E-mail Story
Print Friendly
Journal North: Home | Sports | Opinion | Obits | Entertainment
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Recreational Uses Are Best
In the case of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, standard business procedures apply, apparently, except when they don't.
The latest evidence: the preserve, formed in 2000, has failed since to audit its books. The long overdue review has now taken place, perhaps thanks to current director Gary Bratcher, a former cabinet secretary for economic development under Republican Gov. Gary Johnson.
The audits haven't uncovered any wrongdoing, according to Bratcher (records are available on the Valles Caldera Web site, www.vallescaldera.gov), although he does concede that misuse of funds may have occurred, involving purchases of clothing, food and entertainment and health insurance.
More importantly from point of view of both taxpayers and the preserve, there were not standard billing procedures in place for facilities rentals and grazing — two revenue-producing activities on the preserve. As a result, says the audit, the preserve may not have been able to collect all the money it has been owed.
That's would be a glaring omission in the case of a business, dedicated to making money, and it is also in the case of the preserve, which is supposed to earn money, too.
The Journal has long argued that the preserve's board of trustees should focus on the recreational and other uses for the land that bring in the most money, to keep the preserve open while not endangering its scenic beauty. The failure to audit — like the trustees' refusal to consider turning over the grazing leases to environmental groups willing to pay much more for them than cattle growers — is an indication that the board continues to be short-sighted when it comes to "optimizing the generation of income" from the property, as federal law mandates.
As it stands now, T-shirt sales bring in more money for preserve operations than cattle. Ditto elk hunting permits, and by a huge margin. According to a recent study commissioned by the board of trustees, the single most lucrative use of the 89,000-acre property may be as a cemetery — providing space for "green burials." As we've said repeatedly, all these uses should be up for discussion.
The conventional wisdom is that the preserve has to become self-sustaining by 2015, and that it must be operated as a "working ranch" — and that means cows. That's challenged by some who keep a close eye on preserve management. They say that federal law requires only that the preserve earn an income, and that, in 2015, its financial status should be re-evaluated. If the preserve hasn't become economically self-sustaining, it should apply for taxpayer funding to continue operations, according to the law.
Moreover, say the watchdogs, the "working ranch" designation extends only so long as that's consistent with other purposes, including fishing, hunting and other recreational uses.
Some might dismiss these careful readings of the law creating the preserve as so much hair-splitting. But the preserve's board of trustees should take heed. By the time 2015 roles around — or perhaps earlier — the winds of public opinion may have shifted and the arrangement that made it politically feasible to create the preserve in the first place may be out of date.
In 2000, New Mexico's senior congressional delegate, Sen. Pete Domenici, thought that making the preserve a type of business venture was the best way, in a Republican-dominated political climate, to ensure that the government could acquire the land.
Our national parks and monuments bring in a fair amount of money from entrance fees, back country permits and the like, and they sell a whole lot of T-shirts, too. But maintaining them as publicly accessible wild space requires federal staffing and public funding. In the near future — 2015 isn't all that far away — the board of trustees may find it useful to be in a position to argue the same for the preserve.
You also can send comments via our comment form
|
|
