Thursday, May 23, 2013
Facebook Connect
 
This Week's SFR Picks
 
— The Radness of King George
'Game of Thrones' mastermind George RR Martin talks childhood, popcorn and his latest acquisition
— The Canary in the Copper Mine (is dead)
How New Mexico's copper industry wrote its own rules
— Slaughterhorse-Five
The inner workings of NM’s first equine slaughterhouse
Guides Santa Fe Manual Restaurant Guide Best of Santa Fe Bar & Nightlife Summer Arts

Letter America: Dear Southwest Airlines

Letter America Dear Southwest Airlines, I’m writing to complain about the unfair way I was treated on a recent flight from San Francisco to Phoenix. ... More

May 20, 2013 By Robert Wilder Comments 5
 
 
 

 

 
Home / Articles / News / Features /  Trust Issues
Features 05.05.2010 3 Comments

Trust Issues

Two sides have locked horns over white peak—which land commissioner candidate can sort out the tangle?

By Alexa Schirtzinger
05.05.10 Trust issues cover

 In the far northeast corner of New Mexico, there’s a rugged sanctuary where eagles wing silently overhead and elk roam unmolested through forests of pine and juniper—at least until hunting season begins. Come autumn, this place roars to life with all-terrain vehicles and gunfire as hunters collect on this season’s elk licenses.

This is the now-infamous White Peak, a patchwork of state and private lands that has become a focal point for a series of political and ideological conflicts.

The brouhaha began last summer when New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands Patrick Lyons proposed to exchange state trust land for private ranch holdings. Just a few days before the first swap was set to close, on Nov. 20, a firestorm of criticism erupted. Jeremy Vesbach, the executive director of the hunters’ conservation group New Mexico Wildlife Federation, calls it a “sweetheart deal.” In a public statement, Gov. Bill Richardson condemned the swaps as “a behind-the-scenes deal with virtually no public input.” Hunters rallied and decried the loss of land they had accessed for decades. Others speculated the deal would lead to housing developments, and oil and gas drilling on one of the state’s most scenic corners.

Lyons and supporters of the deal say the swap will ease mounting tensions between hunters and ranchers. More pointedly, Lyons has reiterated the potential financial gains the cash-strapped state could realize under the deal.

These competing narratives in the White Peak controversy reveal larger tensions in New Mexico’s fraught oversight of its land and the concomitant conflicts between conservation and generating revenue.

Add politics to the mix: It’s an election year, and the open seat for land commissioner (Lyons is term-limited) has drawn a crowded field for the June 1 primary, which will lead to a partisan race come November.

The candidates—like so many others in the White Peak debate—see the outcome of the White Peak deal as one that could redefine not just the State Land Office but also the strategy behind public lands in New Mexico for years to come.

John Olivas, a hunting and wilderness guide from Mora and the northern director for the environmental group New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, says the White Peak crisis has completely altered the political involvement and convictions of the small communities of northern New Mexico.

“I don’t know that anybody ever really took notice of the State Land Office,” Olivas says. “They knew there was a state agency out there, but the locals didn’t know who they were.” The proposed swap and potential loss of access to White Peak enraged and galvanized people in the area. Olivas, a Democratic candidate for Mora County commissioner, fully expects his community to take an active interest in the upcoming race for Lyons’ successor.

“The next state land commissioner has to strongly support the opposition of [White] Peak,” Olivas says. “That’s pretty evident.”

But in the meantime, White Peak’s future rests in the hands of the state Supreme Court—at least the part that impacts rancher David Stanley.

In White Peak, March days dawn clear and brisk. Stanley, rangy and blue-eyed, revs up his two-seater ATV and loads on a pile of maps and snacks for a tour through the craggy ridges and stream-filled valleys of White Peak, where Stanley’s family has owned a ranch for 30-some years.

“My father bought the property from somebody who didn’t divulge the problems of trespass,” Stanley says. “First hunting season came, and we just couldn’t believe it.”

In the late 1990s, Stanley bought this ranch from his father, a Texas oilman who by that point had already been working for years to trade some of their private holdings for nearby state trust land.

The reason, Stanley says, is the ranch isn’t one continuous property but, rather, a loose collection of small parcels intermingled with state trust lands. When elk season comes, he says, people licensed to hunt on state trust land use Stanley’s property to get there, sometimes cutting fences, stealing signs and even poaching elk from his property. When he tried to close the roads, he says, the problems just got worse.

Lyons’ plan for White Peak swaps 14,634 acres of state trust land (close to 3,700 acres that are not actually located in White Peak) for 9,650 acres of private holdings on four ranches in White Peak.

The ultimate goal is a “quality game unit”—a tourist attraction resembling the Valle Vidal. Such consolidated, well-managed state trust lands, Lyons says, will ultimately bring in more revenue to the Land Office—and, consequently, to public schools around the state.

Stanley’s exchange is the first and largest of the proposed swaps, and would trade 7,205 acres of state trust land for 3,330 acres of the Stanley Ranch. Despite the disparity in acreage, Lyons paints the deal as a boon to the state trust: An outside appraiser (contracted by the State Land Office and paid for by the private ranchers) values Stanley’s total offering at $6.41 million—slightly more than the state’s $6.36 million parcel.

By trading the portions of his land that are surrounded by state land, Stanley reasons, he won’t have to deal with the trespass and vandalism. He can close off the old logging roads that have become ATV thoroughfares and let his land return to the pristine place with which he first fell in love.

Generations of land commissioners expressed interest in an exchange with the Stanley Ranch, but no deal ever went through. Stanley blames the hunters.

“They don’t want the trade,” Stanley says. “They basically get to drive and hunt and use all these private lands [without permission]—and that’s what they want to do.”

Ed Olona, New Mexico Wildlife Federation’s board president, doesn’t dispute the first part of Stanley’s statement. He readily takes credit for derailing Lyons’ past attempts to exchange White Peak for the Dawson Ranch in 2003 and for parts of the CS Ranch in 2004.

“Had the sportsmen been involved in this [current] situation, it would not have gone as far as it did,” Olona tells SFR.

But Olona and others say Stanley’s allegations of hunters’ bad behavior are exaggerated, at best.

“The sportsmen are not making roads and trails [with ATVs],” Olona says. “They’re not littering and stuff like this. Why can’t the landowner fence his area properly? That would solve the problem.”

Lief Ahlm, the northeast area operations chief at the Department of Game and Fish field office in White Peak, tells SFR the area “is about the same as anywhere else” in terms of trespass.

But Stanley isn’t the only landowner who claims a history of problems with the hunters.

“We have become jaded enough that we do not notify the Game [and Fish] Department,” Mike Hobbs, the general manager of the Express UU Bar Ranch, another property involved in Lyons’ White Peak exchange, says. “By the time they get here, the perpetrators are gone. They know the Game [and Fish] Department is not going to cite them for trespass—all they have to do is rip down the ‘no trespassing’ sign.”

Continue reading: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 |
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 
 

 

 
05.10.2010 at 10:23 | Reply |

A review of the basic facts regarding efforts of Public Land Commissioner Patrick Lyons to swap state lands with the Stanley and UU Bar ranches shows why more than 97 percent of people who’ve written the New Mexico State Land Office oppose the trades: The public would lose 4,700 acres in what the Department of Game and Fish classifies as “Core Occupied Elk Range.”

 

That means we’d lose prime wildlife habitat and also approximately 50 elk licenses per year. The bulk of those licenses would go to David Stanley—who could resell them for thousands of dollars each.


It is understandable why the two landowners would stand behind such deals. However, the Land Commissioner has a duty to the public that has been broken. The Attorney General is acting to enforce the safeguards in our state Constitution meant to protect the public from such a misuse of power.

 

That Lyons received a free hunt worth thousands from the UU Bar’s previous owner before proposing a similar trade only makes the deals smell worse.


The story also revealed how easy it is for those pushing these swaps to hide basic facts. The story ends with Stanley in the high country “sweeping his arm across the unspoiled area before him,” and saying, “This is what I’m giving them.”


Not surprisingly, Stanley failed to mention he would more than double his acreage in the deal, getting approximately 7,200 acres in exchange for just 3,300 acres. He also failed to mention that nearly half of the land the public would receive in the two swaps is in a virtually treeless parcel of land next to the highway.
Mr. Stanley is a charming man, a good salesman, even “rangy,” “nimble” and “blue-eyed,” as pointed out in the story. But be careful before you buy the sales pitch.

 

Sometimes it pays to look beyond the blue eyes and focus on the facts—then it’s easy to see why so many people who’ve used the public lands around White’s Peak for generations oppose these lopsided sweetheart deals.

 

05.13.2010 at 05:19 | Reply |

People who are persuaded by information from the New Mexico Wildlife Federation should take a look at the website: www.whitepeakland.com . The website counters the PR coming from NMWF and the AG's office. In particular, the lands involved in the exchange -- please examine the many photos of lands the State will be receiving (http://whitepeakland.com/Gallery.php) and it's clear that the NMWF is not telling the whole truth. The State will receive many quality pieces of land and while the State will receive some poor parcels in the exchange, so will landowners receive some poor parcels from the state.

The biggest misinformation I've heard the NMWF spread is that trespassing is not a problem. The department of G&F supposedly has data to back that up. However, what they don't tell you is that trespassing is next to impossible to enforce because first you have to post signs, and then the trespassers have to be caught. Last year the Stanley ranch put up nearly 200 'no trespassing' signs and within the first week of Bow hunting season 85% of the signs had been stolen or destroyed. They also put up notification signs and the majority of those signs were destroyed. They then installed hidden surveillance cameras and they were stolen within two days. This level of vandalism and disregard for private property makes enforcement of trespassing completely impossible. Further, most trespassers are hunters and are thus armed, and it's extremely dangerous to confront them.

Jeremy Vesbach, Executive Directory of NMWF, accuses Stanley of "hiding basic facts" by not saying that his acreage will increase. However, in that accusation, Vesbach is himself hiding a basic fact -- that the appraisal showed that the State will increase the value of its holdings, yes -- the state will receive lands of TOTAL GREATER VALUE than it is trading away. Since the acreage the State will receive is less, but the value higher, it follows that the average value of the parcels the state will receive from the Stanley ranch is SIGNIFICANLTY higher then the value the State is trading to Stanley ranch.

As long as the area is a checkerboard-quilt of private and public lands, there will be ongoing problems. Please see "The Range Wars", http://whitepeakland.com/The-Range-Wars.php for a brief history of the intimidation and even violence in the area.

The primary benefit of the exchange is that it will consolidate State Trust Lands, private lands, and thus relieve a patchwork mosaic of public/private lands and produce larger contiguous areas (please see the maps page: http://whitepeakland.com/Maps.php). This should be good for everyone.

But to trespassers, this is a loss since they have become accustomed to hunting on and trespassing on private lands with impunity.

Perhaps the exact lands involved in the exchange is not optimal -- I have no way to judge that, but it seems to go a long way toward resolving a decades-old and very serious problem.

I don't know if the NMWF is mostly lying, mostly telling the truth, or somewhere in between. But when you catch them in a clear lie (the trespassing issue, for example), any implicit trust you give them is forever broken.

 

05.15.2010 at 02:40 | Reply |
Mr. Vesbach's claim that Stanley is getting more land and therefore the state is getting a bad deal is based on the premise that location does not matter in land value. Stanley is trading bottom land with water and grass—prime elk habitat—to the state for dry hills and mesa. Over all, according to one of the top independent appraisers in the nation, the state gains value. Mr. Vesbach's claim (on the Reporter Website) that Commissioner Lyons is corrupt due to his previous hunting on UUBar is slanderous. Lyons hunted on UUBar years before he held his current political office and at the time the UUBar was not owned by its current owner. Mr. Vesbach's is correct, however, in saying the land owners get a sweet deal. The forty year range war, the OHV abuse of land, with people being held up at gunpoint and historical structures being burned down, is finally resolved by creating clean boundaries. What Mr. Vesbach NEVER MENTIONS, is that all those who love Northern New Mexico also get a sweet deal—an accessible wilderness in the heart of a million acres of habitat accessible to mountain bikers, hikers, campers, and others who do not get to enjoy the land. At this point, the only people who know how to access the area are a small group, mainly politically powerful hunters who have wagged the dog of the political establishment to maintain their own private hunting area on state and private land. Their attempt to block the trade, if successful, will mean that Commissioner Lyons will rent out the land to drilling and this opportunity will be lost. If Mr. Stanley's trade is negated, he will sell his land and the new owners may also open it to drilling. Finally Mr. Vesbach's personal attacks on David Stanley in his letter is offensively unprofessional for the leader NMWF, who claimed to me, a fellow member of NMWF, to be open to a diversity of viewpoints. Mr. Stanley, a conservationist who runs an organic cattle operation, is an natural alley for all those who wish to preserve wildlife habitat and the land—he would be a natural ally of Aldo Leopuld. As Green Progressive conservationist, I urge you to learn more on my website, www.whitepeakland.com, which offers the most comprehensive historical and contemporary view of all White Peak issues. Marc Choyt Publisher www.whitepeakland.com

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close