Moving back to the thread topic:
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?
I think this is where your ignorance of the area really shows through. Most of the land that would the center of a Jemez National Park is currently part of the Valles Caldera National Preserve. The administration of this block of land was an experimental land management trust, which, as Surgent pointed out and is widely acknowledged in NM has been a failure. The only commercial operation currently ongoing in the preserve is a small cattle ranch. I reckon this would continue in the park as part of the "living history" component, much like Philmont still operates a ranch. There is no forestry going on in the Preserve. Beyond that, much of the land I am suggesting be added to the park is already run by the NPS (Bandelier) or the BLM (Tent Rocks and White Canyon, neither of which have commercial resource potential). The rest is all part of Santa Fe National Forest and has almost no commercial potential, both because it is already managed for recreation (Jemez Falls area) or because of fires. On the otherhand, visitation to the park would be a huge boon to Los Alamos and the small villages on the west side, not to mention the Reservations, who I am sure would welcome the increased tourist dollars. Furthermore, I did not "shoehorn" the economics into the discussion. There was a natural progression made in an offhand comment. Economics has had little to do with my suggestion thus far.