Ag overplays Ft. Carson expansion

A well-orchestrated campaign by a few liberal Farmers Union-style ranchers to oppose the U.S, Army's plan expand the Ft. Carson practice range by 100,000 acres in South Central Colorado was misguided from the start and is wearing thin as time goes on.

We'e not talking prime ranchland here. Ranches in this area have been "starvation flats" for years due to rocky, hilly terrain, chronic drought and poor economic conditions in the industry. State Rep. Wes McKinley of Lamar, a liberal Democrat and veteran critic of the military from his days serving on the grand jury that investigated the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant decades ago, has orchestrated the crusade.

His left-wing, anti-military slant never gets publicized--only his cowboy image as a lone voice in the wilderness for the poor downtrodden ranchers of southern Colorado. The dubious truth of McKinley's sensationalist charges pale in the face of the national security and economic justification of expanding Ft. Carson.

Since Ft. Carson already has several hundred thousand acres in the area, as well as a multi-billion dollar installation in Colorado Springs of longstanding, to expand elsewhere would be outrageously expensive. Ft. Carson is an important economic engine for southern Colorado and needs to be encouraged and accomodated, not fenced in and encouraged to go elsewhere.

In reality, the ranchers are only trying to drive up the price the Army has to pay for the land it acquires. Anyone familiar with ranching in the area knows that the highest and best use of the land is to sell it and invest the money. That'll produce more profit than cattle ranching there ever did.