The conflict between ranchers and hunters has taken center stage in the White Peak controversy—Lyons says it is one of the primary reasons for the trade.
But both hunting and grazing are small potatoes when it comes to generating revenue for the state trust.
For example, before relinquishing some of his grazing leases in the trade, Stanley had leases on more than 21,000 acres from the State Land Office. Stanley currently pays approximately $6,000 annually for the entire tract—roughly 30 cents an acre.
The Department of Game and Fish, according to its spokesman Dan Williams, pays the State Land Office a flat fee of $200,000 a year for an easement that allows it to distribute public hunting licenses on all 9 million acres of state trust land. That’s just over 2 cents an acre (though not every acre of state trust land has viable hunting resources).

“Obviously, they’re the most important asset the state trust fund has,” Matt Rush, a Republican candidate for land commissioner who swept his party’s pre-primary convention with almost 65 percent of the vote, says. But Rush, like the other candidates in the race, recognizes the danger of a uniform investment portfolio.
“We must look at ways to diversify that,” Rush tells SFR. “We can’t have all our eggs in one basket.”

That, he says, is simple self-preservation: The State Land Office won’t have much to do and its 22 beneficiaries will be out of luck once all the oil and gas in its 13 million acres of trust lands has been extracted.

“I’m really upset at the way the Land Office has been run,” Powell tells SFR. “I think it’s a disaster.” Powell’s election platform—which echoes his failed candidacy in the primary election for this office four years ago—is rooted in the adage that the office needs to protect public lands and diversify its sources of income.
“The trust is in perpetuity; it’s forever,” Powell says. “So you [try] to make that revenue stream as stable and as large as you can for perpetuity. Doing projects that make you some money on the short term but cost you opportunities on the long term don’t make any sense.”
White Peak, he says, is a classic example.
If the trade goes through, Powell says, “You may make a couple thousand dollars more a year, but what have you cost in terms of economic return to the entire community?”
(Lyons counters that his administration “did more conservation than” Powell “ever did.” He, too, cites White Peak. “Look at all the roads, the ruts, the trespass. If [Powell] is such a good conservationist, why did he advocate to leave it as is? All conservation groups ought to be for this!”)

“We really need to look at renewable energies,” Montoya says, indicating he’d develop wind, solar and hydrogen through partnerships with private firms already producing renewables. He’s also a vehement opponent of the White Peak swap, both because “things are fine the way they are” and because part of the trade involves a 3,630-acre section of Arroyo Seco. The area falls within Montoya’s county commission district, yet he says Lyons kept him in the dark about the trade.
Jones, too, mostly opposes the trade—mainly because he doesn’t see enough justification for it.
“If I’m land commissioner, there’s going to be a much more stringent process for land swaps,” Jones tells SFR.

But while Lyons has increased the revenue his office generates over his two terms, he also has come under fire for what many conservationists consider inappropriate coziness with oil and gas interests. It’s a suspicion that has crept into the furor over White Peak—as well as the upcoming election.
Vesbach compares White Peak to the Valle Vidal area of the Carson National Forest, which was under threat of drilling until it received congressional protection in 2006.
“It’s a place similar to Valle Vidal; it’s an issue similar to Valle Vidal,” Vesbach says, “and if the trades were completed, it would make the area harder to protect.”
Potential oil and gas development is of grave concern to Mora residents, as well as the Sierra Club, according to Norma McCallan, the vice-chair of the Sierra Club’s Rio Grande Chapter.
“Our concerns are not with the private ranch owners,” McCallan says. “We’re concerned because the [exchange] seems to have been done with a lack of transparency and openness. The state land commissioner has an enormous amount of power.”
In February, Lyons told the New Mexico Game Commission that he had denied a request to lease 30,000 acres of state trust land in White Peak for oil and gas development because “we want to save that area as a pristine area.”
Lyons has publicly committed not to open White Peak to drilling while he’s land commissioner—if all four trades go through.
“We want to maintain it as a quality area,” Lyons tells SFR. But, he adds, “If the exchange is killed by the attorney general and if the private guys start leasing all their lands that are checker-boarded within us, then we have to step back and look at that.”
Chances are, though, Lyons won’t be the person overseeing the ultimate fate of White Peak.






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.
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.