Petition to oppose Valles Caldera transfer

LAST EDITED ON May-25-13 AT 10:30PM (MST)[p]Didn't we already go over this? No they are not going to higher sharpshooters.. Yes, hunting will still be aloud... etc..

So what are the alternatives? What happens when it doesn't become self-sufficient??
 
"Didn't we already go over this? No they are not going to higher sharpshooters.. Yes, hunting will still be aloud... etc.."

Hire. Allowed.

Have you read the bill Jason? What does section (2) mean to you? Do you trust the NPS to allow hunting permanently? I don't.

The Game commission and Jim Lane are opposed. After the meeting in Roswell it seems as though NMWF is the only group interested in transferring the VC.

Why is that?





(1) shall permit hunting and fishing on land and water within the Preserve in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws; and

(2) may designate zones in which, and establish periods during which, no hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitats, or public use and enjoyment.
 
If it stands as is how is it going to be funded?

Seriously, it is easy to cast stones and fear monger but what is the alternative? Sell it to the highest private bidder...

1 and 2 is what happens EVERYDAY on public land..


J-
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-25-13
>AT 10:30?PM (MST)

>
>Didn't we already go over this?
> No they are not
>going to higher sharpshooters.. Yes,
>hunting will still be aloud...
>etc..
>
>So what are the alternatives? What
>happens when it doesn't become
>self-sufficient??

Jamaro,

Sometimes i wonder if you're pro-hunter or anti-hunter. Do you really believe that they will always allow hunting?

I signed it and will get others to sign as well.

Ray
 
Ah yes, deflect and conquer.

The Trust agreement still has 2 years to get on track. The trust also has a two year extension available if needed. If it doesn't the management transfers to National Forest. Why is it such a bad thing to let them do their thing?

On public land, we are not under the preservation concept of a National Park.

Why is the NMWF so interested in making this a National Park? Is there some national office influence here? Not trying to be a d, an honest question.

Turkey Federation, Elk Foundation, Game and Fish are opposed, seems like NMWF is the only one pushing for this. Why?
 
First I don't' think it is going to get on track in two years... Congress has been bank rolling the VC since day one. Those days are over. Even the VC Board is struggling to try and make ends meet. The Board can ASK for an extension but under the current political and fiscal climate it might not happen.

YES, if the trust is terminated then it goes back to SFNS without any special protection, Grazing allotments would be determined by the Forest Service and G&F would manage the hunting. It would just be another piece of land.

Everyone is always asking for remote country, more wilderness, BETTER hunting opportunities, well... This is our chance..

FOR ME and I only speak for myself.. The VC is an awesome place, let's keep it special, let's keep the awesome hunting and fishing on that place. I don't' want it to look like the rest of the SFNF...
 
Ray...
I fight for hunting rights EVERYDAY.. I will put my record up against ANYBODIES...

J-
 
>Ray...
>I fight for hunting rights EVERYDAY..
>I will put my record
>up against ANYBODIES...
>
>J-

With that kind of influence, maybe you can get NMWF to donate several hundred thousand dollars to VC to help keep it as is.
 
Since when is it the concern of NMWF where Congressional appropriations go? Are you aware that the VC is grazed and logged now?

NPS has a track record of preservation, not conservation.

They are the wrong government entity to take over VCNP.

How, pray tell is NPS going to manage it? The preserve is smack in the middle of two of NM's biggest metro areas. What happens when the NPS says that there are too many bird watchers for elk hunting to continue? You read section (2), right? Or are you reading into that differently than I am?

Something stinks here, my hunch is that the National Wildlife Federation has more to do with this than the "hooks and bullets charter" is letting on.
 
I signed it because I know how the NPS works and have seen them stop hunting and fishing in to many places.
As much as I hate to admit it,I trust the USDA-FS to operate it more. They seem to be able to continue to allow hunting and fishing on most other FS lands. The VV type system of a preserve, working with NMG&F seems like the right approach to me. Forest Service Preserves where around before there was a NPS.
Mismanagement has drained the Trust. And the FS already has a big presence in the area and allows hunting and fishing. Maybe in management speak,"More bang for your buck".
And I sometimes wonder why I became a member of NMWF. Was I deceived as to their agenda?
 
I still don't understand why the trust can't make ends meet.Maybe they need new management. I'm Leary of the NPS also but what choices do we have ? The FS dose a good job with the Valle Vidal and NMGF has managed the Elk herd well with the once in a life time hunts.The last thing anyone wants is for the Baca To fall back into private hands.If it comes to a choice between NPS or Private You gota go with the NPS.

CC
 
Jason-Has the NMWF had ANY discussions or input into this legislation with any NM Congressional delegation?
 
whats pathetic is that the government thinks they can make this financially feasible without the primary source of income being ranching. that is the best source of income. the VC used to be amazing as far as quality of elk and now under the current mgmt the quality has fallen off each year with fewer and fewer world class bulls being taken. i'm all for someone else taking over the mgmt of this ranch but not another government agency that has a history of opposing livestock grazing. it should be turned over to the forest service as and set up as a grazing allotment. in addition let the game and fish manage it for quality elk hunting like they do with the valle vidal.
 
In a country where corruption is rampant and the government spends billions of dollars it does not have on things like foreign aid and intitlement programs here at home you would think it could find a way to fund the Valles Caldera as it is now. But certainly there are other forces at play. Dont drink the cool aid! Someone stands to gain if this comes to pass. I say find a way to leave it as is. I personally donated over 5k this year in lottery tickets for my family and didnt draw but i will do it again next year because the VC is that special. And i am a NR thats in it for that one measly tag per hunt!!
 
>Jason-Has the NMWF had ANY discussions
>or input into this legislation
>with any NM Congressional delegation?
>


"Any"... I am not sure, I haven't and I haven't heard anything at the BOD Meetings... I would suspect that they reached out and asked for support but the BOD has approved any proposals.
 
They do have other options that will protect the hunting. They could leave it to the Forest Service and give it a designation similar to the Valle Vidal. They could make a large portion wilderness. They could add language that is much more specific to protecting hunting.

Turning it over to the NPS is the worst option. They WILL screw up the hunting experience if it becomes a National Park. There isn't an NP in the lower 48 that has a reputation for great hunting. In the western US they have all but eliminated or ruined the experience on NP's. They will make rules making it so difficult the demand to hunt will diminish. Those rules will be driven by anti-hunters and preservationists. They will then cut out the hunting when the demand drops. There is no turning back once they do it.

You are going to see the true colors of the NMWF here. The main players in NMWF all donated cash to Heinrich, Udall and the current NM "D" house representitives. This is Heinrich and Udalls legislation. NMWF is going to try and convince everyone that it is the best and only course of action. Just look at the organizations previous behavior on any Federal public land proposal by Heinrich and Udall. They are joined at the hip.

Make the Valles Caldera a Special Unit of the Santa Fe National Forest. Model it after the Valle Vidal in Carson National Forest. It is more affordable and logistically simple. It will protect hunting and the wildlife. The NMWF should be pushing this as it meets exactly what they say they are all about in their mission. Why aren't they?
 
I feel NPS would eventually rule out hunting. They promote preservation and wilderness. The USFS promotes conservation and multiple use. Very different management styles! The USFS should manage the property more in line with most of "our" own desires including public access, wildlife, logging, and livestock production.

One would hope they (USFS) would manage it similarly to the Valle Vidal with a couple of exceptions. Conservation based thinning of timber should be encouraged to promote a healthier ecosystem, and a science based herd management approach should be taken to ensure trophy and herd quality.

I have to ask though how is it possible to not make a profit on 100,000 acres of excellent grazing land without raising some red flags? The same question applies to the Double H!
 
Also, and really think about his...
The reason that RMEF and NWTF are against it is because they BOTH benefit from current model.

When they auctions off the tags they get a substantial cut of the money.. Of course they aren't going to want to change anything.. It is money in their pocket.

J-
 
BTW because the way that NMWF is setup we can't donate any money to elections.. Nice try but get you facts straight..
 
>Also, and really think about his...
>
>The reason that RMEF and NWTF
>are against it is because
>they BOTH benefit from current
>model.
>
>When they auctions off the tags
>they get a substantial cut
>of the money.. Of course
>they aren't going to want
>to change anything.. It
>is money in their pocket.
>
>
>J-

I didn't realize that they auction off tags under the current VC model. How much did they go for last year?
 
VC doesn't auction the tags but they donate tags to RMEF and they auction them off. A turkey tag for the VC went for more than $2500 at the Albuquerque RMEF banquet in March.
 
Just thinking out loud... If it goes to the NFS with NO restrictions how long do you think it will take for the creeks to get FISHED OUT... If it goes to a NPS then there will be some sort of control...

J-
 
It can be controlled by day use limits as it is now.Under the Preserve w/FS that could continue.
There aren't many fish there now as little or no riparian habitat restoration work has been done.
Try and catch a trout in Yosemite.....
 
>Just thinking out loud... If it
>goes to the NFS with
>NO restrictions how long do
>you think it will take
>for the creeks to get
>FISHED OUT... If it goes
>to a NPS then there
>will be some sort of
>control...
>
>J-


This can be managed easily. Again, look at the Valle Vidal. All catch and realease. Plenty of trout.

I too am against this going to NPS. Can't think of any NP land known for good hunting.
If it can't be kept as is, go to the FS and manage like the Valle Vidal. Close the area for calfing time, have limited to No camping areas and make tags once and a lifetime. Charge an access fee for anybody to visit the place, close roads if neccessary to make more wilderness.

Just my thoughts.

Travis
 
Wouldn't Game and Fish still set the fishing regs regardless of who owns the land? Fishing in Bandelier National Monument is catch-and-release just like the fishing in the Valle Vidal-- as mandated by the fishing regs.

Other thoughts:

Despite the excellent grazing potential for the VC, current management does not permit more than 40% of forage utilization for ALL grazing animals. That means elk and cattle. http://www.vallescaldera.gov/about/trust/docs/trust_SOP13-03-20.pdf
So, cattle stocking rates are probably much lower per acre than most for-profit ranches. Also, the VC currently has 37 employees listed on their website. Hard to break even when your overhead is that high....

I shot my first elk on NPS property (Grand Teton). That Park is REQUIRED to provide for hunting as part of it's enabling legislation when it was created by congress. While I believe that hunting and National Parks can be compatible, I doubt it would work very well at the VC. As others have pointed out the very large (and vocal) population centers that surround the VC would likely force the NPS to limit hunting due to "safety" concerns. If anything, it would be reduced to a bow-only hunt like the Sandias.

I'd support USFS ownership with some sort of wilderness designation, but I'm not sure the Wilderness Act would apply given all the existing man-made structures and improvements throughout the preserve.

That is one contentious piece of land and guaranteed every other niche user is having these same discussions and mobilizing their constituents... and let's not forget the various Pueblos who would love to reclaim that land if given the chance.
 
BTW it looks like we are going to have a BOD meeting on this. It is causing alot of dialogue.. all good but the issue is getting some sort of iron-clad guarantee on hunting and fishing might be tough...

From what we were told it is too developed to be a wilderness area..

J-
 
It is a shame it cannot be kept the way it is.

37 full time or part time employees??

Same old problem with public vs. private sector.

I understand that the elk hunting on the VC now is the largest revenue stream.
 
More detail on this statement.

(2) may designate zones in which, and establish periods during which, no hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitats, or public use and enjoyment.

It was asked to be added in case of a fire or some other event... Game and Fish has the same authority... I think most people would be ok with them shutting down a hunt if the area was burning everything down

J-
 
>BTW because the way that NMWF
>is setup we can't donate
>any money to elections.. Nice
>try but get you facts
>straight..


Reading is fundamental Jamaro....I said the main players on the NMWF board. At your next meeting ask Vesbach if he and his wife have ever contributed money to anyone. They have and it is public record. Ask the others. It is all available if you dig.
 
Also Look at this
?(f) FISH AND GAME- Nothing in this title shall be construed as affecting the responsibilities of the State of New Mexico with respect to fish and wildlife, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, and trapping within the Preserve, except that the Trust may, in consultation with the Secretary and the State of New Mexico, designate zones where and establish periods when no hunting, fishing, or trapping shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, the protection of nongame species and their habitats, or public use and enjoyment.?
 
Jamaro sure is pulling for the Heinrich proposal. RMEF and NWTF are evil and only want their interests protected. The NPS is the only entity that can keep the streams from being over fished. BS BS BS BS!!! You guys want this bad don't you? Please ask your BOD to provide examples of how great the NPS has been for hunting in the lower 48 and specifically the western states.
 
Paul,

I'm assuming the 37 employees are full time. Most seasonal employees don't get mentioned on websites. Anyway, assuming $50K per person in salary (GS9 pay grade), that is $1.8 million in salary alone. Hard to cover that with $5 hiking fees.

Looking at the report, in 2012 the elk hunt generated just over $310,000 but cost just under $100K to administer (?!). So, yeah, they made some money on elk for sure.
 
I could care less who introduced it... IF the NFS takes it over it will be like the rest of Unit 6. If that is what you want then oppose it. At this point it really doesn't matter to me, We will meet as a Board come up with a position paper and then vote on it. Where is falls it falls...

I have never even put in for the VC, so you can have it. JUST don't ##### and moan later when it gets overrun. That place is special and needs protection... the NFS isn't going to do it.

Everyone is so afraid what might happen they are willing to accept what will happen.

J-
 
Touched a nerve I see....there are absolutely alternatives that will protect it and allow the quality of the hunting to be outstanding. You have not said one word about managing it similarly to the VV as myself and some others have mentioned. Why is that?

Go to your meeting and propose that alternatives like special unit designation within the NFS be explored. Mention the VV and ask why it can't be used as a model.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-28-13 AT 04:47PM (MST)[p]No nerve touched... Right now managing it like the VV isn't on the table.. Three options
1) Self Sustaining
2) NPS - some protections
3) NFS - gets treated like NFS, Unit 6.

AND yes,I have always said that something like the VV is an option look on Bowsite.. and the history here not only on this thread but in others where we have talked about it... but again a VV model hasn't been looked at by anybody... So we can sit on this thread and say.."wouldn't it be great" but the reality is that as of right now it isn't even on ANYBODY'S Radar.. Too often people try to look for the perfect solution and nothing gets done. The Fed has always said that it should be managed by a professional management entity, it is difficult and not right to try and pick between entities but the NPS has shown that it has the mindset to provide the most access with keep the lands as pristine as possible.

So my question to you is what are you actively doing to help get the VC like the VV? It is easy to cast stones but have you actually invested time, energy and money to help get the VC like the VV? Who have you worked with to ensure that the VC is self-sufficient? Who have you worked with to get your desired language in the bill? Give me names and I will followup with them and offer my support. PM your real name so they know who I am talking about please.

J
 
Jason, of the 3, self sustaining it would most closely resemble the present situation.

Is this correct?

If that is the case, it would be the best. Is that a viable option at this point?

As a hunter, my # 1 priority would that hunting is never removed.

#2 It continues to have some special status. That it does not just get thrown into the meat grinder. It should be managed for quality.
 
Yes, I think all of us want it the way it is or self-sustaining but this was strange experiment that hasn't been able to make it. Congress just isn't going to continue cutting checks to carry the VC.

I agree hunting should never be removed, but I think people are getting caught up in the verbiage. The way that it is written mirrors hunting rights on FS and BLM land so it really isn't anything new. People are just hyper-sensitive right now and thinking that the end of hunting on the VC will happen. I get people are afraid of change.

IF we have to live in a world of fear I would fear the VC being over-run and turning into what the rest of Unit 6 is more than I would fear them stopping hunting on the property. The chances are much higher of it getting trashed are greater than the changes of hunting being stopped.

J-
 
I have made my voice heard. I have spoken with VC people, Heinrich, Udall and my representatives. I have given both my time and money to conservation in numerous ways for most of my adult life. You always seem to play this card when anyone opposes your viewpoint on an issue. You argue like most liberals. Turn the argument on the individual(shoot the messenger) and away from the issue. Classic method that they teach at environmental workshops. You call it casting stones to criticize your organization for any of their positions or question what the true motives may be based on the individual actions of your board members. At one time I supprted NMWF but I no longer will as they have turned harder and harder left.

The fact that no one is looking at other options is because the powers that be don't want anyone to look at other options. They have written off option #1 before it ever was completed. The VC was sabotaged from the start by our wonderful federal beauracracy that believes money grows on trees and special interests who did not want the model to succeed from the start. Making the VC NPS was on the table when it first came up for sale and sportsmen didn't want to go there back then Jamaro. Most of us still don't.

Where did the NPS proposal have it's roots Jamaro? Was there a "working group" of NM sportsmen, environmentalists, conservationists, etc., that got together to see what options were available if the VC failed? Or was it a much smaller group with a predetermined direction that said this is already the direction we want this to go Senators. Here is a proposal we have written and you can call it your own.

The fact that the NMDGF, RMEF, NWTF, VC hunt managers and most NM sportsmen DO NOT WANT the NPS involved speaks volumes as does NMWF's position of support. Give us a reason why the VV model can't be on the table Jamaro? Kill this proposal and start over. We have two years and another 2 years of extension to the current status of the VC. What is the hurry to turn it over to the NPS before exploring this option Jamaro? You tell us it is not an option Jamaro, how about telling us WHY it isn't an option.
 
PM your name... i will follow up

I "play" this card when people complain but don't have a solution.. I play this card when this has been going on for years and NOW it is an issue.. Where were you during the hearings?? It is easy to cast stones and not fight for anything, but you put it all out there like I always do you are an easy target. You have to work within the SYSTEM, I hate it as much as anybody but that is how you get stuff done. Not by posting on a forum and complaining after the process has started.

Also,I hate to admit it because I try to get support for causes but those petitions don't carry a lot of weight. At the Game and Fish meetings they call those Robo-Petitions... There is no way of validating them. They do the same for emails.. Robo-emails.

Written off option #1? You are just wrong.. You really are, everyone wants it to stay the same it just isn't happening.. it just show how removed you are from the entire issue... They have been losing millions.. If you can't see that then you need to look at the numbers. The Board discusses this every meeting.

Turned harder and harder left? You see what you want to see... I see a group that has fought hard for SB196 and Terk...

Never been to a workshop..

NPS do you mean a National Park or National Preserve.. There is a different Preserve Guarantee hunting as much as FS and BLM land.. that is what we are going for.

The NPS came from the fact that they are trying to save this piece of property before it goes complete FS. People are trying to keep it from getting ruined... YES, there were and still are VC Board Meetings..Have you been to one?

You ask me why the VV proposal isn't on the table? The answer is because it isn't, NOBODY has ever brought it up. I told you what the options are. There is NO GUARANTEE that the Dept or the FS is going to make it like the VV. BUT you can hope for that. Bring it up to the Board. I am all for it. Like I said I will support you when you call. Kill this proposal and start from scratch, that is what might happen. You never know or they just might amend this what to preserve hunting. People are trying to do whatever they can to keep it from going to regular FS and to protect it as close to what we currently have as possible.. AGAIN, think Unit 6.


AGAIN, I just want to highlight this... People are getting worked up about the verbiage, this is the same verbiage that is on current FS and BLM. NOTHING ABOUT STOPPING HUNTING AND FISHING. If you can't see that then I can't make you comprehend that. That is your issue not mine, but at least be honest.

J-
 
Safari Club International is opposed and will lobby against this bill. It is starting to look like the NMWF may be standing alone with their position of support for this bill
 
I had heard the same thing through the grapevine.

NMWF won't be alone in DC, you'll see all of the regular players involved with this bill. National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, CBD, WEG, etc.
 
>I feel NPS would eventually rule
>out hunting. They promote preservation
>and wilderness. The USFS promotes
>conservation and multiple use. Very
>different management styles! The USFS
>should manage the property more
>in line with most of
>"our" own desires including public
>access, wildlife, logging, and livestock
>production.
>
>One would hope they (USFS) would
>manage it similarly to the
>Valle Vidal with a couple
>of exceptions. Conservation based thinning
>of timber should be encouraged
>to promote a healthier ecosystem,
>and a science based herd
>management approach should be taken
>to ensure trophy and herd
>quality.
>
>I have to ask though how
>is it possible to not
>make a profit on 100,000
>acres of excellent grazing land
>without raising some red flags?
>The same question applies to
>the Double H!


typical government....couldn't make money on a whore house in nevada so they sure as hell can't run a ranch......elk quality was better under the baca's and it made money......maybe the evil private landowners are better game managers, stewards, and businessmen than the government agencies.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-29-13 AT 00:00AM (MST)[p]>I had heard the same thing
>through the grapevine.
>
>NMWF won't be alone in DC,
>you'll see all of the
>regular players involved with
>this bill. National Wildlife
>Federation, Sierra Club, CBD, WEG,
>etc.


As the old saying goes, you're only as good as the company you keep.
 
Jason-To refresh your memory.......


Post #19 February 16, 2013 New VC BILL Thread a few down from this one

DOES ANYONE OUT THERE THINK THE VALLE VIDAL DOES NOT WORK, even though its USFS?????

Post #21 February 17, 2013

I have approached a few folks at high levels about this bill and yes, the only way to stop the train is the house.......

The comment was made that the "best worst option would be to go with something similar to VV." They indicated we (all hunters) would need to make a huge effort toward getting all US legislators to amend the bill for this to happen.

We take a huge risk in allowing the bill to go foward in its current wording, allowing for hunting and fishing. From what I have heard this will be problematic down the road.

We need to push for VV type status with USFS oversite as the best worst option.

If you are on the same page, please let our congessional delegation know ASAP.

Post #31 February 18, 2013

Everyone I have been talking to either 1) doesn't want it to change or 2) can see it be a Valle Vidal style management scenario.

If you truly want it to stay the same, please take the time to call or write all of our delegation and tell them. Tell them if they don't get it done right they loose your vote and you will do your best to campaign against them. It takes effort. I'm doing it because I've been there and I don't trust the government to keep hunting and fishing there.

Please spread the word.
 
I guess the NMWF might be alone..
BUT look at the players.
RMEF and NWTF - Both Benefited from donated tags on the VC

SCI - fought against us on SB196 and Terk and has consistently sided with LO,OF,etc... and has always been about the money and not the average hunter..
 
>I guess the NMWF might be
>alone..
>BUT look at the players.
>RMEF and NWTF - Both Benefited
>from donated tags on the
>VC
>
>SCI - fought against us on
>SB196 and Terk and has
>consistently sided with LO,OF,etc... and
>has always been about the
>money and not the average
>hunter..

Jamaro,

You keep bringing up the fact that RMEF benefits from auctioning off tags, implying that their judgement is tainted because they are making a fortune off of these hunts. How many elk tags do they auction off a year and for how much? I'm ignoring turkey hunts because that amounts to pennies.

Did you ever think that RMEF is against the bill simply because the bill is bad for hunters? Have you read the responses to this thread and others? Is any of it sinking in? Hunters are against this bill!

You are right about one thing, NMWF is alone in this battle. Not even the hunters are on your side. Maybe you can team up with PETA.

How many members does NMWF have? Do the members support this bill? Based on what i'm reading in is thread, i personally do not see why any hunter would belong to NMWF.
 
Like I said we are in the process of setting up a conference call. RMEF, NWTF and SCI are against there are also groups like TU and BHA are supporting it so I think it is a wash. I am reading and I will bring up the fact that many like the fact that they want it like the VV. Whoever wrote this bill up didn't think about it..

Here is something interesting that people might not know about the current model.

You can buy up to 280 tickets per year and it isn't a once in a lifetime hunt. There is no doubt in my mind that those with money are trying to buy hunts on the VC. The VV is once in a lifetime

AND I want to clarify, the RMEF, NWTF, and G&F aren't against the bill, they just want it to stay the same. There is a difference unfortunately, none of those groups have come up with a viable solution. It can't continue as it, bottom line. 4 years the VC will just be known as 6B.

IF I can have the NMWF add a statement in our proposal that hunting should be guarantee UNLESS some some of fire or something like that would people be OK with it?

SO is there a preference to go with the NFS rather than making it a preserve? and why?

Again this is one issue.. ONE... We have been the only ones to continue fighting for NM hunting rights for the average hunter... Terk, SB198, Property Access, etc...
 
Let's clarify a few things.

The turkey tags for VC are over the counter. No turkey tag was auctioned, it was a trespass authorization. Isn't that one of the things NMWF fights so feverishly for? Or only when it benefits your anti outfitter/landowner agenda?

We're still waiting on the elk auction numbers. Since these groups make so much dirty money from these tags.

Name one instance where any of these evil groups has opposed overturning Terk. Show us please.

Just because you say something on the internet, does not make it fact.
 
yes, for turkey it was a trespass autho.. They still made money off of it..

There silence speaks volumes and you know it...

I found this interesting release by the federation from a few years ago.
NPS or FS..


? A little background:
Valles Caldera National Preserve was created as part of our National Forest system in 2000 with overwhelming public
support. But to appease anti-public lands sentiments in Congress at the time, an experimental management system was created
that calls for the 89,000-acre tract to be managed by a federal government corporation overseen by political appointees rather
than by professional natural resource agency. The Valles Caldera management system, modeled after The Presidio of San
Francisco, is supposed to raise its own operating revenue by charging fees for hunting, fishing, grazing and other activities.
That has led to ideas such as HB 11, a bill in the Legislature last spring that would have taken 25 percent of bull elk tags in the
preserve out of the public draw and given them to the preserve to sell to the highest bidder ? for well over $10,000 apiece.
? The current management system isn't working:
In Fiscal Year 2008, the preserve raised about $693,000, mainly from fees for hunting, fishing, hiking, bicycling, retail
sales and grazing. Hunting alone accounted for more than half the revenue, nearly $370,000.
In Fiscal Year 2008, the preserve spent $3.7 million ? 17 times more per visitor than Bandelier National Monument.
? The future looks bleak unless preserve management altered:
The preserve has unveiled two possible revenue enhancement plans that call for a dramatic makeover of the Valles
Caldera to meet its mandate to become financially self-sufficient by 2015. One calls for investing more than $50 million in
public and private funds to build a 20-room luxury lodge, a separate mid-priced lodge and restaurant with about 100 rooms,
campground space and an RV park. The second alternative eliminates the lodges and restaurant, which reduces development
costs but provides less revenue. Both plans call for raising funds through the sale of elk tags for $10,000 or more each.
? Congress eyes change in Valles Caldera management:
U.S. Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall have asked the National Park Service to assess the potential for managing
Valles Caldera in a way that continues hunting and fishing opportunity free for public lands sportsmen. Hunting is allowed in
National Park Service preserves, but the senators say other options also are under consideration, including management by the
U.S. Forest Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
? What you can do:
Contact Senators Bingaman and Udall and voice support for a new management strategy for Valles Caldera National
Preserve, which turns over operations to a professional management agency such as the National Park Service or U.S. Forest
Service, and that continues or expands acess to hunting, fishing, hiking and other recreation on public lands:
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, 703 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20510, (202) 224-5521, http://bingaman.senate.gov
Sen. Tom Udall, 110 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20510, (202) 224-6621, http://tomudall.senate.gov
 
Jason-there you go again, making statements that are total BS. The last crap you tried to get people here to believe was that the LO's and OF's were the ones that wanted the A+ system changes. That was a lie and the thread verifies it that very day when game and fish announced the plan was dead. You know why it was dead.....because all of us said NO and the biggest NO came from the LO's. Then you start the BS that the federation was the one who got Turk looked at. There were several groups that were behind getting it looked at. Then you had the balls to act as if the federation was the one behind the trapping bill getting killed at the legislature. You are one amazing dude. PS-start paying Brian advertising for those stupid videos of yourself.
 
"SCI - fought against us on SB196 and Terk and has consistently sided with LO,OF,etc... and has always been about the money and not the average hunter.."

This is what I asked you about. And this is your reply? Show me where SCI opposed overturning Terk. This is what I mean. You are FOS.

"yes, for turkey it was a trespass autho.. They still made money off of it..There silence speaks volumes and you know it..."

Who is they? Do you have any concept of how many volunteer man hours go into the Valles Caldera from the RMEF each year? Of course not, a left wing environmental group such as yours doesn't do habitat work, you guys just write shitty legislation and tell real sportsman that we should trust you because you know best.

How bout you copy and paste some more drivel from the NMWF manifesto?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-29-13 AT 03:17PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-29-13 AT 03:16?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON May-29-13 AT 03:15?PM (MST)

>Jason-there you go again, making statements
>that are total BS. The
>last crap you tried to
>get people here to believe
>was that the LO's and
>OF's were the ones that
>wanted the A+ system changes.
>That was a lie and
>the thread verifies it that
>very day when game and
>fish announced the plan was
>dead. You know why it
>was dead.....because all of us
>said NO and the biggest
>NO came from the LO's.
>Then you start the BS
>that the federation was the
>one who got Turk looked
>at. There were several groups
>that were behind getting it
>looked at. Then you had
>the balls to act as
>if the federation was the
>one behind the trapping bill
>getting killed at the legislature.
> You are one amazing
>dude.

You are right the LO didn't and dont' want changes to A+.. They have it made.. they are making a ton off LO tags... We had to push it.. and LO fought us all along and that is why we lost and that is why more tags go to LO than he general draw.. That is why public draw tags have flatline but LO have increased... ALL ABOUT THE MONEY BUT dont' forget the LO's are the ones that wanted Unlimited tags...

Turk... WHO got the commission on record? You know dang well, that Jeremy did... Who has been educating the commission since day one? OF and LO aren't going to do anything that would hurt there business... It is common sense..


Trapping - yes, that was a team effort.. We spent a ton of time pushing that one... and other groups were also there... I never said we were the only ones on it.. I was on this forum asking people to call and to push like hell because very few people were doing it..

Jim I am not sure what your deal is other than you are all about making a buck but don't change the past... Be honest at least with yourself
 
Really do you really need to start name calling? Real class act..

hmm. Volunteer means volunteer.. and I am grateful for it but it isn't volunteer if you expect something...


You are right we don't work on conversation projects because we spend our time fighting for Terk, SB196, Public Land Access, etc...

Jim and 505(whatever your name is) we all know that you are all about the OF, LO, CG, SG...

You guys are trying to kill us over the same verbiage that is attached to FS and BLM property. I get it..

Again, what is the solution other than.. "NO"...

J-
 
What name did I call you?

Are you sensitive that you are a BOD of a group that is perceived as environmental extremists?

Keep on sending out your anti Alaskan mining emails and open your eyes dude.
 
Jason-re read your statements in the forums. Go read the part on the trapping bill where you implied the Trappers Association was not there, now you say it was a team effort. The LO's were never on board with the ridiculus changes and you make it sound as if they came up with it. You mislead to try to manipulate folks to join your cause. People can see through this BS. Yes I believe in private property rights and that you work hard to make it in this world. Yes I have a hunting business and a separate career of 32 years. How much more honest do you need me to get Jason? Ok I don't think it is right that you post your videos under some business name to lure people to your site.....that is without paying for advertising that is. Its deceitful as are your posts. nuf said.

Be honest......you want the Caldera under NPS because your organization supports Udall and Heinrich....that's the real reason isn't it Jason. You want to keep your political relationship strong with these guys. Be honest Jason.
 
Udall wrote the VV protection act and is fully aware of how it operates. The fact he chose not to create legislation that would allow the VC to operate in much the same way but would rather send it to the parks system tells me there is something going on that we're not seeing or being told.
 
Just to help out with a little sanity check here, the Northern New Mexico Chapter of SCI strongly supports the overturn of Terk. We also donate some pretty large $s to the Game Dept to support their youth programs, we would like to think that we have a cooperative relationship with the Dept rather than adversarial, seems like you can get a lot more done that way.
 
Why are Udall and Heinrich trying to change anything. As I understand it, it was always the agreement that if the VC could not be self-sufficient it would revert back to FS management. At that point it would be up to the FS to determine the management structure. Maybe it would be like VV but it would be up to the FS to make that decision.
 
I am going to agree to disagree with some people on this thread.

But I will state how I feel.
1) Saying "No" and petitioning against something isn't a plan. It is just complaining and not being part of the process(good or bad)

2) The VC will revert to the FS and right now it will have no special protections.

3)The VC is too special to risk that the FS or G and F will do the right thing. We need to drive home the thought that it should be like the VV.

4) I will drive home to the Board that Hunting and Fishing must be protected on the VC

5) Everyone is so worried about what MIGHT happen if it gets special protection that they are overlooking WILL HAPPEN. We can't risk that it turns into the rest of unit 6

J-
PS.. Jim about the ads, I removed them about 6 months ago.. AND if you really want to play MOD I am the least of your worries.. I post a vid that you have to click to watch.. There are people on this forum that have all kinds of links in their Sigs that you see with EVERY POST..Everything from Flies to MeatEater to Vortex BUT I get it.. You are just looking for a reason to silence me... Yes, I get hammered by about 4 very vocal people that are aligned with the OF, LO, CG, etc... but I guess that is just the way it is going to be... Good Luck
 
>Just to help out with a
>little sanity check here, the
>Northern New Mexico Chapter of
>SCI strongly supports the overturn
>of Terk. We also
>donate some pretty large $s
>to the Game Dept to
>support their youth programs, we
>would like to think that
>we have a cooperative relationship
>with the Dept rather than
>adversarial, seems like you can
>get a lot more done
>that way.

That is great to hear.. We are preparing several legal documents preparing to support the Dept on this one... if you are interested in helping out send me a PM...
 
"but I guess that is just the way it is going to be... Good Luck"

Doesn't have to be that way. I just don't want something posted that is not accurate. I can give you facts that are discussed and why positions are taken by some factions/groups before they are posted. Believe me, 100% consensus on positions recommended are not the case. There are lots of pros and cons in all of issues faced by Sportsman.

I don't like this us and them crap.......WE are all going to loose.

I must ask and this is only a question......has there ever been discussion about this going to NPS and wolves being introduced to the VC?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-30-13 AT 10:53AM (MST)[p]Not that I know of but I will ask tonight...
 
Why would there be any discussion about the NPS getting control and then introducing wolves?

The USFWS is responsible for wolf recovery, not the NPS.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/

If people on this board would spend 1/10th of the time researching issues as they do arguing, they'd at least find out what agencies are responsible for wolf recovery, etc.

In case you were wondering, it made NO difference in the Northern Rockies who controlled what land in regard to wolf recovery. If the VC is USFS or NPS, it will have NO bearing on wolf recovery efforts. NONE.

Everyone wrongly assumes that wolves were only released in Yellowstone NP...not true. They were also released on USFS Land in Central Idaho.

If the only reason you're against NPS control of the VC is because of wolf recovery fears...you're beating the chit out of a straw man with a red herring.

The NPS is not the agency responsible for, or in charge of, wolf recovery....that would be the USFWS's jurisdiction.

Carry on...
 
LAST EDITED ON May-30-13 AT 09:40PM (MST)[p]Resistance to the NPS stems from the limited hunting opportunity on the land they currently control.
The captive Wolves in NM have been eating dog food for years while their handlers look for a place to put them. A National Park might look better than what they've seen thus far. Being spoon fed by tourists might help with their life expectancy as well.
 
It can look like whatever it wants...but neither the NPS, nor the USFS can just start dumping wolves on their newly acquired VC lands.

How do you propose they get past the NEPA requirements?

Neither land management agency administering the VC would increase or decrease wolf recovery efforts. It didnt matter in the Northern Rockies and it wont matter in this case either.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-31-13 AT 05:23AM (MST)[p]Thanks for your input BuzzH. It was just a question. Looking at the map they have on their sites includes 4 states. They are on National Forest lands now and are having issues. Just seems logical that the plan to go to NPS in "preserve" status would allow for an easy place that the agencies would work together to introduce them, study them, etc.....I don't doubt a NEPA study would be an issue that a politician could put some pressure on to get done quickly.
 
Been following this tread like everyone else. And what we all want is the VC Trust to stay as it is now. So Jim and Jason lets quit butting heads and tackle the real problem.Lets take a hard look at the books and see why 100k deeded acres can't break even... this seems almost impossible to me. If someone on here is a CPA or knows someone that can look at the books ? This is the problem that needs to be solved, and we still have 2 yrs. to find the solution.Be it no new trucks or cut back on staff...whatever it takes. I'm no financial wiz but there must be a way to save the Trust.

CC
 
I agree with CC on this. It is nice to see the passion from everyone, but often turns into something nasty. As stated, it is mind boggling how places like the VC or Double H need to be dealt with due to loss of revenue. I tend to blame government waste, but that is just my opinion.

In the mean time, I'm sending my kids to the fly fishing clinic on the VC this weekend.
 
So, when is the next auction for the VC elk tags? Hopefully, they didn't hold the auction for the 2013 season yet.
 
Sierra,
The VC does not auction elk tags on their own. They donate a few to other orgs for auction...RMEF, Make a Wish and a few others that I know of.
 
The battle lines are beginning to be defined in the Washington lobbying efforts. The National Wildlife Federation along with other like minded organizations are lobbying for this bills passage. Lobbying against will be the Safari Club and other hunter advocate organizations. Remember the SCI Logo, First for Hunters. If anyone thinks that the National Wildlife Federation is a hunter advocacy organization you need to do a little research
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-04-13 AT 05:33AM (MST)[p]fast-do your contacts back in DC keep you informed regularly on this issue? If so, could you keep us posted? Just wondering what the best course of action is for the little person.

Where are we on this petition 505? Is there any way to keep up with numbers?

Jim
 
Jim-

It had 138 signatures as of this afternoon.

You can click the link to the petition, then on the signature tab see the total.

Lots of familiar names on there opposing this senate bill, hope to see some more.

Thanks to those that have signed, if you haven't yet please consider it.
 
I don't know about you guys but I feel Im locked out now unless I purchase a bunch of lottery tickets. I would like to see the VC become a separate game unit like the VVidal. I think a lot of people would like it to be a choice on the G&F application. Right now its just another locked gate in our state.
 
>I don't know about you guys
>but I feel Im locked
>out now unless I purchase
>a bunch of lottery tickets.
>I would like to see
>the VC become a separate
>game unit like the VVidal.
>I think a lot of
>people would like it to
>be a choice on the
>G&F application. Right now its
>just another locked gate in
>our state.

Do you really think that your odds are going to get better?
 
At the risk of getting all this started again I thought I would share some info.

1) Because of the way they are setup they have to pay over $100,000 in insurance each year

2) Because they are not part of the PS or NF all of there bureaucracy needs to be setup, they can't share offices, equipment, etc...

3) IF this passes, we need to be engaged in the process and have a plan to allow hunting from DAY one, The quote was "If this goes to PS you need to be engaged from day one because changing things later is going to be tough". Putting our head in the sand and saying "No" isn't an option, we need to be prepared.

4) The Score of the bulls has been declining since it was purchased, they are not sure why but they have funded several studies to figure it out and there have been no solid conclusions.


Anyway, that is just some info that I would pass along..

J-
 
>
>4) The Score of the bulls
>has been declining since it
>was purchased, they are not
>sure why but they have
>funded several studies to figure
>it out and there have
>been no solid
>
>J-

Where do you get your "facts"? I assume you have no clue about the quality of bulls harvested last year. With that said, one would expect the quality to drop since it's no longer private. It will probably get worse if they turn it into a NP.

Unfortunately, the place is on fire right now. I'm wondering if someone from the NMWF started it.
 
Fast.......you out there.....?

Not sure if you'd care to share, but it might help to let folks know what's happening back in DC where.......this will ultimately be decided.
 
Paul-I think your wife's chances of drawing a burned unit are getting better by the day.

Thanks for keeping this on the top Jason. What was the outcome of your board meeting, or did I miss that?

Has anyone writing the NMWF spin taken into account our prolonged drought in NM? Has anyone there spoken with the long time ranch hands working at the Caldera about quality under Baca vs now? They would disagree with your statement about quality, as would the gentleman who was able to harvest a 380+ bull with a bow last season. Not to mention the multiple 350 type bulls that were killed, one by a donated authorization for a young man with a terminal illness. Pretty solid for Northern NM in anybody's book.

This is going to be interesting in DC. I wonder which groups will be lobbying for this bill besides NMWF. This will be where true colors are shown.
 
505
READ THE DOC and READ the Source.... If you can't read the entire thing or don't comprehend look at the graph. That document isn't from the Fed that doc is directly from the VC website. Those number do not lie. This just goes to show that you aren't reading what is being discussed... You just want to say NO...Look around page 190

I think we all want it to stay the same but again, that isn't going to happen and not being prepared and proactive is only going to get us shut out...

I agree this will true colors will be shown, we have a group that is trying to work within the system and get things done and stand up for sportsman rather than a group than just saying "NO" but we not offering a solution.

BTW I would like a name of someone that leads the RMEF and NWTF in NM that are against it? I have reached out to several people and NOBODY is taking a stance from those groups... I am not trying to be a jerk I just want a source.

J-
 
Once again, you have missed the point entirely.

When you and your cronies step up side by side with anti hunting groups to lobby for this legislation everyone will start to understand where you are coming from.

Ever consider that the other orgs don't want to talk to you?
 
>Once again, you have missed the
>point entirely.
>
>When you and your cronies step
>up side by side with
>anti hunting groups to lobby
>for this legislation everyone will
>start to understand where you
>are coming from.
>
>Ever consider that the other orgs
>don't want to talk to
>you?


This is the problem not only on this issue but society in general. You don't agree with something so you would rather pout, say no and hide your head in the sand.

I don't think you understand that this is very likely to go thru... Good or Bad??? BUT we need to be part of the process or we are not going to have a voice and get screwed.

BTW We have had several discussions with the NM RMEF and they don't' know where Tom Arvas came up with his statement. That is all I will say, it was a confidential conversation.

Again, I want to stress, that we need to be part of this process or we are going to get hung out to dry. Things are moving whether you like it or not status quo is not and option...
 
Safari Club International is fully engaged with their DC lobbying arm and have reached out to the AWCP the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, this is a group of hunter/conservation organizations that represent over 6 million members. SCI is concerned with the increase in monuments, wilderness study areas, parks etc and see these movements as a threat to the future of hunting,

By the way the National Wild Life Federation is not a member of the AWCP.

SCI will be working this bill in Committee and will be watching for any effort to attach this bill as an add on to other legislation

Cheers
 
RMEF is 100% opposed to the bill.

Jason-hoping to get a copy of the letter from Montana to post for your proof.
 
RMEF is strongly opposed, and it is unclear that the Senate Natural Resources committee will even consider the bill, It is my understanding that many of the enviro groups have ended their outright support for the Bill and it is not currently on the radar of the committee staff

Cheers
 
Thanks for the great news Fast. When you say that many of the enviro groups have ended their support, does that include the NMWF? Or maybe that's a question for Jamaro.
 

New Mexico Guides & Outfitters

H & A Outfitters

Private and public land hunts since 1992 for elk, mule deer, sheep, pronghorn, black Bear & lion hunts.

505 Outfitters

Public and private land big game hunts. Rifle, muzzleloader and archery hunts available. Free Draw Application Service!

Sierra Blanca Outfitters

Offering a wide array of hunt opportunities and putting clients in prime position to bag a trophy.

Urge 2 Hunt

Hunts in New Mexico on private ranches and remote public land in the top units. Elk vouchers available.

Mangas Outfitters

Landowner tags available! Hunt big bulls and bucks. Any season and multiple hunt units to choose from.

Back
Top Bottom