Three Valles Caldera community leaders recently appeared on the “KUNM Call-in Show,” which airs Thursdays from 8-9 am on the University of New Mexico’s public radio station, KUNM-FM (89.9), to discuss the possibility of the National Park Service assuming control of the Valles Caldera. You can listen to the entire program by clicking here.
The show’s panelists included Dave Menicucci, an outdoor guide and frequent writer of articles about the Valles Caldera; Tom Ribe, President of the advocacy group Caldera Action; and Oscar Simpson, the Conservation Policy Chair for the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. Host Arcie Chapa told listeners that Valles Caldera Trust Chairman Stephen Henry was invited to appear on the show, but was not able to attend (Chapa did quote from a letter written by Henry to represent his views).
It is noteworthy that none of the seven callers to the program supported retaining the Valles Caldera Trust as managers of the Valles Caldera.
Each call to the show is transcribed below in its entirety, as well as responses by panelists to callers’ specific questions.
First call, from TOM: “Good morning — Hi, my question involves the matter of hunting on the Preserve. Right now, the access for hunting is rather seriously restricted, and there’s a lottery process for hunting elk. And I know that the preserve management has been trying to essentially privatize the elk herd out there so they could charge more big buck hunters to come up there, and I’m wondering how hunting will be managed under the proposal that’s being talked about here.”
In response, Simpson explained that the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish currently has full authority in regulating how many elk and other animals are hunted on the Preserve, and how many hunters are allowed access. He mentioned how the Trust has charged a lottery fee of $25-$30 per lottery chance to draw elk, but that the Department still regulates how many residents and non-residents can participate and how many animals can be hunted. Simpson explained that, under National Park Service control, the New Mexico Fish and Game Department would still have authority over hunting.
Simpson then discussed New Mexico House Bill 11, introduced in this year’s state legislative session. “Now House Bill 11, they tried to take and privatize our public elk, so they could make money. They were going to privatize fifteen to twenty bull elk and sell them to the open market for ten to fifteen thousand apiece. And that would set a national precedent where the federal government would privatize the state of New Mexico’s, or the public’s, elk, to make money. And we narrowly got it defeated this last legislative session. So, that shows you to what degree this board will go to, or the Trust will go to, to make money.”
Second call, from JOHN: “Good morning — I’m sorry, I’m going to have to rush off before I can hear the answer. I just wanted to lend my support to the panel, in viewing the Valle as a part of our common wealth, something that really needs to be preserved. And this idea of monetizing public land is really ridiculous. I mean, it should be a preserve, not an amusement park, or a ranch, or a country club. And, I’m glad to hear the tone of the discussion here, and I really hope that the efforts to turn the Valle into a National [Park] Preserve are successful. Thanks very much.”
Third call, from KENT: “Good morning. My concern is, I think it’s discriminatory the way it’s being run now. I have friends and family that live up there, and I work up in the Jemez often on cabins. And none of my neighbors have been to the Preserve, strictly because it costs too much to go in there. We drive by it, and it looks beautiful, and it seems like all the people on the panel have been onto it. But, you know, none of us have been on because of the prices. And I think it’s just wrong. This is our land, as well as all these rich people’s land. And I think it discriminates against the locals and the people that can’t afford being on there. So, the other concern I have is this hunting thing. If you make it a Park Service [Preserve], don’t the Park Service, aren’t they against hunting on parks, and could the panel answer those questions? Thanks.”
In response to this caller, Ribe explained that hunting would continue to be allowed if the Valles Caldera were converted into a National Park Preserve.
Chapa then asked the panelists to respond to a portion of a letter to the editor by Valles Caldera Trust Chairman Stephen Henry:
“The Valles Caldera is different from other properties around the country. It is the hub of a region in New Mexico in need of economic and educational opportunity.”
Ribe responded to this point as such: “I completely agree with him in that. And I think the best way to stimulate economic activity for places like Jemez Pueblo, that are deeply in need of it, is to create a strong, but not overwhelming, visitor base for the Valles Caldera, so that people in La Cueva and Jemez Springs, Los Alamos, Jemez Pueblo, can develop these sorts of facilities that will serve the visitors coming through,” Ribe stated. “That is a tremendous economic opportunity.”
“Also, the possibilities of creating jobs for people in Rio Arriba County, the people who have lived there for hundreds of years, there’s a tremendous option for people from Jemez Pueblo, Jemez Valley, Los Alamos, Santa Fe, all these places,” Ribe continued. “People will be able to have jobs. The place — Valles Caldera has been damaged very heavily by the logging and sheep grazing in particular that happened during the 1930s. And the place is heavily damaged. There’s a lot of restoration work needed to be done. And I’m confident that the Park Service would, especially with the leadership that we’re seeing from the New Mexico Congressional delegation in Washington right now, we would see a tremendous effort to restore the place, and use local people to do that. So, the model we’re proposing is a very strong economic development model for New Mexico while not overwhelming the place.”
Fourth call, from BETSY: “Good morning. Thank you. The panel has discussed the high costs of getting access to the Caldera now. Would they tell us what the proposed development on the Preserve — the hotels and so forth — what kinds of costs are involved there?”
Menucicci replied to this caller: “Well, I can answer that. I’ve looked at the Entrix report, which is the VCT — the Valles Caldera Trust’s report on this,” said Menicucci. “They’re talking about between 21 and 50 million dollars of infrastructure development, and that includes paved roads, campsites, high-end lodges, hunting lodges, and lots of other activities. Now, not only is that a lot of money, but it probably violates what most people, at least the ones I’ve interviewed, have said they want out of the Valles Caldera. They don’t want this to become a commercialized recreational activity.”
“The other interesting thing about this 20 to 50 million dollars,” Menicucci continued, “is where they think they are going to get the money. They think they’re going to get it from the federal government, from loans, and from donations. Now, it’s a little confusing in the report exactly how they are going to do this. But it’s just hard for me to imagine how a bank, especially these days, is going to look at a piece of public property and say, ‘why should we loan them ten or fifteen million dollars for a piece of public property?’ Now, if this were private property, it’s different, but there’s a lot of assumptions in there that just don’t make sense. But 20 to 50 million dollars is a lot of money for infrastructure development. And they just can’t make it without that kind of development.”
Fifth call, from JIM: “Good morning and thank for taking my call. Let me just mention that I have worked seasonally in the National Park Service in the past, and when I observe what is going on with the Valles Caldera preserve being operated by a private board of trustees, it makes no sense to me at all. Why would you have a private board of trustees manage public land? It doesn’t make sense.
“Secondly, I helped organize an environmental forum for the Native Plant Society, with this particular topic being the topic of discussion back in June. And during the time I organized it, and during the time that that event took place, and we had several participants, there were a number of things I learned, as did I’m sure a number of people in the audience. But one of them is, and I — one of the points that was made that I learned was particularly from Dorothy Hoard, who is a long time volunteer, with anything natural in the Los Alamos area, she’s been President of the Friends of Bandelier for over twenty years, and gotten involved with the Valles Caldera, and what she pointed out to me about the Board of Trustees, you know, you’ve got like seven to nine people on this Board of Trustees, and they’re appointed by the President. OK, well, when the Obama Administration took over, they had at least three people that were Bush appointees. Now the Obama Administration’s coming in with recommendations from Senators Udall and Bingaman, and they’re terrific suggestions for members of the Board of Trustees, now they have to sit down and somehow come to agreements. And I hope they do a better job than the last Congress under the Bush Administration, where Democrats and Republicans wouldn’t agree on anything.
“And another thing I picked up from Dorothy is that these members of the Board of Trustees change every couple of years. So, you know, what she said was, and she works with this, you know, as a volunteer, and what she noticed was these people come in, they really don’t understand what is going on, or how to do this, and she says that by the time they figure out what they’re doing, their term is up. And so, the point is, you can’t have any continuity of planning when the Preserve is managed by a private Board of Trustees, So I think that the most common thing which all of these people on your panel are mentioning, is that this needs to be managed by a professional agency. That’s what the Park Service does. And they are professionals at it. I’ve worked with them. So, I don’t want to say any more. That’s my comment. And thank you very much, and I’ll listen to the response on the radio.”
Sixth caller, BOB: “Good morning Arcie, and your panel. Thanks for bringing this topic up and talking about it. I think I agree with the approach and what people are saying here and all the problems we’ve identified, and you know as a person of the public here in New Mexico, I’ve been really offended over the years that I can’t — I’m just not a rich person, and I can’t afford to go up there and enjoy what should be a publicly owned property because it’s run for an elite model of wealthy people — few people. And I think the management problem is one thing and I think that’s really sure — people are on the track of that. And I want to see that changed, too.
“I think the other thing is the funding of it. We’ve got to look at, and I’m sort of — I think it’s great that we bring this up, but I’m not encouraged by our Congressional delegation in the sense that they’re going to support it, even though they should. I see them — they just got together and pushed through a bill, an emergency bill for $350 million I think it was, to keep obsolete F-16s running out here at Kirtland Air Force Base. And yet, a few million dollars of that would have changed the whole nature of we are doing on the Valles Caldera. I don’t know about how we get to them to get them to change their priorities from all this militarism.
“And this is one of the legacies that we’re going to have to undo of the reign of Pete Domenici here in New Mexico. Things like this, and the WIPP sites, and all this dumping of waste in our state. So this is a good example about things we’re going to have to take up, and get some new thinking on it. I think people should get ahold of their Congressional delegation here and tell them, look, you know, put forward some solutions and change some priorities on this for us. So thanks very much for doing this, and keep working on it. Thank you.”
Seventh caller, ED: “Good morning. One quick comment. You stated at the beginning that it’s mandated by Congress that the place be financially self-sufficient. That mandate only occurs after the other mandates have been met. It’s something that’s oft-repeated and it’s an error. It does not have to be financially self-sufficient. In addition, the law does assume the possibility that it will not become self-sufficient. After the 18th year, the Secretary of Agriculture has to get recommendations from the Board, which could include termination of the Trust. I think the experiment’s gone on for nine years. We don’t need to go on for 18 more years before we terminate the Trust. So I appreciate the efforts of the guys who are on the program right now. Thank you.”
Simpson responded to this caller’s points: “I’ll just back that up. If you look at the enabling legislation, which is on the Valles Caldera site, it says that [financial self-sustainability is] a goal. It says that it doesn’t have to. And that’s something that you should strive to. But it’s not mandatory,” Simpson said. “You know, if you don’t have the limited resources to do it, then that’s the way it is. And that’s why we’re saying — the Trust has admitted they don’t have enough recreational resources or other opportunities to become self-sufficient without an influx of another $50 million. Alright, we don’t need to go through another nine years of waste and bad management. Let’s change the game now. We’ve got plenty of a track record. The Trust has already admitted it — that they don’t have the resources to develop it, under the, I guess, huge amount of staff and budget. So, let’s change the game.”
