Christmas Mountains

[BigBendHiker]

In today's San Antonio Express-News:

West Texas land deal takes small step forward

Web Posted: 04/02/2008 10:19 PM CDT

Gary Scharrer
Express-News

AUSTIN — Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has told the superintendent of Big Bend National Park he wants to help transfer the Christmas Mountains to the National Park Service while also reasserting his concern about hunting and firearms.
The National Park Service should designate the state's 9,270 acres in far West Texas as a "national preserve" so hunting can be allowed, Patterson said in a Friday letter to Park Superintendent Bill Wellman.
 
Patterson announced last year that he wanted to sell the rugged property, which is difficult to manage because of deed restrictions, to a private landowner who could provide better stewardship.

The state acquired the land 17 years ago from a donation by the Virginia-based Conservation Fund and the Richard King Mellon Foundation. The gift came with an anticipation that the land eventually would go to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department or the National Park Service for perpetual conservation.

Patterson does not support the park service's suggestion that it acquire the property by using private donations to buy it from the state. Congress should come up with the money for the purchase and ongoing management, Patterson said in the letter.

Without such a commitment, "the Christmas Mountains will run the risk of being neglected due to a lack of funds needed for its care," Patterson wrote.

His plans to sell the land to the private sector fizzled after the park service expressed an interest in acquiring it.

The three-member School Land Board, which Patterson chairs, rejected two private bids for the land earlier this year. But Patterson has been lukewarm on the park service plan because hunting would not be allowed on the land.

"My consistent concerns regarding the disposition of the property have been the funding source, public access ... and that Texas firearm laws be respected," Patterson said in the letter to Wellman.

Patterson noted President Bush issued an order last fall instructing federal agencies to "facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat."

The National Park Service generally bans firearms in national parks. In his letter, Patterson requested that it "designate the Christmas Mountains as a National Preserve so that opportunities for public hunting would be made available."

But park service officials contend such a move would require a long process and would be impractical because of the scarcity of wild game.

"That's still the case," Big Bend National Park Service spokesman David Elkowitz said Wednesday.

Patterson's letter advances negotiations "only slightly," Elkowitz said, noting the commissioner is no longer mentioning other federal agencies as possible purchasers.

Environment Texas Director Luke Metzger faults Patterson for inventing concerns, believing that he simply wants to sell the land to private interests.

"Firearms and hunting, of course, only became an issue when NPS expressed interest in the land," Metzger said. "Even though there is tremendous public and legislative support for having NPS permanently protect the Christmas Mountains, it appears Commissioner Patterson is going to take his ball and go home if he doesn't get his way."

The House Land and Resource Management Committee is scheduled to consider the Christmas Mountains issue during a May 5 hearing.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gscharrer@express-news.net

[SHANEA]

Ah, the saga continues.  Thanks for posting that find BBH.   Nothing is simple is it. 

[russco]

A hopeful step in the right direction...but as a wise man once told me you can hope in one hand and s**t in the other and see which one fills up faster!

[SHANEA]

Hi Shane,

I have some good news to report! First, last week the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Commission voted to approve new standards to protect the Gulf
of Mexico from overfishing. They approved a cap on the amount of
menhaden that may be fished from Texas waters and will look into
requiring independent observers on boats to monitor the "by-catch" of
ocean wildlife. [1]

Second, some progress on the Christmas Mountains. In a recent letter to
the superintendent of Big Bend National Park, Commissioner Patterson
wrote that he has instructed his staff to work towards a transfer of the
mountains to the National Park Service. Unfortunately, the Commissioner
continues to push for policies that could be deal breakers. On May 5, I
will testify before a legislative committee  examining the controversy.
[2]

Finally, after the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) received thousands
of e-mails by Environment Texas supporters, the Commissioners agreed to
delay action on rules related to solar energy. The PUC is now
considering changes to the rules that would be more consumer-friendly.
More on this next week. [3]

Sincerely,

Luke Metzger
Environment Texas Director
LukeM@environmenttexas.org
http://www.environmenttexas.org

P.S.  Thanks again for your support.  Please feel free to share this
e-mail with your family and friends.

[Daryl]

Has there ever been any consideration of the Forest Service taking over the Christmas Mountains?  If they can manage grasslands, why not desert mountains?  Also, they allow regulated hunting, that should make Patterson happy.

[SHANEA]

Has there ever been any consideration of the Forest Service taking over the Christmas Mountains?  If they can manage grasslands, why not desert mountains?  Also, they allow regulated hunting, that should make Patterson happy.

Please read the original conveyance from the donor documents/contracts for a understanding of why that can not be a consideration.

Plus, there is very little, if anything to hunt there in the first place.  We are talking about a very small tract of land here.  If the hunting was outstanding and over ran by deer and dove, ok fine, but, there are hundreds of thousands of public acres right down the road from there that can be hunted on legally - and they are certainly not being over used.  Black Gap WMA, Big Bend Ranch State Park, and the one just south of Alpine.

[Daryl]

Please read the original conveyance from the donor documents/contracts for a understanding of why that can not be a consideration.

Thanks.  Any idea where I could find those documents?

[presidio]

Has there ever been any consideration of the Forest Service taking over the Christmas Mountains?  If they can manage grasslands, why not desert mountains?  Also, they allow regulated hunting, that should make Patterson happy.

Please read the original conveyance from the donor documents/contracts for a understanding of why that can not be a consideration.

Yep, Daryl, read those documents to learn that the only restriction on transfer to another party was that the land must first be offered to the TPWD or NPS. If neither wants it, then it can go to whomever will comply with the requirements of the original donor. TPWD has repeatedly turned down the offer. They don't want it.

This also was true of the NPS...until very recently...they rejected possession at least twice. Why? Who knows, but most likely it doesn't meet their standards for purity or importance.

Now, all of a sudden, something has changed on their end and they are seemingly 'desperate' to acquire it. What changed? Who knows, but the controversy and now public knowledge of their prior refusals has cast them in a bad light. So, the NPS, having specifically said 'NO' in the past now wants to have you believe this acquisition is one of the most important things they've ever been concerned with. More likely, they are worried that another agency other than TPWD might actually be interested and pose some competition to them in terms of how land is managed.

All the hooey from the NPS that they 'can't' allow hunting flatly isn't true. It may be, and most likely is the case that there is little to hunt there. If that is so, then what do they care if hunting is allowed? Well, they care because they don't want anyone walking land they control carrying a gun. This really is the root of their argument they can't allow hunting, and the current press by a large group of senators to overturn their highly restrictive regulations about possessing an operable firearm in national parks is giving them a case of the sweating willies. What it boils down to, is they don't want anyone, Congress or otherwise, telling them how they can run their show.

So, you have a classic case of immovable object vs. irresistible force over a single issue that in the real world (read non-park) would not be an issue. It will be interesting to see who prevails on the gun issue. With the congressional interest in overturning the NPS firearms regulation, I'd bet on the gun, but not necessarily on the hunting.

[randell]

TPWD has repeatedly turned down the offer. They don't want it.

Jerry Patterson elaborated on that when we met with him.  TPWD already has the under-utilized and enormous Big Bend Ranch in the area (which is larger than all other state parks combined).  TPWD has a directive to try to acquire land closer to urban areas, not in rural west Texas. 

[presidio]

TPWD has repeatedly turned down the offer. They don't want it.

Jerry Patterson elaborated on that when we met with him.  TPWD already has the under-utilized and enormous Big Bend Ranch in the area (which is larger than all other state parks combined).  TPWD has a directive to try to acquire land closer to urban areas, not in rural west Texas. 

Not surprising. After all, given the paucity of publicly-owned land anywhere in TX, there likely is considerable pent-up demand for places to get outdoors in the teeming urban areas. Sadly, given the population pressures in the central and eastern parts of the state, all TPWD can hope to achieve are a lot of postage-stamp urban parks where a section (that would be 640 acres in public land states) would be a huge catch; but more likely would be far smaller. Unfortunately, these kinds of areas become quickly saturated...look at Garner and Enchanted Rock, where they fill to the point further entry is denied and produce an outdoor 'experience' about on a par with crowded east coast beaches where you are crammed cheek-by-jowl with your nature neighbors.

That this kind of crushing use occurs is a crystal clear message there is not nearly enough public land to satisfy the demand. Hence, the emphasis that you note. The drawback to adding a bunch of itty-bitty state parks is that each needs a full staff, a huge overhead for a tiny gain. Thus, an agency that is chronically underfunded only burns its clothes to keep warm...they either provide poor or restricted access and services, or they steal the resources from some other park that had or becomes exactly the same problem. On the whole, you can run BBRSP with pretty much the same staff and budget as you can a 50 acre heavily used urban park. If you have six new 50 acre parks that are certainly to become overrun shortly after being made available, your operational costs just increased 500% compared to an existing park. This kind of thing directly affects a place like BBRSP, where the remote location limits public use to a few dedicated people and also makes it susceptible to budget raiding.

Given that there is a demonstrated need for more open space near urban areas, the state should stop trying to acquire teensy little areas that have some feature deemed desirable for public use, and instead begin looking at acquiring significantly larger tracts of land, whether or not everyone might consider them scenic or valuable. I guarantee you that the public will use any place they are given access to and you can always find something of interest on any piece of land; otherwise there wouldn't be any state parks in Kansas.

How do you do this? Well, you have your realty people keep an eye out for intact ranch properties that come on the market within reasonable distance of cities. It happens every day, somewhere. If the legislature can't move fast enough, then you enlist someone like the Nature Conservancy or a private foundation to underwrite the purchase until the state gets its act together. If the state does the negotiation directly, they operate under the fair-market principle and not exercise eminent domain, even though they could. No need to rev up folks with that topic. That means they won't always get the property, but current economic conditions are in favor of such deals.

Pretty much any ranch near an urban area would do. Buy at least one every year; the pathetic lack of public land in TX will take a while to correct. Overgrazed/eroded? Big deal, buy it...it may even come at a slight discount. Lots of parks began as overgrazed range. Provide substantial tax advantages to owners who donate land to make it worthwhile for them to put it in the public domain. Get creative. Give a donor a lifetime, annual $50,000 stipend...that's far cheaper than appropriating $5 million dollars to acquire the same land. People WILL be attracted by this sort of thing....the world of philanthropy is a lot different from the world most live in. It may not make sense to the average person, but it does strike a chord with a certain kind of donor. These kinds of programs often produce the most surprising results with donors of disparate backgrounds underwriting something that may not make business sense but creates a legacy at the point when that is their greatest concern.

Regardless, pick up a 5,000 acre ranch and immediately open it to public use. Get volunteers to do the preliminary planning if that's what it takes to be operational. Just because someone has a job title of 'park planner' doesn't mean they are the only ones that can do it, or do it well. You also don't have to wait for park people to figure out what the attractions are, the public will do that in short order if you give them a chance...and if it is already abused ranch land what are they really going to hurt in the short term? Nothing. If you give users a sense of ownership rather than a sense only of being admitted to the area, you will find the public isn't so stupid as park folks seem to like to believe, and you build a supportive constituency.

[Casa Grande]

by the way....I have to reiterate something that Patterson said at the Bender..... EMAIL HIM!

He couldn't believe the complete lack of emails regarding the Christmas mountains.  If you want clarification or the real scoop on the Xmas Moutains...email him.  He's not an evasive kind of guy...he'll give you the straight shoot (pun intended)

[Jim Suydam]

That's right, anyone can e-mail Commissioner Patterson at jerry.patterson@glo.state.tx.us

Below is a response Commissioner Patterson sent today to the Austin American Statesman, regarding an editorial the paper had run on Christmas Mountains April 3 (http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/editorial/entries/2008/04/03/headline_christmas_joy_still_a.html?cxntfid=blogs_the_editorial_board)

My response is late, so I don't expect y'all to print this but nonetheless I'll send it.
 
Your "Christmas Joy" op-ed was better than previous ones, in my opinion, but I would like to make a few clarifying points.
 
Big Bend National Park Superintendent Bill Wellman’s assertion that my requirement that federal funding be obtained would make the transfer take several years is inaccurate. If the conditions for sale are met, and the National Park Service agrees to seek federal funding, we can transfer the tract and wait for the money (it’s called a "term sale"). And I'm confident I can successfully lobby for a federal appropriation. This “red-tape” argument is a red herring.
 
I stand by my concern that without a financial commitment from Big Bend National Park or the National Park Service, the land will be neglected. Your comment that it’s been neglected for "tens of millions of years" is a nice soundbite and kind of cute but it belies reality. It HAS been neglected for millions of years, but it HASN'T been neglected for the last 60 years as evidenced by the mining, grazing, and trespassing/poaching that has occurred. Water resources need to be restored and invasive plant species need to be eliminated. You also seem to imply it can be managed without a financial commitment by the National Park Service in your "millions of years" comment. This I think you would agree is preposterous, and it will take some level of money to do what’s necessary to restore the land and make it even minimally accessible to the public via the 4hr 7.5 mile walk that is required to get there via Big Bend National Park without trespassing on the private property. (Remember there are 19 miles of perimeter and only 1 mile is contiguous with Big Bend National Park. The other 18 miles abut private property and there are no public roads therein).
 
Wellman’s proposal attempted to say hunting would be too costly.  His submitted budget for hunting was approx $330,000 for the first year and $138,000 for each year thereafter. By the end of the third year, that would exceed the value of the property! It also included the use of an airplane. I don't know about you, but I've observed hunting occurring all over Texas that doesn't cost anywhere near that much and an airplane is not necessary. Keep in mind this is the same National Park Service that is budgeting $10 million dollars to reduce an elk herd by "lethal culling" (it’s against the rules to hunt in national parks-remember?) in Rocky Mountain National Park over the objections of the Colorado Game Commission and local hunters who have asked the National Park Service to open the area to public hunting to cull the herd, at little cost to the National Park Service.
 
It is correct that there is no huntable population of deer currently present on the property, but my recent visits have observed a tract that is covered up with Quail, and has some dove. We intend to have dove and quail hunting there this season. Even without deer today, who's to say that years in the future there won't be deer in sufficient numbers. The National Park Service hunting ban is forever.
 
I was amused by the news coverage of my letter to Superintendent Wellman. The headlines would lead one to believe I had "come to my senses" and eliminated a "roadblock." There has been no change in policy since I never said I wouldn't consider the National Park Service as an option. If that were true, why would I have two letters from the National Park Service declining my offer to convey the property to them?
 
One item of news: Today I signed an easement allowing public access to the park via the one-mile contiguous boundary with Big Bend National Park. This alone equals the access that would occur if this tract became part of Big Bend National Park. Maybe the Sierra Club and Environment Texas can use some of the money they've been raising to "Save the Christmas Mountains" to go build some trails instead of using the money to continue misleading the public on this issue.
 
Jerry Patterson
Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office

[Ay Chihuahua!]

Thanks, Jim.  That's pretty much what the commissioner said at our little get together this weekend.

[SHANEA]

THE CHRISTMAS MOUNTAINS ASSOCIATION

P.O. Box 216

Terlingua, Texas 79852

April 7, 2008

LOCAL LEASE ON CHRISTMAS MOUNTAINS RENEWED

SOUTH BREWSTER COUNTY—The Christmas Mountains Association (TCMA)
recently voted to continue its conservation role at the 9,269-acre
Christmas Mountains Preserve adjoining Big Bend National Park. The
group, headquartered in Terlingua and composed of property owners
near the preserve, began leasing the property from the Texas General
Land Office (GLO) four years ago. Since then the group has worked to
remove invasive, non-native plant species, determine and mark
boundaries, and educate the public about this incredible resource.

The Christmas Mountains Preserve was put up for sale by the GLO but
was taken off the market to consider an offer from Big Bend National
Park. No decision on that has been made, but the National Park
Service management plan is posted on the GLO web site.

TCMA also elected officers for the coming year—Jim Hines, chair; Seth
Burgess, vice-chair; Pam Priddy, treasurer; and Sarah Bourbon,
secretary. Its next meeting will be, like many others, a work day.
One or more projects on the Preserve will be tackled by members—doing
either tamarisk reduction, posting signs, or building gates.

Anyone wishing more information about the group, including membership
facts, should contact Jim Hines at bbbe@bigbend.net

-30-

Contact Sarah Bourbon

432-371-2202

[Casa Grande]

PRESS RELEASE - April 9, 2008
Christmas Mountains now open to Big Bend visitors
Land Commissioner signs permanent easement to allow public access via park

AUSTIN - Jerry Patterson, Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, announced today the Christmas Mountains are for the first time open to hikers and campers visiting Big Bend National Park.

On Wednesday, Patterson sent Big Bend National Park Superintendent Bill Wellman a copy of the permanent easement he has granted, allowing public access via the mile-long contiguous boundary with Big Bend National Park.

"With our easement, the Christmas Mountains are open to Big Bend National Park visitors," Patterson said. "It's exactly the same access that would be allowed if the National Park Service owned the tract."

State ownership has one major difference: Guns are allowed in the Christmas Mountains. "Imagine that – accessible through Big Bend, yet it protects Texans' Second Amendment rights," Patterson said. "As long as I am Land Commissioner, the Christmas Mountains will be open to the public."

Still, Patterson noted, the rugged terrain would likely prevent visitors from taking in the spectacular vista of Big Bend National Park from the tallest peak of the Christmas Mountains. The peak can only be reached via an old jeep road that cuts through private property.

Patterson has directed his staff to work with members of Congress and National Park Service officials to eliminate the barriers to transferring the tract to federal hands.  He reiterated that the property needs a long-term federal funding commitment for care and maintenance and a designation that will respect the Second Amendment and allow public hunting.

Patterson stressed that his aim in selling the land was to accomplish the goals of the original gift: To preserve and protect the Christmas Mountains and open them up for appropriate public access.

For more information on the Christmas Mountains, including the April 7th permanent easement and the original conservation gift deed, visit the Texas General Land Office Web site at www.glo.state.tx.us.

###