crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) (03/21/91)
From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Here's a subject for discussion:
Beginning this license year 'A $5.25 Wildlife Habitat Improvement
Stamp ("user stamp") or license validation is required of anglers,
hunters, and trappers within all U.S. Forest Service and Burea of
Land Management (BLM) lands in New Mexico. ...'
The quotation is from the current big-game proclamation for
New Mexico. This is, of course, in addition to the license fee.
It isn't clear from the proclamation whether this is a state or a
federal regulation but the wording suggests state. If so, are any
other states doing this? If a federal regulation, is it in effect
in other states?
Please allow me to begin by saying that I'm very much in favor of
*everyone* paying their own way. I am not, however, in favor of
"anglers, hunters, and trappers" paying the way for others.
Habitat improvement is, obviously, very important to these three
groups of outdoorsmen[1]. It is also, however, important to
bird-watchers, hikers, backpackers, etc. It is rapidly destroyed
by careless use of off-road vehicles including dirt bikes,
snowmobiles, jeeps, and a variety of other contraptions used by
many others besides "anglers, hunters, and trappers".
My point is that *anyone* who uses public land should help to pay
the piper. Those who abuse it should pay more. (Of course, the
proclamation merely says that these three groups must pay. It
doesn't say that others needn't. I just don't know.)
Indeed, the last I heard, fees charged for various uses of these
public lands more damaging than hunting, fishing, or trapping were
still well below market value. I'm speaking of grazing permits,
mining, logging, etc. Not long ago, there was an uproar from
environmentalists about pumice mining adjacent to a fragile piece
of habitat in the Santa Fe National Forest. One of the things that
sticks in my mind from what I read about the issue at the time
(from admittedly unreliable memory :) is that once such a mining
claim had been made, the company could buy the land and do with it
as they will for some ridiculously small fee (less than $10 per
acre)[2]. Incidentally, It seems that the reason they want to mine
this particular region is that they can get *chunks* of pumice
(rather than fine grains) to use to produce "stone-washed" jeans
and such. Keep that in mind, next time you want to buy a pair of
jeans that are already half worn out.
-----------------------
[1] "Men" and all of the other variants (e.g. man, he, him, ...)
are used in the generic sense. Please, don't lets begin a word war
here. I'm not sexist--my proudest, happiest moments afield were
when my *daughters* each bagged their first quail--I just don't
believe that there is an acceptable alternative set of words and
that "he/she" and it's ilk simply distracts from the real issue.
[2] If anyone reading this is really familiar with this business
of allowing a mining claim and then selling the land to the miner
for just a few dollars an acre, I'd like to learn what it's really
about. Even a pointer to a source of definitive information will
be appreciated.
Best,
Charlie Sorsby "I'm the NRA!"
crs@lanl.gov