Communication Towers - Commissioner Bender's Reply

I don't believe the EAB has failed in providing advice on towers and
bird kill incidents. The facts are
that yes bird kills happen every day as a result of collisions with
structures, rock walls, and even
trees. However, bird kill incidents of such magnitude must be based on
local conditions and species.
With all of the towers already in place, such incidents would have been
recorded.

This is why one of the conditions of this tower construction is to
monitor any impacts of bird
collisions and I would think that such monitoring is already or has been
inexistence for years locally.
I observe collisions into by own residence at least weekly and have
witnessed such collisions in trees
while working my farm during summer months. Should I remove my residence
and remove all the trees on my
farm to eliminate bird kill risk or not plant trees that may create
impact risks for birds?

I do remember an attempt almost ten years ago to place wind generators
up North for electric
generation, but opposition, Sierra Club, claimed that wind generators
killed excessive numbers of birds
and therefore the project was moved to Wyoming. This was all reported in
the Coloradoan years ago, but
since then I refuse to sign up for wind power generated electricity
because of the reported raptor kills
by opponents. My thought on it now is that if it's not good to kill
birds in Northern Larimer County,
why is it alright to kill birds a few miles away in Wyoming. It still
doesn't make a lot of sense to me
now.

I'm not saying that birds don't collide with towers or any type of
vertical structure. They do!

I did not have time to research or get involved in that land use
decision to not erect wind generating
towers then, but since then I have refused to sign up for any wind
generated electricity. No information
has been presented to refute those claims as of yet. The information
presented at that time was that the
blades of the generator did the damage and not the stationary portions
of towers. Such contrary
positions still make me question a lot of evidence presented in
opposition or support for many lan

There have been increasing numbers of environmental hoaxes revealed over
the past ten years and it is
becoming very difficult to separate fact from fiction. I'm not saying
that those kills reported are not
factual, but with the latest forest service frauds concerning endangered
species, most of us have to
evaluate based on personal experience. I lived under a 200 ft TV
reception tower for five years in
Limon, Colorado. I was under that tower daily and not once witnessed any
bird collisions or dead birds
at any time. I cannot make land use decisions based on events two
thousand or even 250 miles away and as
a result of a one time incident.

Nature is very cruel and unforgiving on all species. Just a couple years
ago, our state bird the Lark
Bunting was having a tough time as a result of a drought in Northern
Mexico. There was vocal opposition
to agricultural practices and threats to have agricultural practices in
Eastern Colorado reduced. These
were the same farming practices that sustained this species and were not
the culprit for its decline.
Now, that the drought was terminated four years ago, the Lark Bunting is
making a come back.

There are many reasons for species declines and there has been habitat
loss. If a tower can protect
habitat from residential development even though a couple birds may be
lost, I believe the habitat has
priority. I am not saying your position on the tower is wrong. My
decision has to be made on relevant,
consistent, and factual information to the issue at hand.

This tower project has been approved. Now, it's time to monitor and get
facts to inject in future tower
considerations. I am responsible for making decisions based on present
facts and not on assumptions or
predictions. I do this to manage the natural resources on my tree farm
and such ethical reasoning has
served me well through out all of my careers.