E-mail Story
Print Friendly Front Page 
opinion guest_columns
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Give Valles Caldera
By Gary Morton
Rancher
There has been much press about the Valles Caldera National Preserve lately. I would like to offer a different opinion of the grand experiment. I believe the concept of a self-supporting National Preserve is being developed and refined at the Valles Caldera.
Much of the past eight years has been spent complying with the government rules and regulations regarding public property. These requirements certainly stifle the ability of government and private entities to do business. The same well intentioned, but cumbersome and expensive government regulations that impede decisions on federal lands also apply to lands of the Preserve.
The Valles Caldera Preservation Act of 2000 created a management structure designed as an experiment in managing public lands differently. The Valles Caldera Trust has been in the proverbial fishbowl of public scrutiny since its inception.
The need for many different interest groups to be served is not easily accomplished. Some of these groups flatly oppose the other. The only common ground is the sincere love of the place; however each has a different vision for management.
The staff at the preserve has done an excellent job under the conditions. A new executive director, Gary Bratcher, the first with private sector and government experience is just getting started. He is the fourth director in six years. This highlights the fact that the work is difficult and solutions tough to achieve.
The Valles Caldera experiment cannot be compared to the management plan for the San Francisco Presidio that inspired it. The nature of the remote ex-ranch is quite different than a developed property in a major urban area.
While the enabling legislation was modeled after the Presidio, that is where the similarity stops. The Presidio is primarily buildings on a small piece of land, and the Valles Caldera is primarily land with a few historic buildings. Two very different properties with very different constituencies, some of whom do not wish to coexist with the others.
But just because the problems are great and solutions are elusive, should we admit failure so easily? The original legislation gives the Trust until the year 2015 to become self-supporting. Shouldn't the Trust be given the opportunity?
In the year 2015, if the Preserve is only partially self-supporting, would that be a failure or is it a triumph for the American taxpayer? If the various groups learn how to get along, is that a failure? Would we quit the game simply because we are behind on the scoreboard?
The alternatives to continuing the experiment are turning the Preserve over to the National Park Service or the National Forest Service. Visiting the Santa Fe National Forest — a drive from the community of Ponderosa heading north to Highway 4 — might be an example of what the Preserve might come to look like. Would it save any taxpayer money?
It might cause the management to start over with all the regulatory requirements to meet yet another mission statement. Those who wish to have immediate access to the preserve might be delayed even further.
Let the process have time to work. It has taken this long to prepare for the task set out by the U.S. Congress. It is an experiment in public land management that may just change the way all public lands are managed.
Change is always threatening, perhaps even more so to interest groups or federal agencies that might have to change themselves if the unique ideas incorporated in the Valles Caldera management regime can be successfully executed.
The American taxpayer may just be the winner in the end.
Gary and Suzie Morton manage the C R Ranch near Las Vegas and ran cattle on the Valles Caldera National Preserve in 2008. When he's not in the saddle, he may be behind an easel painting his favorite subject, the working cowboy.
You also can send comments via our comment form
|
|
