TR - Valles Caldera National Preserve

On Friday, I had a chance to fish the Valles Caldera National Preserve here
in New Mexico with a good friend. This is a relatively new preserve that is
being opened for many uses in a conservative manner. To fish on the
preserve you need to win a lottery and then you must pay a $25 access fee.
I won with only one $5 chance and I know others that have done the same.
Check out their website for more information.
(http://www.vallescaldera.gov/)



The San Antonio is a small creek on the preserve that holds many brown
trout. It runs through a very large high altitude meadow. I've always been
curious about this area because it is at the core of the national forest
land that I have been exploring for much of my life. This was my chance to
finally see what I had been missing.



We arrived at the preserve around 7:00AM for a brief orientation and van
trip to our destination. I was surprised by the size of the preserve when
it took us about 45 minutes to get to our fishing beat (Beat 8). The beat
started next to a very old cabin that was close to a very small hut that
covered a hot spring. I noticed very few fish below the structures. This
section of river is closed for a short distance and it's probably a good
thing because I didn't see many fish. There was your typical hot spring
goop in the water and it seemed like it wasn't very good fish habitat.



I started fishing around 8:30AM and didn't get into many fish. I had only
caught about 4 fish before 11:30 and I was figuring that I was really doing
something wrong. The spring fed creek was clear with little cover and the
few fish I saw were very spooky. I even tied on a little dropper out of
desperation, but I was able to remove it when the fishing picked up around
noon. The upper half of the beat was a whole new story. We caught lots of
good fish and probably 10-15 of them were over 11 ½ inches, which is a good
size for this creek. We had to make very long casts or sneak up on the fish
for the most part. Almost every time you got any dry fly over one of these
trout without them seeing you, you would catch one. I've never used so much
of my fly line, it was kind of fun, except for the wind and having to be a
lot more conscious of my slack line.



It was a great trip and something that everyone should try. I saw Bruisers
post on this river last year and I told him that I would post something
about my trip. I'm a lurker that occasionally has the chance to read and
enjoy a few trip reports now and them. I posted a TR about fishing with my
son a just about 2 years ago and it will probably take me another 2 years to
post again. ROFF is a great group and it was fun to fish with a few of you
guys over by Yellowstone a couple years back. I hope to participate more
when my children get older.

JR wrote:

.... so I can't help feeling that since (from the web site) "On July 25,
2000, the American people purchased approximately 89,000 acres of the
Baca Ranch in northern New Mexico", and "the Valles Caldera Preservation
Act designated these spectacular lands as the Valles Caldera National
Preserve, a unit of the National Forest System", the fact that I can now
buy $5 lottery tickets for a chance to pay $25 to fish in part of the
National Forest System is a frightening preview of the brave new world
our public lands are being steered toward.

So, JR, how do you feel about population growth and (relatively)
unrestricted immigration?

One thing leads to another.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Excellent report Jim.

I also won a day with only one raffle ticket. Since I got to fish there
twice last season (once each on beats 2 and 3, way upstream) I only bought
one $5 ticket for each season (Spring, Summer, Fall). Didn't get drawn for
the Spring but I did get beat #10 for June 26.

Since I'm not too good at hitting the stream with long casts, I do a lot of
"crawling on my belly like a reptile" and that works ok too.

Jim is right - the tough part is getting your fly to the fish without
spooking them.

It's beautiful up there and it's a fun experience.

bruce h

bruiser wrote:

Excellent report Jim.

I also won a day with only one raffle ticket. Since I got to fish there
twice last season (once each on beats 2 and 3, way upstream) I only bought
one $5 ticket for each season (Spring, Summer, Fall). Didn't get drawn for
the Spring but I did get beat #10 for June 26.

First, I agree it was a nice report.

Second, I have tried all day to resist the urge to turn a simple (and,
again, nice) TR into a political thing, but I have failed miserably.....

..... so I can't help feeling that since (from the web site) "On July 25,
2000, the American people purchased approximately 89,000 acres of the
Baca Ranch in northern New Mexico", and "the Valles Caldera Preservation
Act designated these spectacular lands as the Valles Caldera National
Preserve, a unit of the National Forest System", the fact that I can now
buy $5 lottery tickets for a chance to pay $25 to fish in part of the
National Forest System is a frightening preview of the brave new world
our public lands are being steered toward.

JR

rw wrote:

JR wrote:

.... so I can't help feeling that ..... the fact that I can now
buy $5 lottery tickets for a chance to pay $25 to fish in part of the
National Forest System is a frightening preview of the brave new world
our public lands are being steered toward.

So, JR, how do you feel about population growth and (relatively)
unrestricted immigration?

I think whoever is in the U.S., by whatever means, should pay the taxes
he or she is obligated to by law and should be able to fish on our
public lands for free. Hell, I think even illegal immigrants, before
they're sent packing as I believe they should be, ought to be able to
fish on public lands for free.

The issue is not immigration. The issue is the effort to shift the cost
of access to public lands from a justifiably progressive system of
general taxation that allows unlimited access for all, to a regressive
pay-to-play system that over time will restrict access for those whose
disposable income pie doesn't have a big slice devoted to recreation.

One thing leads to another.

More than that, almost everything leads, eventually, to almost
everything else, even sometimes to stuff posted on ROFF a long time ago
that has little to do with the original one thing.

JR

JR wrote:

I think whoever is in the U.S., by whatever means, should pay the taxes
he or she is obligated to by law and should be able to fish on our
public lands for free. Hell, I think even illegal immigrants, before
they're sent packing as I believe they should be, ought to be able to
fish on public lands for free.

Presumably, then, you also believe that people, or at least taxpayers,
should also be allowed to camp and for free on public lands, including
national parks, monuments, and preserves. I'm not merely putting words
in your mouth. That's the logical, reductio ad absurdam consequence of
your position.

I've never been there, but the Valles Caldera National Preserve sounds
like a special, and probably fragile, place. I'm gratified that fishing
is even allowed. There don't seem to be a shortage of people willing to
pay the price, with seems rather modest to me. The lottery is clearly a
strategy to make the allotment more fair, instead of just charging what
the traffic will bear.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:

Presumably, then, you also believe that people, or at least taxpayers,
should also be allowed to camp and for free

Oops. Should be "camp and hunt for free." Sorry.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

I'll agree that outrageous user fees would be a bad thing, but in this case
it's different. There's a mandate that the whole preserve be cash flow
positive at some point.

And it's surrounded by a big watershed that's open to the public - where I
normally fish.

bruce h

The San Antonio is a very small creek that probably couldn't stand much
pressure without being trashed. I hate to pay a fee, but it seems like a
reasonable balance to this problem. The roads make this public land too
accessible. If access isn't restricted in some way, I'm pretty confident it
would become another beer can and salmom egg jar wasteland. I'm not a snob,
but I would rather jump through some hoops and pay $30 to fish this place a
few times than be disappointed many times for free.

If you are on a tight budget, I've always found that you can invest in a
little hike to get the same kind of results, if not better.

Jim


"bruiser" wrote in message
...
I'll agree that outrageous user fees would be a bad thing, but in this
case
it's different. There's a mandate that the whole preserve be cash flow
positive at some point.

And it's surrounded by a big watershed that's open to the public - where I
normally fish.

bruce h

"Jim" wrote

The San Antonio is a very small creek that probably couldn't stand much
pressure without being trashed. I hate to pay a fee, but it seems like a
reasonable balance to this problem. The roads make this public land too
accessible. If access isn't restricted in some way, I'm pretty confident it
would become another beer can and salmom egg jar wasteland.

Keep the lottery, ditch the fee. The reduction in pressure would be the
same.

I'm not a snob,
but I would rather jump through some hoops and pay $30 to fish this place a
few times than be disappointed many times for free.

WADR, the end result, applied widely, would be that folks who can pay
ever larger pay-to-play fees will have nice pristine places to fish and
folks who can't will have to settle for the overcrowded unmaintained
wastelands. The intent may not be elitist, and I believe you when you
say you're not, but the effect will be.

I've got no real gripe with fee-based fishing on private lands. It's a
shame that so many landowners in the West are now refusing permission to
fish their land, opting instead to lease the rights to outfitters and
guides, but that's their right. I'm very much opposed, however, to a
slow conversion of U.S. public lands to de facto private playgrounds for
the well-off.

If you are on a tight budget, I've always found that you can invest in a
little hike to get the same kind of results, if not better.

I'm not on any sort of budget at all when it comes to fishing (sadly,
perhaps g), but a lot of folks are, and I'd like to see enough public
lands remain public enough that a little walk continues to pay off for
them.

TL, JR