Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Regional discussion and conditions reports for the Great American Southwest. Please post partners requests and trip plans in the Southwest US Climbing Partners section.
 

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby lcarreau » Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:24 am

Clark_Griswold wrote: The Guadalupe RD is really closer to Texas than White Sands, but lightly visited due to isolation, lack of roads, and not being as cool in summer when the Texans arrive in droves to ATV everywhere.


WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT ? I LIKE a park that is LIGHTLY VISITED. Does that make me an elitist ? .... I think NOT ...

If a place reaches national park status, then that will keep out the ATV's. They could have some RANGER COPS out THERE enforcing the laws.

What don't ya' ll like about Texans on this site ??? Texans aren't ALL bad ... I've met good ones and bad ones --- THESE are good ones :!: ... :wink:

Image
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4056
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 910 times in 685 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby Clark_Griswold » Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:20 pm

Actually, the Guadalupe Ranger District is pretty much a low limestone ridge, with the higher elevations mostly in the 6 to 7,000' range. It is dry, and used almost exclusively for grazing. Because of the lack of timber, logging, and water, it did not get the road development the Sacramento RD did, and it is lower and hotter in summer, so visitation is reportedly nil. I have never been there, but I doubt there is much worth seeing, at least to make it a park. The National park of the same name, which is down in Texas and is administered by the NPS, Department of the Interior, not the USFS, Department of Agriculture, and is executive branch, not legislative branch, has much nicer forest cover and is higher up. Thats is not to say that it isn't nice, I have never been there, but it wouldn't be a contender for NP status.

Like I said, I have never been there, but I doubt there are sexy women practicing high kicks and doing splits out on the ridges and in the canyons.
...
User Avatar
Clark_Griswold

 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:51 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 306 times in 234 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby Doublecabin » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:44 pm

With all due respect is this idea even on the radar of the tribes? I'm guessing the tribes would only sign on with major exceptions written into the charter so they could continue their religous, cultural, and resource harvest activities. I would guess hunting lobbies will fight this tooth and nail.

Another thing is as rugged as this area can be could it handle a substantial increase in traffic? I highly doubt busses/shuttles would be an option since many residents in the area require constant access.

I am a big proponent of preservation, but I'm not sure Park Service designation is the way to go in this instance.I doubt you would get a lot of local support because many people in that area think there use of public lands is already too restricted.
User Avatar
Doublecabin

 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:30 pm
Location: High Country, Wyoming, United States
Thanked: 11 times in 11 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby Wastral » Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:47 pm

National Parks should be unique.

There is NOTHING unique about Bubba's proposed national park in plain-jane average hills and forests New Mexico. Its why Sawtooth is not a National Park. Nothing unique. Great place(been there), but not unique.

Likewise I don't believe the Grand Staircase National Monument should be a preserve either. It has nothing unique that has not already been preserved in Canyon Lands, Grand Canyon, Zion, Capital Reef, or some of the local Utah State Parks.

Personally, I could go for expansion of some national Parks to preserve the whole range of eco systems for true biodiversity, but wholesale new ones? All the unique places have already been made into parks LONG ago. If not national parks, then state parks. LONG ago.

This isn't 1900 or even 1960... A new park in NM is absurd.
Wastral

 
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Washington, United States
Thanked: 25 times in 21 posts

The following user would like to thank Wastral for this post
Clark_Griswold, lcarreau

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby lcarreau » Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:13 am

Wastral wrote:

This isn't 1900 or even 1960... A new park in NM is absurd.


+1 ... WHY do we need to "lock up" lands into national parks this LATE in the game ???

Of course, there will ALWAYS be another well-meant preservation effort waiting in the wings ... OVER THE HILLS and FAR AWAY ...

User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4056
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 910 times in 685 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby Bubba Suess » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:09 am

Wastral wrote:National Parks should be unique.

Unique how? No other formation like it? Unique in the National Park System? Either way, by that standard, there would be a lot of parks that ought to be jettisoned. Maybe you would favor that, and if so, great. Which park is the least unique: Yosemite, Kings Canyon or Sequoia? Personally, I favor a robust stable of parks.

Wastral wrote:There is NOTHING unique about Bubba's proposed national park in plain-jane average hills and forests New Mexico.

In terms of "plain-jane average hills and forests" perhaps you are correct about some parts of the park, but in terms of the overall formation of the Jemez and its unique nexus of geology and history, it is a standout. The caldera that makes up the mountain is astounding even if it is hard to discern from the ground and there are numerous features that outshine the best of some other parks. In terms of history, I reckon there wouldn't be another park in the system that could compare to the layers of history that would be within the boundaries of the park.

Wastral wrote:Its why Sawtooth is not a National Park. Nothing unique. Great place(been there), but not unique.

Now I could be wrong, but I believe this to be erroneous. As I understand it, the biggest issue holding up the creation of a Sawtooth National Park with the more than 25,000 acres of inholdings that the federal government would have had to purchase. Some efforts were made to overcome this. In particular, the plan was floated to have the Sawtooths and White Clouds fall within the boundaries of the National Park while the valley, with the majority of the inholdings would be a National Recreation Area. This set the basic template latter employed at the North Cascades (which could be summed up as "nothing unique. Great place, but not unique").

Wastral wrote:Personally, I could go for expansion of some national Parks to preserve the whole range of eco systems for true biodiversity.

Incidentally, given the gaping administrative hole currently in the Jemez due to the Valles Caldera Preserve, a national park there would actually improve matters and unify the extremely diverse ecosystems under one administration. This would be especially helpful after some of the recent fires that have hit the area.

Wastral wrote:All the unique places have already been made into parks LONG ago. If not national parks, then state parks. LONG ago.

This is objectively not true. What compares, in general or in the park system, to Steens Mountain and Hells Canyon? They are certainly "national park" worthy. There are lots of other places too. If it were ever possible, I think a national park in the Llano Estacado would also be amazing. You ought to read Dan Flores' Caprock Canyonlands.

Wastral wrote:This isn't 1900 or even 1960... A new park in NM is absurd.

Bitter.
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 173 times in 97 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby chugach mtn boy » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:13 am

Wastral wrote: All the unique places have already been made into parks LONG ago. If not national parks, then state parks. LONG ago.

Depends what you consider unique, I guess. The largest glacier in the US (and in North America) is not in a park.

Nor is this:
Image

nor this
Image

nor most of this:
Image

Not sayin' they should all be in parks, but anyone who says all the unique stuff is in parks already needs to get around more. And ... the hostility to parks on this site is interesting!
User Avatar
chugach mtn boy

 
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:54 pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, United States
Thanked: 181 times in 109 posts

The following user would like to thank chugach mtn boy for this post
Bob Sihler, mrchad9

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby Wastral » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:09 am

Hey, I am all for National Parks, but personally I think it has gotten out of hand in some of the newer "additions". If it isn't a state park already or wilderness, it is hardly worthy of the title "National Park". For instance here in Washington and their newly created "wild Sky wilderness". 1) It is hardly wild, 2) it is hardly wilderness, and 3) there is nothing unique about it and would have vastly preferred more lowland areas added to Glacier Peak Wilderness or Alpine Lake Wilderness. Instead they tied up/Held hostage a bunch of land that frankly was good for logging and well, logging that could have helped pay for education expenses.

Hey if you want to preserve it as a historic site, great, but that does not a National Park Make unless it is absolutely lousy with archeological sites and frankly we don't have any such in the USA that aren't already a park. No, I have not personally been in that part of NM to see for myself,(Been to Carlsbad though and went cave speulunking over spring break and saw over 50 caves) but you haven't given any pictures(more than what I could find on the internet in 45minutes of searching)[See I did look, not just blather =)] that would make me stop and say, Ok, gotta see that. In Arizona, the ruins there are at least fairly interesting and well preserved and likely to remain that way.

Personally, Sawtooths would be a superior national park than the joke that is Rocky Mountain. In fact, in the same state, the Wasimuche Wilderness would be a vastly superior national park, of Course the Sawtooths cannot compare to Grand Teton which is RIGHT NEXT DOOR or Glacier National, so why make it a National Park? it is already a wilderness erm, rec area for pete's sake... I have climbed Castle peak BTW in the Sawtooths, so its not like I haven't been there. Likewise when going to College in Ohio my brother and I would always stop and climb on our way through and then stop again in either Grand Teton, Yellowstone, or Wind Rivers. On way home would swing through the Southwest and Utah.(No you don't have to worry about people stealing stuff in National Parks)(Then again our car was full of stinky smelly clothes and engineering books, hardly items to be stolen)

As for your pictures of places in Alaska, give me a break, there are already vastly more and better already preserved in Alaska. Been to a couple of them. Certainly can't say I have been there much. Would love to go back.

Just because a place is beautiful doesn't make it a national park. If that were true, all of British Columbia and most of Alaska would be a National park. Already vast areas of both states/provinces are held in reserve. At some point one has to live, cut trees, make 2x4's, paper, and toilet paper. BC alone has just as much area preserved as a National Park as the entire land area of England. Alaska has vastly more. I believe about double already. IE more land area than the entire state of Washington. Just to put it into perspective...

2c wasted down the drain...
Wastral

 
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Washington, United States
Thanked: 25 times in 21 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby Bubba Suess » Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:30 pm

I think that some people have lost sight of what National Parks are supposed to be. While preservation of the land is certainly an essential component of the park's purpose, they are also intended to provide access to the land and its history for people. Not just for the hearty outdoorsman, but for all people. Even though this is not the exact paradigm employed at the big Alaskan Parks (part of which contributed to the development of the Preserve designation), it has remained the operational paradigm for all the other parks. Generally there is a front country where all have access and a backcountry that is, to some degree or other, in a wild state. Whichever stage of development one is heading to, there is something for everyone. This is where things have gotten fuzzy, as some people tend to see national parks as an instrument of preservation alone (again, the big Alaskan parks), not as an actual park that benefits the land and people. It is the latter for which the parks were created and it is to that end that they should still strive and it is to that end that they still contribute to society. This is especially important in our increasingly urbanized and suburbanized country. If the backcountry in a national park is not sufficient for someone (I think they would have to be pretty discriminating if this is the case...), there are always a host of other places, often of equal grandeur, where they can go.

The point of this is, people need to keep things in perspective. There is more at work than simple land preservation. There are important societal undercurrents at work and benefits to society that go far beyond simply preserving the land. That is what the 1964 Wilderness Act was for. Parks are for something more. Both are noble.

A national park in the Jemez, as fanciful as it may be (or maybe not that fanciful as previously noted), would serve both the preservation and park paradigm. Land would be set aside for preservation and recreation and the vast layers of history would be peeled back for people to learn from. People would come, economies grow and the land, saved and enjoyed, would prosper too.

Also, when thinking of national parks, keep this in mind too:

Image
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 173 times in 97 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby surgent » Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:59 pm

I have been following this thread with interest. The Jemez Mountains along with Bandelier "seem" National-Park worthy. I wouldn't expect it happen in quite awhile, but it certainly matches well with other National Parks.

I have dealt with the trust in charge of the Valles Calderas and they are a difficult bunch. At some point in the near future, that trust needs to be removed. National monument status would be a quick fix. The Valles Calderas is a remarkable place. To those who have not visited, trust me, it is.
User Avatar
surgent

 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:45 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 88 times in 55 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby Clark_Griswold » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:49 pm

As long as they continue to manage and limit game species to prevent over grazing, exclude cattle if they already do, and have a high use of fire to maintain a fire dependent ecosystem, I almost don't care who is in charge. TNC has some great small properties that are generally closed to the public except during tours, and while you can't get on them to hike or just explore at will, when you see them you really appreciate them for what they are.
...
User Avatar
Clark_Griswold

 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:51 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 306 times in 234 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby Bubba Suess » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:02 pm

surgent wrote:I have dealt with the trust in charge of the Valles Calderas and they are a difficult bunch. At some point in the near future, that trust needs to be removed. National monument status would be a quick fix. The Valles Calderas is a remarkable place. To those who have not visited, trust me, it is.


Scott, what dealings have you had with the VCP trust and what kind of issues have you had with them?
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 173 times in 97 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby surgent » Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:02 pm

There seemed to be no one in charge. This was back in 02-04. Calls were not answered, emails not replied to. When I did get someone, they'd tell me to view the website. Seemed a new person was being hired every time and I'd have to re-explain my questions. Little things, but over a period of time, became frustrating.

The trust management was an experiment, so I understand. In a case like this, a benevolent dictator may be preferred.

I have had no dealings with them since that time.
User Avatar
surgent

 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:45 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 88 times in 55 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby Wastral » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:08 am

Bubba Suess wrote:While preservation of the land is certainly an essential component of the park's purpose, they are also intended to provide access to the land and its history for people. Not just for the hearty outdoorsman, but for all people... Generally there is a front country where all have access and a backcountry that is... Whichever stage of development one is heading to, there is something for everyone. This is where things have gotten fuzzy, as some people tend to see national parks as an instrument of preservation alone (again, the big Alaskan parks), not as an actual park that benefits the land and people. It is the latter for which the parks were created and it is to that end that they should still strive and it is to that end that they still contribute to society.


I agree wholeheartedly. I just get annoyed with supposedly charging $$$ for supposed "public land" "for the people".

It was for your above statements that Glacier Peak Wilderness, was not included into the North Cascades National Park. Many will tell you that GPW is more National Park worthy, than what is currently NCNP. But the creators of NCNP at the time wanted it to remain wilderness and not have roads etc. As it turns out there aren't any roads in NCNP either so the entire complex is wildeness including GPW. Do I agree completely with turning the whole thing into a wilderness? No, but honestly there is really only one place one could put a road/visitors center to, Image Lake-->Lyman Lake area, so even with that being done everything else would remain a wilderness area. In my opinion this is what truly should have been done. It will never happen.

Currently NCNP is trying to expand along HWY 20 so they can put a visitors center at Washington Pass with Liberty Bell and Silverstar's cliffs as a fantastic backdrop. Why do I not support them doing this? Because they will now charge me money to dare "trespass" a public road, to park on a public road and charge me by the night to camp. Its why I have stopped going to Olympic National Park. Go hiking for a week is ruinously expensive for a supposed "park for the average Joe open to one and ALL". Add in the moronacy of forcing people to camp in "designated areas on certain days" is plain stupid when you sure as Hell are not going anywhere when its crappy weather.

When I do go into NCNP, I simply lie to the idiot behind the counter of where I am camping(assuming they are open when I go past[Usually are not]). I always pick a spot off the normal track and tell the idiot behind the counter a unknown time period. Or grab a self fill out permit before hours and simply fill in a BS report for their moronacy red tape. Forcing average Joe's to become liars just to use a park is plain stupid and why I will NEVER support a NATIONAL PARK being created OR expanded until this stupidity is eliminated.

Bubba Suess wrote:Land would be set aside for preservation and recreation and the vast layers of history would be peeled back for people to learn from. People would come, economies grow and the land, saved and enjoyed, would prosper too.

This is where I think you are wrong. You are trying to shoe horn economics into the discussion. Economics should have NO bearing on if one should create a National Park. Economics are ALREADY in use in this area as part of cattle ranching and forestry products, all of which the users already pay for. You eliminate these people and you create a GIANT hole in your economic plan. How do you replace these peoples income? This is also why I get a bit mad about ANWR. The oil wouldn't have even been near the wilderness area, except the greenie wack a moles decided to add a bit more land area because they think oil is somehow evil and eliminate its set aside status for oil production. Likewise there is nothing magical or unique about ANWR that is not already preserved in Gates of the Arctic or Noatak National Parks or a dozen other wildlife preserves. Add in the land based oil wells don't actually harm the environment, ah but I digress getting off topic...
Wastral

 
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Washington, United States
Thanked: 25 times in 21 posts

Re: Idea for a new national park in New Mexico

Postby lcarreau » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:38 am

Bubba Suess wrote:Land would be set aside for preservation and recreation and the vast layers of history would be peeled back for people to learn from. People would come, economies grow and the land, saved and enjoyed, would prosper too.


Isn't this what the USDA - Forest Service is doing already --- PROVIDING for recreation while working with the various user-groups and taxpayers ... :?:

Sorry, but you're NEVER going to get away without paying "public-use" fees and taxes, unless you flee to the Republic of Northern Beer-wah ... :D


Wastral wrote:This is where I think you are wrong. You are trying to shoe horn economics into the discussion. Economics should have NO bearing on if one should create a National Park. Economics are ALREADY in use in this area as part of cattle ranching and forestry products, all of which the users already pay for. You eliminate these people and you create a GIANT hole in your economic plan. How do you replace these peoples income? This is also why I get a bit mad about ANWR. The oil wouldn't have even been near the wilderness area, except the greenie wack a moles decided to add a bit more land area because they think oil is somehow evil and eliminate its set aside status for oil production. Likewise there is nothing magical or unique about ANWR that is not already preserved in Gates of the Arctic or Noatak National Parks or a dozen other wildlife preserves. Add in the land based oil wells don't actually harm the environment, ah but I digress getting off topic...


You make a very good POINT. Those "greenie-wack-a-moles" will be the DEATH OF US ALL ... simply, the truth ... :wink:


Wastral wrote:

This isn't 1900 or even 1960... A new park in NM is absurd.


Don't believe I could have said it any better ... it might be bitter, but it's the BITTER TRUTH .... :!:
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4056
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 910 times in 685 posts

PreviousNext

Return to Southwest (AZ, NM, NV, TX)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.