Trouble Brewing Just a State Away.

[TRKHNTR]

Sportsmen’s access to state lands in hands of just one official

(This story first appeared in the Fall 2015 Outdoor Reporter)

New Mexico hunters, anglers and other public lands users are getting a nasty taste of what could happen if millions of acres of BLM and national forest land were transferred to the state, simply by watching our own State Land Office in recent months.

State Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn, who is accountable to no one but voters every four years, singlehandedly decided to ask so much for licensed sportsmen and women to use State Trust Lands that he is essentially locking the gates on some 8 million acres of State Trust Land.

As of late October, when this issue of the Outdoor Reporter went to press, the State Game Commission was refusing to accept Dunn’s demand for a 10-fold increase in the cost of access. If the Commission and Dunn do not reach an agreement soon, licensed hunters, trappers and anglers will lose – at least for the license year that starts April 1, 2016 – access to lands they have used for decades.

And three out of four New Mexico sportsmen and women surveyed by NMWF this fall said they were OK with that: they would rather temporarily shut down all hunting, fishing and trapping on State Trust Lands rather than give into Dunn’s exorbitant demands for access in the coming license year.

“It’s extortion, plain and simple,” said John Crenshaw, president of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. “When one man can set the terms for access so high that he knows sportsmen can’t or won’t pay, it’s just blackmail.”

Long history of working together

Game Commission minutes suggest that the first official access agreement between sportsmen and the State Land Office was in 1961. Since then, every land commissioner, whether Republican or Democrat, has agreed to allow licensed hunters, trappers and anglers to use State Trust Lands for a fee.

And in recent years, at least, land commissioners seemed to want sportsmen and women on the lands they manage.

In 2005, then-Land Commissioner Pat Lyons, a Republican, worked out a two-year agreement for sportsmen’s access, and said he was happy to work with Game and Fish. “I want to point out that the money that Game and Fish gives us goes to education, so you can say you supported educating our children in New Mexico,” he said. But in addition, “part of my objective is to keep the lands open to the sportsmen of New Mexico.”

The length of the access lease has varied from one year to four, and the rate has changed from around $100,000 to a little over $200,000. For the past eight years, then-Land Commissioner Ray Powell agreed to $200,000 a year, although he said worked hard to get the Department of Game and Fish to include additional services as part of the agreement.

“I really hounded them,” he told NMWF recently. “I purposely kept the fee at $200,000, because I kept asking for more and more for in-kind services. They acted as our enforcement arm – we saved a huge amount of money on that. We worked with their field people to tap into their computers. There was a list of four or five things I asked them to do that would have cost us millions and millions if we did it ourselves.”

It was important to work with Game and Fish, Powell said, “because we’re two sister agencies in government. I wanted to make sure we met our constitutional responsibility to the State Land Trust, but that's different from maximizing revenue. It’s incredibly important to keep those lands healthy and productive. The (access fee) check wasn't the point. All that does is ensure the public has to pay more on one end or another.”

Show me the money

Sportsmen ultimately pick up the cost of the access agreement – it comes out of the Game and Fish budget. For eight years, the cost has been $200,000 a year. But when Game and Fish began negotiating with Dunn in August for the 201-17 lease, he announced in a news release that the current fee was “disproportionately low” and that he wanted to raise it into “the $2 million range.”

What he didn’t mention in his release is that the State Land Office takes in as much $650 million a year, largely from oil and gas leases. The amount paid by Game and Fish is a drop in the bucket.

Nevertheless, New Mexico Wildlife Federation sent Dunn and the Department of Game and Fish a letter saying most sportsmen would probably agree that $200,000 was too low, but that a 10-fold increase was far too high. Additionally, NMWF asked that any fee increase also guarantee better access terms, such as longer periods for scouting as well as camping privileges throughout the state. Dunn did not respond.

Shortly afterward he trotted out a new plan. It called for Game and Fish to buy 10,000 acres of private land from rancher David Stanley in the White Peak area (GMU 48) at an estimated cost of $20 million, then donate the land to the State Land Office. In return, Dunn said he would sign a 20-year statewide access lease – essentially charging $1 million a year.

Then he suggested a three-year lease, starting at $1 million for the first year, $1.5 million for the second, and $2 million for the third. Dunn also asked the Department to create a “Commissioner tag” that could be auctioned, much like the existing “Governor’s tags.”

In the meantime Dunn rejected Game and Fish offers as high as $600,000 for one year, and $1.95 million for three years. The Department also asked for camping for both scouting and for licensed hunting, fishing or trapping activities, and guaranteed motorized access to State Lands from public roads.

According to Game and Fish, Dunn’s final offer was $4 million for three years. He also suggested doing a multi-million-dollar appraisal of State Trust Lands and basing the access fee on it, although he generously agreed to cap the fee at $5 million.

Members of the Game Commission said in September that Dunn’s stance was so rigid that he appeared unwilling to negotiate. They, in turn, showed no willingness to pay $1 million or more for access.

As of late October, there was still time for Dunn and the Game Commission to reach an access agreement. If none is reached, several Commissioners have said they could shut down all hunting, fishing and trapping on all State Trust Lands for the coming year.

The Commission could make either decision at its scheduled meeting in Roswell on Nov. 19, or by calling a special meeting with three days’ notice.

View of things to come?

“This is what our public lands will look like if national public lands are transferred to the state,” said New Mexico Wildlife Federation President John Crenshaw. “It will mean higher fees, more ‘no trespassing’ signs and locked gates, and continued deference to grazing lessees over sportsmen every time. Mr. Dunn has shown exactly why everyone who uses public lands needs to stand strong against those who would turn over our national public lands to the states – a move that Mr. Dunn has strongly supported.”

States cannot force the federal government to transfer national lands to themselves or anyone else. Only Congress has that authority, and even then any transfer would require the president’s signature. So far, Republican members of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have voiced support for transferring millions of acres of BLM, National Forest and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands to individual states.

The last time Congress transferred lands to New Mexico, they came under control of the State Land Commissioner. If it happens again, commissioners like Dunn would very likely control them – and that’s a huge threat for not only hunters, anglers and trappers but all New Mexico residents.

First, the Land Commissioner can sell or trade Trust Lands at will. Former Commissioner Lyons, while saying he wanted sportsmen on State Trust Lands, quietly sold a large parcel in the Bootheel to the Diamond A Ranch, eliminating crucial public access to Coronado National Forest. Other state land commissioners have sold or traded away nearly a third of the original 13 million acres received from Congress.

Second, the Land Commissioner can do what he wants with the land, and the whole point of transferring national lands to the states is to develop them. They can be leased for energy development, logging or mining, but the Commissioner also could sell or lease forest lands or streamside parcels, for example, for lodges or other uses.

And last, there is almost no public oversight over the State Land Office and little transparency. The State Land Commissioner is elected directly by the public and does not answer to the governor, the Legislature or any sort of board or commission. He (or she) is only responsible to the voters every four years.

Nor can voters recall a land commissioner (or any other high-level state official) – it’s not allowed by law.

Voters have their say about the Land Commissioner every four years. Dunn was elected in 2014 by an extremely narrow margin that prompted an official recount. Out of almost 500,000 votes cast, he won by 656. He would not stand for election again until 2018, if he decides to run.

“You put all this together,” Crenshaw said, “and it creates a real threat to the lands that hunters, anglers and others in the public have used for generations. When you have a person in office who has absolute total control over the fate of all these lands and who, like Dunn, apparently does not want sportsmen on those lands, there’s very little, maybe nothing, we can do about it. At all costs, we need to keep our public lands in public hands.”

 

[Red Sparky]

Great article. One of the main problems is there is quite a bit of state land, under the SLO control, that is landlocked by private land. Hunters do not have access to it and the SLO can't guarantee access if we pay more. If there is not a public road you can't legally cross private land to access SLO land. Hunters pay for the total amount of SLO land whether it can be accessed or not. As far as I know there is not a study saying how much SLO land is accessible and how much is landlocked. The Commissioner likes to throw out the number of total SLO land but I bet 1/2 is not accessible. So we would be paying a whole lot more for no increased access or benefits.

 

There are other benefits as listed in the article. LE, habitat improvement, animal studies, etc. are provided by G&F and the SLO is not counting that into the $200,000 access fee.

 

My personal feelings are I don't hunt SLO land so it is of no benefit to me. I would rather shut down all hunting on SLO land than give in to the bully.

[billrquimby]

When a similar issue involving access to state trust lands arose in Arizona in the early 1970s, then-attorney general Bruce Babbitt issued an opinion that said purchasing hunting or fishing licenses from a state agency guaranteed sportsmen and women access to these lands. I've been told that Arizona and New Mexico have identical "enabling acts," the legislation that gave our states statehood. Perhaps a lawyer in New Mexico may want to look at that ruling.

 

Bill Quimby

[ThomC]

Does NM have a permit system for users like AZ does? That would be better than G&F paying. The State Land Dept. should have some checks and balances. NOT a communist dicktater.

[Red Sparky]

It is a mess. You can read more thoughts on Bowsite under the NM State forum. Just know who who are voting for.