expected to have one child a year because, as it is succinctly put by the FLDS, they are merely “vessels to be worn out in childbirth.”

And never mind that this reduces them to breeding stock who receive llittle or no prenatal medical care and spend their exhausting days cleaning, cooking and caring for their growing broods, because this the life God intends for that half of his children who lack penises.

In “God’s Brothel,” Moore-Emmett notes that the Fundamentalism Project, a five-year study of the thousands of such cults and religious movements worldwide, concluded that they share these common threads: “All are patriarchal, anti-feminist, anti-pluralistic and anti-liberal, with a belief that God is male, that the man in the family is the ultimate authority and that freedom makes sense only in the context of what is sacred” (i.e, we are free only to follow God’s commands).

The polygamous groups and families examined in the book fit this profile perfectly, with each patriarch a law unto himself in all matters — such as the girls and women he will take as wives, who marries whom otherwise, who gets what amount of schooling, who deserves rare medical attention and what punishments are meted out for real and imagined transgressions of rigid rules guiding things as mundane as what food people of different status may eat. (One fugitive from polygamy recounts how she and her siblings would gather pigweed to supplement their sparse diet.)

This educational and interesting book is eminently readable, but at the same time not exactly easy to read. Following the women’s tales of the physical and sexual violence they routinely experienced, along with the constant humilation and messages of worthlessness, is distressing. The women and kids in these enclaves are treated just as badly as were America’s black slaves, or the women of Afganistan under the Taliban. They are mere property, to be used and exploited however their masters wish.

But this darkness is somewhat countered by reading that most of the women who gathered the considerable courage it took to leave their cults — despite having been deeply indoctrinated in their beliefs — are doing well, although the adjustment is difficult. Most had little education, limited social skills and few job skills; however, they all entered the modern world with a huge capacity for work, which serves them well as they forge new lives.

“God’s Brothel” was published just last year and is doing well, according to the author. During an interview with the Free Press, Emmett-Moore said her recent appearance on the Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” caused a huge spike in sales at amazon.com.

Let’s hope this upward trend continues. Books that both educate and outrage people about society’s injustices are all too rare, and this one needs to be widely read. More information about “God’s Brothel” is available from the publisher, Pince-Nez Press of San Francisco, at www.pince-nez.com.