In an article in today’s Albuquerque Journal, Stephen Henry, the Chairman of the Valles Caldera Trust, misrepresented essential details of the U.S. Senate bill that would transfer the Valles Caldera National Preserve to the National Park Service. Click here to read the article. Non-subscribers must click on the “trial access pass” button to read this story.
Specifically, Mr. Henry misrepresented the portion of the Valles Caldera National Preserve Management Act (S.3452) that restricts certain activities on peaks above 9,250 feet in elevation on the Preserve. Henry is quoted in the article as stating:
“Ninety-two thousand feet [sic] also shuts down some of the major roads we have to transport people from one end of the preserve to another,” he said. “That can probably be changed, but who wants to run a national park known for its sightseeing, and no one can climb to the top of any peaks?”
However, despite Mr. Henry’s assertion, no restriction on climbing to the top of these peaks exists in the legislation.
Specifically, section 3(h)1 of the bill states that on 14 volcanic domes higher than 9,250 feet in elevation in the Preserve, “no roads or facilities shall be constructed; and no motorized access shall be allowed.” But the bill does not restrict hiking access to these peaks — it actually protects them from development and vehicular use.
As a matter of fact, in the nearly ten-year history of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, the public (with the exception of Pueblo members) has been entirely shut out of opportunities to legally hike to the top of all volcanic domes inside the rim of the Caldera at all times, apart from South Mountain, which was opened last year.
It is ironic, therefore, that Mr. Henry would be objecting to a bill by claiming that it would restrict hikers’ access to 14 stunning and dramatic volcanic domes, when under his leadership, the public has been forbidden to climb to the top of all but one of these peaks and savor the views of the scenic crown jewel of Northern New Mexico from nearly two miles high.
Mr. Henry also implies in the article that the legislation is inadequate because forest restoration and thinning priorities wouldn’t be tackled by the National Park Service if the bill passes. But the Journal article implicitly points out the weakness of this argument:
The new bill would specifically require the NPS “to protect and preserve the fish, wildlife, watershed, natural, scientific, scenic, geologic, historic, cultural, archeological and recreational values of the area.”
This would presumably allow for thinning to go on as it would at any other national park where tree density is a concern. Nearby Bandelier National Monument, for instance, conducts thinning operations.
During this crucial time in the post-Baca Ranch history of the Valles Caldera, debate should be encouraged as to the merits of the legislation. But all sides should stick to the facts.
