Cyanide bombs on public lands? Really?
Re: “White House resurrects dangerous cyanide bombs,” June 14 opinion column
I appreciated The Denver Postap recent opinion piece on the decision to once again allow consideration of M-44 sodium cyanide devices on public lands. Regardless of one’s view on predator control, these devices have no place in areas where families, children, and pets may be present.
There is simply no justification for placing lethal cyanide devices in areas where hikers, campers, hunters, mountain bikers, children, and family pets may be present.
Supporters argue that warning signs and regulations protect the public. Yet reports over many years have documented concerns about inadequate notification and signage. When a device has the potential to kill a pet, poison wildlife, or expose a child to a highly toxic chemical, “usually safe” is not good enough.
Although I live in Parker, my wife and I spend much of our free time exploring Colorado’s mountains, wildlife areas, and public lands. Like millions of other Coloradans and visitors, we enjoy these lands for recreation, wildlife viewing, and the simple opportunity to experience the outdoors. We should not have to worry about hidden cyanide devices while enjoying places that belong to all of us.
Public lands should be safe for public recreation. Congress should permanently prohibit the use of M-44 cyanide devices on public lands before another family experiences the tragedy that these devices can cause.
Dennis Shannon, Parker
If we are considering age, don’t forget Trump
Re: “One Boomer’s opinion, age should be a factor in selecting our leaders,” June 21 opinion
Guy Wroble is such a frequently printed Denver Post letter writer whose opinions are well articulated, and I often agree with and respect his sharp analytical vision on issues.
In his letter, Sunday, June 21, 2026, “One Boomer’s opinion, Age should be a factor in selecting our leaders.” He states: in recognition of his own declining mental factors being between John Hickenlooper’s and Diana DeGette’s age, he clearly suggests that inevitable and unpreventable aging brings loss of mental acuity and is detrimental for the electorate and diminishes the performance of elected officials. He states “We have also seen the electoral consequences of ignoring this with President Joe Biden.” Wroble goes on to advocate for voters easing older candidates out of office.
While it appears he is focused upon the Democratic electorate in this letter, I find his comments glaringly absent with zero mention, including the fading mental faculties of our aging, now 80-year-old Donald Trump, current and second-term elected president of the United States.
Myra Louise Bender, Denver
Weiser’s record on express-lane penalties
As Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser seeks higher office, voters should consider his office’s role in defending express-lane civil penalties that, in my view, exceed the authority granted by Colorado law. I have litigated this issue in court. The governing statute authorizes special penalties for users of the I-70 Mountain Express Lane because it uses the shoulder. Yet similar “safety” penalties are being imposed on other Denver-area express lanes despite the absence of comparable statutory authorization.
Unfortunately, courts have deferred to arguments made by the attorney general, even though they depart from the plain language of the law and are crafted solely to justify agency conduct.
The principle at stake is simple: state agencies possess only the powers granted by the legislature. If agencies can impose penalties beyond those authorized by law, and courts defer to legal arguments that disregard the plain language of statutes, legislative limits on government power become meaningless. Is the attorney general’s duty merely to defend agency actions or to protect the public from unauthorized government penalties?
The financial stakes are substantial. News reports have estimated that express-lane enforcement has generated well over a million dollars in civil penalties. At a time when Colorado faces significant budget shortfalls, there are obvious incentives to preserve such revenue streams. That makes judicial scrutiny of agency authority more important, not less.
Before voters entrust any candidate with greater executive authority, they should examine how that authority has already been exercised.
Charles Bradley Sutton, Loveland
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.
