A Jemez national park? Maybe later

Bill Waters once again fails in basic math skills and a basic understanding of the issue. First off, it is being looked at as a National Preserve, not a National Park as Waters states. This is important because traditional hunting activities will continue to be allowed in a Preserve. Second, it will cost the taxpayer less to have the National Park Service run it as a preserve than the terrible system in place now. The management system we have now is terribly inefficient and spends about 20 times per visitor what Bandelier spends and 3 times per acre what Yellowstone Park spends, but provides very few services in comparison. Want to do the taxpayers and public a favor? Put Valles Caldera in the park system as a National Preserve. Also, the editorial page editor needs to do a better job of understanding this issue before putting stuff like this in print. Lastly under NPS management, some fees will still be collected to help offset costs, but they will be reasonable fees that people can afford and there will be more of them collected because there will be more visitor use. In sum, new management will be an economic win for the taxpayer and for local businesses and for the land.

This editorial, in addition to being inaccurate, is a bit short-sighted as well. Economic crises will come and go--there will always be some excuse to not fund this--what is important is the long term protection of this amazing piece of land. Long after our current problems are over, people will be grateful that the financial sacrifice was made now. It certainly won't be any less expensive to implement later. I think that placing it in some NPS capacity is a good idea. Hopefully, the Park Service will be able to find the always tricky balance between public access and resource protection. In my experience, they do a great job--especially when they are properly funded.

Mr. Waters thinking is not complete on this issue. The public is already paying $3.5 million/year for the VCNP and would pay about the same when it is a national PRESERVE under the National Park Service. Further, the Trust that manages the VCNP is fraught with problems including private insurance coverage that restricts the number of visitors, politically appointed trustees who are often ideological and who have no experience in public land management, and their refusal to do a master plan for the Preserve as required by law. Further the US President must appoint the trustees and he has more important things to do.

The Trust has far too many problems to list here. Since it won't cost any more than it currently does to transfer the VCNP to a fully professional National Park Service as a PRESERVE, we should to it. This will stop the commercialization and incompetence and give us a real economic asset in New Mexico. This needs to be done fast before the Trust damages the place. Write congress and ask for the VCNP to be transferred to the NPS as a Preserve.

Ed Tinsley
Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Valles Caldera Trust
I was asked to consider serving on the Board of Trustees for Valles Caldera by Senator Pete Domenici, and subsequently appointed by President Bush in June, 2007. I am the current Vice Chairman of the Board. Over the past two years, I have heard unjustified criticism voiced largely by a very small group of activists who do not represent the overall opinion of the American taxpayer. Many of them feel they have a personal entitlement to the Valles Caldera without regard to what the intentions were when these lands were acquired by the United States government and the letter of the law in enabling legislation.
In a general sense, I am opposed to the United States Government acquiring private land, primarily because I feel the government struggles to properly maintain what it owns now. I feel that the United States Government should be less involved in private sector asset ownership rather than more. However, this “experiment in land management” as it is described in the legislation, was to be a test to see if we could take pristine lands, inject government ownership and develop a business model that would allow the lands to be enjoyed by all Americans without a being burden on the American taxpayer. I can believe in and support this approach.
The commitment by our Trustees in this process is that these lands are to be enjoyed by all Americans regardless of their economic position. A Revenue Enhancement study was recently conducted, and the premise was to develop a business model that would move towards financial self sustainability over the next decade. The emphasis was on inclusiveness and NOT exclusivity. This means that the Preserve would conduct its operations eventually without taxpayer expense and provide options for enjoyment to all Americans regardless of their economic situation. The financial audits have been completed for all years and reflect that this operation, even though slow to start, has been conducted with the utmost integrity, honesty, good faith and brave intentions. A public use and access study is well underway to determine what aspects of the needed improvements can be done balancing the public desires for access with the protection of the environment. The foundation for success is taking shape.
I am proud of the progress the Valles Caldera Trust has made in moving forward with its congressional mandates and direction from the Board. The Preserve can become financially self sustaining if our Senators and Congressional delegation will allow it to do so by simply supporting the enabling legislation and helping remove the governmental obstacles. We are living in an era of government involvement in our banks, auto industry and soon our medical coverage. All of this will be at the taxpayer’s expense. The Valles Caldera has an opportunity to go against this trend and stand on its own; unless we allow that small minority of voices to rule the day and win on their “ personal entitlement” approach. It is time our taxpayers stand up and say,“enough is truly enough” and allow this New Mexico treasure, the Valles Caldera, to be successful as envisioned.
I almost find humor in the accusations of lack of access that this vocal minority makes. I would ask you to review the following information and judge for yourself. The Valles Caldera staff is very capable to host all guests, and they are ready to welcome you to the Preserve and share the experience. All you have to do is take the initiative to do so. Please see for yourself by reviewing our list of activities at http://www.vallescaldera.gov/comevisit/ and the daily calendar of attractions at http://www.vallescaldera.gov/calendar/ViewCal... . I think you’ll agree that access is not a problem at the Valles Caldera National Preserve.
Ed Tinsley, Vice Chairman of the Valles Caldera Board of Trustees

The Trust is spending 3x per acre what Yellowstone National Park spends, for far fewer services. Putting a professional natural resource agency in charge and thus attracting more visitors will not only be a more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, it will be a shot in the arm for the local economy.
The facts of the matter spell it out clearly: the right thing to do economically and for the land is to put a professional natural resource agency in charge.

Ed Tinsley wrote:

Ed Tinsley
Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Valles Caldera Trust

the problem. People who don't believe in public land in charge of a public resource.

TJM wrote:

and oranges.

Ed Tinsley wrote:

<snip>

I'd suggest you watch Ken Burns' new documentary about the history of the national park system. I think you'd find a parallel between what happened at Niagara Falls and Yosemite when both were operated by private interests.

Stewardship of the land should not be a for-profit enterprise. It should not be a playground for the wealthy and powerful. If the park is public land, it should be open to the public, in a way that does not either damage that land nor require the public to jump through hoops to enjoy it.

It wasn't set aside so that you could charge texans $5K+ to shoot elk. It wasn't set aside for guides to host exclusive fly fishing seminars.

I will be writing my congressional representation on this. The park service needs to be managing this land; not a thinly veiled, hand-picked, private development corporation.

Current access onto the VCNP is provided as an "interim" program and is limited not only by concerns of liability but by the lack of facilities and infrastructure neccessary to provide access while protecting resources - the protection and preservation of resources is required in the enabling legislation.
The interim program is intended to provide access while a comprehensive plan for public access and use is developed. Now is the time to provide your input on access to the VCNP, the types of programs and activities that should (or should not) be offered, the types of infrastructure and facilities that should (or should not)be developed, the capacity or numbers of visitors that would be appropriate, and the mixture of public finance versus revenue generation that is reasonable.
You may share your thoughts and comments through an online collaboration through October 15th. To participate, visit our home page, www.vallescaldera.gov a link is provided. This process requires you to roll up your sleeves and spend about an hour considering all the elements invloved in a comprehensive plan. Short on time? Send an email to comments@vallescaldera.gov. To keep informed about upcoming meetings and opportunities to comment, sign up to be included on our mailing list. From our home page, select Mailing Lists from the top left corner and follow the instructions.
I am the Natural Resource Coordinator for the Valles Caldera Trust. Your comments either made to us or made through this type of forum are important to us.

TJM wrote:

The Trust is spending 3x per acre what Yellowstone National Park spends, for far fewer services. Putting a professional natural resource agency in charge and thus attracting more visitors will not only be a more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, it will be a shot in the arm for the local economy.
The facts of the matter spell it out clearly: the right thing to do economically and for the land is to put a professional natural resource agency in charge.

Comparing this place to Yellowstone? Laughable at best!

Chairman, Board of Trustees
The editor delivered a "common sense" approach to management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve for the near future. I think a huge majority of Americans, the Preserve owners, would agree. Most of the public interest regarding future activities at the Preserve seems to revolve around the restrictive public use at present, and fear of massive development in the future.
The Trust is presently doing environmental planning for public access and use of the Preserve. All programs to date are interim and, we agree, probably are much more restrictive than we anticipate them to be after NEPA planning is complete. The Trust needs your input into this process. Please go on line and participate.
Some would have you believe that the Board has made decisions to put considerable developments of buildings, etc., on the preserve. Such is not the case. No decisions have been made, nor are they being remotely considered at this time. The Entrix study was initiated to provide some input into at least some ways that financial self-sustainability could be reached. It has helped inform the process of planning. Some, few, or none of those concepts may ultimately be incorporated into the decision.
Again, I urge your participation in the process and I urge you to use that common sense.

Re: "A Revenue Enhancement study was recently conducted, and the premise was to develop a business model that would move towards financial self sustainability over the next decade."

Yadda, yadda, yadda. When will they stop "conducting studies" and actually make the Preserve accessible to us ordinary folks, rather than the very few who can afford to participate in one of their high-priced activities? Surely it wouldn't strain their resources to (say) open a few more trails for hiking or a few more streams for fishing. But instead they just keep "conducting studies."

This is not intended as a slam to the studies -- I know some of the people who have worked on them, and they're highly knowledgeable and skilled professionals. But enough already!