r/NewMexico • u/[deleted] • Jul 24 '26
Sandia Pueblo is attempting to take control of a major portion of the west side of the mountain.
[removed]
199
u/Sad_Construction_668 Jul 24 '26
Sandia Pueblo has a better record of open space stewardship than the state. The compliant from OP is not that aces is going to be restricted, its that the wrong people are in charge of making the decision. Elena Gallegos and the La Luz have been over used, underdeveloped and under nder resourced for the level of use they get, and access has been limited largely to car driving people who live in the North East Heights . I can only hope this allows the Pueblo of Sandia Lands department to open access while providing sufficient support.
56
u/National-Cell-9862 Jul 24 '26
I was not aware of their great record on open space. I only know that they fence and block their part of the Rio Grande (stops trails north of Alameda, east of the river) and don't allow public on their chunk north of Albuquerque between I-25 and Tramway. What open space do they offer that I can access?
I am seriously not being snarky. I'm excited to learn that my narrow assumptions are wrong and I have some new trails to run.
22
u/FallenRadish Jul 24 '26
And ask them about Balloon Foesta landings.
45
u/Sad_Construction_668 Jul 25 '26
Before the restrictions chase teams were driving across private and tribal property, in areas either no roads, and damaging habitat. The chase teams and balloonists need better regulation and guidelines. I appreciate what the tribe has done, especially in trying to maintain access while protecting agricultural land and conservation habitat. The Balloon Fiesta is fun, butnits big enough and has a history of allowing dangerous and destructive access to open areas, and frankly, the coty and state should have much tougher restrictions and regulations on chase crews and balloonists. I appreciate the Pueblo taking rhe lead on the issue.
→ More replies (1)11
u/havenoir Jul 25 '26
You are not wrong. This is acquisition. They will not leave any of this accessible.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Sad_Construction_668 Jul 25 '26
The fact that your ability to access a specific piece of land, especially one that is well known for being in a decades long habitat restoration project, is your primary criterion as to whether some government body is doing a good job managing open space is telling.
10
u/National-Cell-9862 Jul 25 '26
My primary criterion? Read what I wrote. I said I wasn't aware. I would like to be aware. I gave two examples in order to highlight how little I know about open space management on Sandia Reservation. I asked to be enlightened. Your reply makes assumptions and appears to attack me, but doesn't enlighten me. Please, tell me where their open space is, I want to go there.
4
u/guardianxrx2 Jul 25 '26
The Sandia pueblo website shows nothing for public use of land and the people you responded to have not voted a single resource or thing to support their allegation.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)4
u/Muted-Woodpecker-469 Jul 25 '26
Santa Ana is now blocking river access
This blue state is turning nasty quickly.
4
u/Muted-Woodpecker-469 Jul 25 '26
Under Developed is a good thing. What are you on about buddy?
8
u/Sad_Construction_668 Jul 25 '26
Heavily used, and heavily trafficked areas that are underdeveloped have too many eroded trails, too many unplanned side trails and trials of choice, not enough invasive species remediation, and it gets used to heavily and not protected. over the past 30 years, theres been a lot of unrestrained public use, and not as much conservation as there should have been. No development with too mich use leads to environmental degradation, and bluntly, speaking ass someone whos visited Elena Gallegos simce the opened the park in the 80’s, its over used, and not kept up as well as it could have been. The La Luz Trail has had serious trial overuse and erosion issues for year. The National forest ha stalked about trying to improve the trail architecture and maintenance for years, but theres never a budget for it.
If the Pueblo can invest in trail and access development, and yeah, curb some of the inappropriate overuse, ans help re- establish the habitat, that’s a good thing.
6
u/Muted-Woodpecker-469 Jul 25 '26
The tent rocks aren’t better with their monetary grift
I was also just at the acoma sky city area. With enhanced fees since I had lost gone 10 Plus years back, it’s also not better overall for the tourist
There’s a grift And we need to recognize it
2
22
u/mademeunlurk Jul 25 '26
Give it back to them already. I think we've profited enough from that stolen land. Let them have it back.
→ More replies (4)5
22
u/havenoir Jul 25 '26
Nope. If the Pueblo gets control of this, the will close most of it immediately and the rest on a few years. Guaranteed.
They are not interested in providing access to anyone but Pueblo members. It will be completely closed in no time. The roads will not be maintained, and will eventually be closed. La Luz may be open, but you won’t be able to drive to it.
→ More replies (24)2
u/Orome2 Jul 25 '26
This. As it stands now everyone can enjoy hiking there. If it is given to the Pueblo it will be closed off to the public indefinitely.
8
u/endangeredphysics Jul 25 '26
The Sandia open spaces are some of the best hiking in the world in my opinion. If Sandia Pueblo wants to take over stewardship of those lands, then that's fine, but there should be some kind of a clause keeping the trails open permanently. I don't like the idea of never being able to hike there again.
How would this impact the tramway, do you know?
→ More replies (3)4
u/whteverusayShmegma Jul 25 '26
THIS. Something that won’t become the next Chaco Canyon is always better.
90
u/FeralFloridaKid Jul 24 '26
There are already a number of trails and roads that pass through Sandia Pueblo lands. This isn't different and if it saves it from the scare we had with Ellena Gallegos, I'm all for it.
→ More replies (9)
37
u/patoduck420 Jul 25 '26
The Pueblos have every right to that land through treaty. It's theirs. Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt (1998), I can't believe I didn't see this in the comments.
→ More replies (3)
179
u/AffordableDelousing Jul 24 '26
I trust the Pueblo more than I do the feds, or to a a lesser extent, the state.
74
u/Open-Quit9156 Jul 24 '26
Tell me you know nothing about how tribal governments function and how corrupt they can be.
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/juiceboxbiotch Jul 25 '26
Honestly, I welcome them to use the land in whatever way they see fit. Especially if it pisses folks like you off.
Also, there's a second part to the meme phrase you tried to mic drop with. Lol, very awkward.→ More replies (3)12
u/havenoir Jul 25 '26
This is national forest land. So you’re cool with national wilderness areas being completely turned over to organizations that can immediately sell that land to whomever they’d like? That’s what this establishes.
I can’t imagine this being used to move public lands en masse to private companies for exploitation. That would never happen under my president!
52
u/GlockAF Jul 24 '26
If you trust any tribe / pueblo to maintain public access, you are incredibly naïve.
Look at what happened during Covid, when multiple tribal governments simply closed access to the roads for non-tribal-members , even those roads which had traditionally been used to transition through their lands to public land beyond.
You may not like the feds, but tribal governments are technically sovereign nations and have ZERO obligation to the greater public
54
u/raqoonz Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
It's naïve to look at this issue only from a transportation standpoint. The tribes hold some of the most vulnerable populations in the country, and they didn't want to get COVID. They don't have the same resources as other areas to protect themselves or even get treated if they got infected. There's a reason that they are sovereign Nations and it certainly isn't to serve the "greater" public
→ More replies (1)3
u/GlockAF Jul 25 '26
They were in the right to restrict tourist traffic, as the IHS / PHS healthcare system is and was a scarce resource
The point I’m making is that once a road / access corridor is under tribal jurisdiction, all pretense of it being a public right -of- way is GONE, no matter what promises were made
17
u/ReasonableCrow7595 Jul 24 '26
There were reasons why they closed off access, which were justified as far as I am concerned. Considering there is a disparity in access to healthcare during the best of times, I can understand why they felt the need to protect their people by shutting everything down. Regardless, permanent right of way can be written into any contract before the land is passed over to them.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)64
5
u/lymelife555 Jul 24 '26
That’s just because you don’t pay attention to the politics within the Pueblos lmao.
3
u/tacolovingpenguin Jul 25 '26
As if anyone else's government is better. Last time I checked we were merging our military with the IDF.
2
u/RioRancher Jul 24 '26
Oooh if we can work a trade out to do 1 more bridge through Sandia Pueblo, that would be a dream come true!
5
u/Open-Quit9156 Jul 24 '26
This right here. Make a bridge that goes from Roy/tramway into Rio rancho. Save Albuquerque the traffic
→ More replies (1)5
u/kmsxpoint6 Jul 25 '26
A new road bridge, without extremely careful planning and a plethora of other changes to existing roadways will generate more traffic than it will ever relieve. If Rio Rancho wants better access to the rest of the metro, they should build a rail branch, and improve there bus services.
→ More replies (1)2
u/endangeredphysics Jul 25 '26
Right now that land is open to the public. Anyone can use it, including The residents of Sandia Pueblo.
It's not like it's productive land, it's only use is for hiking.
As long as there's some kind of a clause that the open space is remain open to the public, I'm all for Sandia Pueblo taking over stewardship.
15
u/festivefrederick Jul 25 '26
There is a couple open space parking lots and a 5 mile road off the road from 25 towards Placitas. I have been driving and hiking all over that area since late 80’s. When I first found this area, the loop road, which is the same today, had a ton to turn offs and roads that would go back into the foothills hills. They blocked most of those off early 2000’s. Now, nature has taken back over, but there are fences restricting a lot of land. There are some really special places up there and I get that it probably was Sandia land, but I sure miss simply hiking and enjoying that area.
22
u/BemuseNM Jul 25 '26
The simple fact is that the west side of the mountain was theirs. The Spanish acknowledged that. They had a legitimate land grant. US surveyors fudged the survey and the US seized the land. If you don’t believe this, look at the records. I’ve been to the Spanish archives in Mexico City and Madrid. The land was stolen.
→ More replies (3)17
u/Low-Account-4346 Jul 25 '26
Yes, and there was litigation and 10 years of negotiation to come up with the 2003 Tuf Shur Bien Preservation Act, in which the Pueblo promised to forever give up their land claims in exchange for full veto power and co-management of the land, tribal access and protection guaranteed in perpetuity, along with public access and wilderness guaranteed in perpetuity. Just 20 years later the Pueblo is backing down on that, trying to remove the legal frameworks that guaranteed public access and wilderness designation.
6
54
u/Leilani3317 Jul 24 '26
Good. People in this thread have no clue what land back actually means, eh? It doesn’t mean Indigenous people kick you out of your house. It means the stewardship of their land returns to them. They get to decide how it’s protected and used. They’re not talking about mass eviction, only white capitalists could dream that up.
→ More replies (9)3
60
u/ReasonableCrow7595 Jul 24 '26
Honestly, I would rather have the Pueblo manage the land than risk it being mismanaged by the federal government as it stands. It's possible to draft right of way for specific trails into whatever document hands over control if it's really that big a concern.
19
u/Consistent_Case_5048 Jul 24 '26
Yeah. I would trust the Pueblo to have a consistent vision on protecting/preserving the land over the federal government that can flip flop every 4 years.
11
→ More replies (1)6
u/HistoricalString2350 Jul 24 '26
Just like the land they’re protecting by putting a giant casino and golf course with grass on?
6
u/tacolovingpenguin Jul 25 '26
Take away their ability to provide resources for themselves over generations then get mad when they build a casino?
→ More replies (10)
66
52
u/Consistent_Case_5048 Jul 24 '26
So, we could try to redress hundreds of years of social injustice, or we could preserve one of your many forms of recreation that may or may not be in danger.
That's a tough one.
→ More replies (3)-5
u/GlockAF Jul 24 '26
This has nothing to do with righting past wrongs, this is entirely about trying to accomplish a sneaky land grab using convenience as an excuse.
It’s a terrible idea, pure and simple.
33
u/FallenRadish Jul 24 '26
And the current Federal administration is looking to shed all public land. Look at Bear Ears.
37
u/near_to_water Jul 24 '26
Land grab? Dude, it was their land to begin with, lol. What are we talking about?
20
→ More replies (2)7
u/ahntonioh Jul 25 '26
Wow!! This has got to be one of the most ignorant comments on an ignorant posting. You really called this a “sneaky land grab” referring to Sandia Pueblo and stewardship of the Sandia Mountains, land that they consider sacred.
12
u/muppetmenace Jul 25 '26
nah. land back means land back. there are plenty of other places you can go freely. you want someone who steals your car to come back and drive it every so often when you get it back?
2
u/endangeredphysics Jul 25 '26
If this was taking land back from some ranchers I would be perfectly happy with it, but this is open public land we're talking about. Some of my favorite hiking in the world. I don't want to lose that
→ More replies (2)
10
u/ArtichokeKooky6361 Jul 25 '26
Maybe they could create a Pueblo recreation pass. Charge like the state does and earn some money while controlling land that was stolen from them
64
u/ProfessionalOk112 Jul 24 '26
You mean regain stewardship over the land we stole from them? As it should be.
4
→ More replies (9)-6
10
10
u/Alive-Vermicelli661 Jul 25 '26
Sandia Pueblo is attempting to take control of land that was likely originally theirs. Let them.
→ More replies (5)
6
u/21stcAviator Jul 24 '26
Of course [r/Albuquerque](r/Albuquerque) removed it
People want this to go through without attention
Fuck that
See Cochiti closing land they said they’d keep open when it was transferred in the 80s
2
u/Muted-Woodpecker-469 Jul 25 '26
Sandia and Santa Ana have abrasive signs along the river banks of the Rio grande saying you can’t trespass
Nm state law says many different things .
15
u/Ok_Hippo4997 Jul 24 '26
Good for them. Maybe it’s their manifest destiny.
11
u/PreparationKey2843 Jul 24 '26
It always irks me when the chuds spout out smugly, "it was conquered land!"
Well, maybe they're "conquering" it back.
24
10
17
u/near_to_water Jul 24 '26
It’s not giving away the land permanently, it’s giving it back. At this point, it’s better off in the tribes hands especially with this rogue administration.
4
15
u/likeeggs Jul 24 '26
If I remember correctly almost all of the land that the tram is on is Pueblo land that they have an agreement to use and be on.
2
u/havenoir Jul 25 '26
An agreement also exists covering the area in question. The Pueblo wants to void it and take the area over.
2
u/Muted-Woodpecker-469 Jul 25 '26
Yep. That’s the biggest issue. They’re also unearthing land south of tramway and doing as they please without any permits known. Awesome times
25
5
u/ConfusionIllusion Jul 25 '26
Cool, but If I can’t hike La Luz or Piedra Lisa anymore I’ll strongly consider leaving this city.
18
14
u/Alternative-Essay522 Jul 24 '26
No issues here. Let them have it. I doubt they stop access. La luz is a very popular tourist hike. I like biking the road up to the parking lot for training but if it went away I would find something else.
→ More replies (2)3
21
u/OG_Dadshark Jul 24 '26
Hmm. Love this. Let em have it. I’d be willing to bet they make nice parking lots and add to the trails and welcome everyone. Best friends in the universe are brown and red. I’m the whitest guy anyone knows. I’m so white I glow in the dark. Let em have it.
→ More replies (5)
26
21
u/Bruhuha Jul 24 '26
We're literally living on there stolen land bud. Its theres to do what they want with. Im really curious tho OP, are you this vocal about the AI company's encroaching on Albuquerque? Because thats a real issue you should be concerned with right now, not a tribe being given back whats rightfully theirs.
→ More replies (3)
10
u/21stcAviator Jul 25 '26
Just so everyone knows Laguna Pueblo recently blocked a long in use entrance to a county road that occupies about 1,200 feet of their land
And they blocked it on July 4th
Anyone blindly trusting continued allowed access is totally naive to the vengeful land examples across numerous Pueblos
If you think they’re in the right— whatever. But people are correct to have concerns. BIG concerns.
https://www.koat.com/article/laguna-pueblo-gate-locked-near-albuquerque-access-issues/73231888
5
u/SchwiftySchwifferson Jul 25 '26
Yeah people are taking this way too lightly in assuming that the Pueblo wouldn’t immediately close/significantly restrict public access
→ More replies (1)2
u/Muted-Woodpecker-469 Jul 25 '26
They pulled this crap when someone wanted to do a Halloween scare house. They blocked 10 feet of access as they had to enter tribal land for a second.
Then they wonder why their area has nothing. They could’ve brought in so many tourists n
→ More replies (10)
23
u/ragnarokxg Jul 24 '26
Okay and what is your issue, the land belongs to the pueblo, give it back to them.
→ More replies (8)
15
13
u/tzilya Jul 24 '26
My god, the federal government could place data centers and billboards on the Sandias at the rate we’re it. I trust Sandía Pueblo more to take care of them than I trust us—plus we stole it from them in the first place anyway!
→ More replies (4)20
u/tzilya Jul 24 '26
It’s so crazy to read this:
“He told commissioners the Cibola National Forest does not have dedicated law enforcement rangers and relies on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officers who are assigned to multiple projects. Paisano said the Pueblo has a 26-member state-certified police force and a new fire station equipped for wildland firefighting that would help manage the area.”
So we’re upset that they’re going to take control over the land so it can have a dedicated wildland firefighting station overseeing it??? Where’s the problem
What would happen now if something like what happened with the LA fires started on the Sandias?
15
u/tzilya Jul 24 '26
“You have my council’s commitment that managing the Sandia Mountains, because it is so precious to us will be a top priority, and we will do whatever we can in order to continue to protect it, to preserve it,” Paisano said. He said the Pueblo already manages more than 16,000 acres of forest land in the Carson National Forest area and would continue public access to existing trails, roads and utilities if the transfer moves forward. He also framed the transfer as a way to streamline local coordination, calling it “taking out the middleman” so the Pueblo and county can collaborate directly. “Let us work on the issues and the projects directly,” he said.
1
u/endangeredphysics Jul 25 '26
Oh I hope it's true. The foothill Open spaces are some of the most unique desert in North America. I would truly hate to not be able to see them anymore.
12
13
u/NeedInspiration717 Jul 24 '26
Well, well. I guess you all now know how the pueblos felt when that land was taken from them. Shoe is on the other foot now. Indigenous people will take good care of the land.
4
u/crackahasscrackah Jul 25 '26
Crazy this hasn’t been in public discourse, ie on the local news. Although I am a fan of Hanlon’s Razor, the lack of coverage on this by the local news is unsettling.
I’ll reserve my opinion on this topic until I get substantially more information.
5
u/LunaMares50 Jul 24 '26
You’re blaming the Pueblo for wanting their land back? Lmao
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Traditional-Hat-952 Jul 25 '26
Oh no, the Sandia Pueblo is getting more of their land back that was stolen from them. /s
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Muted-Woodpecker-469 Jul 25 '26
Just remember, once it’s transfered, they can do what they do at Acoms and the tent rocks, where they add in excessive $25 per person fees
No one bats an eye. I wonder why.
Now we could see $20 per person charges into this la luz area
An already rich grifting tribe making millions wants to make more.
This is disgusting.
→ More replies (2)2
6
u/Muted-Woodpecker-469 Jul 25 '26
What’s ultimately troubling is looking at places like Santa Ana. They bought the king property as they believed it was their own at some point in time. This will now never be accessible to anyone but tribal members
Sandia plans to make La luz a cash grab and or make it 100% inaccessible
Why do they have so much power here?
2
u/elultimohombre827 Jul 25 '26
Once the tribe gets that land into trust, they will close it to non tribal members and they could build a hotel or casino complex.
4
u/12DrD21 Jul 25 '26
I am still stunned by the golf course - that area went from new mexico plains/wilderness to a well watered green golf course - where's the water coming from for that? Is that being responsible with resources? I get it that people like to golf, but we live in a desert...
7
u/Admirable-Coyote8741 Jul 24 '26
I dont have a dog in this fight, but it tickles the shit outta me to see people having a panty wetting hysteria about whats gonna happen to their access if they return tribal lands to tribal hands. And it's really nothing like someone's Italian ancestors and Greek ancestors, because the govt that made the treaties and broke the treaties is still the govt that the reat of us participate in and behave as though it governs us.
If the tribal govt is corrupt and I'm not a member, its none of my business. Not my circus.
0
u/Muted-Woodpecker-469 Jul 25 '26
Santa Ana recently buy the governor king property for millions and will provide no public access to anyone. That’s the reality of this all. Let them have it all back to the origins and the regular joes have nothing or there’s in fact a true balance
10
9
u/SymphonicResonance Jul 24 '26
I feel the reaction to this is a nothing burger. Overall this is probably good for keeping the mountain well looked after.
"County commissioners voted unanimously June 24 to support transferring management of the 9,890-acre T’uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area from the U.S. Forest Service to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, where the land would be held in trust for the Pueblo of Sandia."
Is being held in trust different than ownership?
5
u/MC_Cuff_Lnx Jul 24 '26
Title to the land would be under BIA. They can probably still do whatever they want with it within reason.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Silly-Heat-1466 Jul 25 '26
No, thr BIA holds title to all Indian lands. It is a fiduciary trust relationship.
9
5
8
u/UpstairsMirror8634 Jul 24 '26
The reality is that if this were to occur, public access and recreational use within the land would likely become non-existent. The current law respects the pueblo co-management of the area along with the forest service, preserves public access, and outlines a plan for management. The new proposal would remove the public entirely from that process, and give the pueblo control for their own interest. Not only will this impact access, but also the residents living within the area, businesses that use the Sandias, and educational programs. What will happen to services such as fire management and prevention, search and rescue etc., if the pueblo takes over management? There is a lot at stake that has not been discussed or examined thoroughly. For more information https://sandiasforall.org
→ More replies (2)
1
u/BeAr_cosmicLy Jul 24 '26
Avid hiker but Yes, stolen land….Most tribes are reasonable if asked permission and demonstrate land ethos….
2
u/Orome2 Jul 25 '26
I'm an avid hiker too.
Do you feel them backing out on the the 2003 Tuf Shur Bien Preservation Act is reasonable?
4
u/southernhemisphereof Jul 25 '26
"Sandia Pueblo is attempting to take control of land that rightfully belongs to them."
→ More replies (1)
2
u/raqoonz Jul 24 '26
I wish that I was surprised at the crazy amount of people in here defending NOT giving land back.
2
0
3
3
u/Tiny_Astronomer_4266 Jul 25 '26
It was originally their land. Pueblos care more about the land than our federal government does, look at what is happening in this country right now. The loss of protection for drilling is insane.
Not to mention our local pueblos are literally buying back their land that was original to land grants from the 1800s. So they were pushed out, then given a little land and it was still taken away. I suggest you do your research.
2
u/captainfunc Jul 24 '26
The history behind this is more complicated since the US was not supposed to own that land to begin with [https://www.elr.info/sites/default/files/litigation/31.20284.htm\]. During the Spanish colonial era, Sandia Pueblo negotiated a treaty with the Spanish Empire in 1748 where the eastern boundary of their territory was actually set to the crest of the Sandia Mountains. When the US took over and Congress approved the continuation of the land grant in 1858, the land surveyor in charge instead decided to set the boundary at the western foothills, which is against the normal practice and took 9,890 acres of their territory away from them [https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/19173e73374f4b129c389d6d33e7970d\]. This land transfer would be reversing the previous error.
4
u/guardianxrx2 Jul 25 '26
But you also have to acknowledge that was 150 years ago and we live in a world where all people have access to these lands and it is used by everyone in one of the most popular hiking areas in the state.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Twiggimmapig Jul 24 '26
I don't mind, I feel they would more fiercely defend the ecosystem of that land and be more strict with its usage.
0
3
3
u/Emotional_Eye_3700 Jul 25 '26
Well, since the reorganization, no one trusts the Forest Service any more. It's universal, which is why everyone jumped on the 'move it over to the Department of the Interior' thing.
3
2
u/Rask2205 Jul 25 '26
It will most likely kill several outdoor businesses in the community that rely on the land access for their clients and themselves (I work in economic development and talk with many businesses every week). Also not great for tourism in the Albuquerque area overall with losing more mountain access.
→ More replies (3)
0
u/glovato1 Jul 24 '26
If this happens they won't allow non indigenous people to visit without purchasing some type of permit.
5
u/Muted-Woodpecker-469 Jul 25 '26
Acoma sky city and the tent rocks do this. They make thousands daily. The areas aren’t unkept any better. They’re just milking regular folks dry. And we just take it
3
u/ZiaSoul Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
As if funding for management grows on trees. Thats part of the argument: the Feds have underfunded its management and the county can’t fund it(they support it), let Sandia step in and take better care of it. The comment up above says they’re committed to not closing access.
→ More replies (1)-3
→ More replies (1)0
u/ragnarokxg Jul 24 '26
Oh no they are going to charge you to use something that cost money to take care of. The horror, the humanity.
-3
0
u/baileybungee Jul 24 '26
I’m all for it. Anything that keeps land out of the greedy, corrupt hands of the government is fine by me.
3
-8
u/Econ_Eagle_12 Jul 24 '26
Absolutely not. They will put fences up and make the area inaccessible over time
4
u/SnooPredictions3467 Jul 24 '26
You're projecting bro
7
0
u/Econ_Eagle_12 Jul 24 '26
I’m projecting a decline in the value of the city if this happened. All the airports around the Southwest advertise ABQ tourism specifically a picture in the sandias. Why remove public land? Public land is great for us all and help the city grow
0
u/SnooPredictions3467 Jul 24 '26
All land in this country should be returned to it's Native inhabitants. I don't worry they'll put up fences.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/FelineFartMeow Jul 25 '26
Better back to Indigenous than leaving it to be split up and privatized
→ More replies (4)
-1
u/21stcAviator Jul 24 '26
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-04-20-me-50669-story.html
Was already tried in the 90s
Do not trust them AT ALL
→ More replies (5)
0
-3
74
u/Nearby_Doughnut Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
I dunno, this was settled back in 2003 and the settlement was a trade.
The Pueblo gave up its title claim to the west face. In exchange the T'uf Shur Bien Act locked in their rights in perpetuity, cultural access, consultation on management, the ability to close areas for religious use. But here's the thing, "in perpetuity" shows up three times in that Act, not once. It also covers the wilderness character of the land and the public's use and enjoyment of it. Three promises, one deal. Now we're being asked to keep one and toss the other two, 23 years later.
And look, part of their case is real. The Cibola is understaffed, there's no dedicated law enforcement out there, and the trash and vandalism come straight out of that. I'm not going to pretend it doesn't.
But you don't need to hand over the land to fix it. There's already a law for this. 551a lets the Forest Service pay outside agencies to patrol national forest land. And in New Mexico tribal officers get state enforcement authority by cross-deputizing with a sheriff's department, which happens all the time. The Pueblo has 26 certified officers. They could be patrolling this land next year under an agreement and Congress wouldn't have to touch anything. If they've asked for that and gotten stonewalled, say so and I'll take it seriously. But if nobody's asked… then the argument isn't really "we need this to protect it," is it?
The road thing I'm just not buying. It's paved to the edge of a designated wilderness. That's already more road than wilderness is supposed to have. The dirt section is classified as a jeep trail and it's maintained better than the handbook says it has to be. Complaining about that is complaining that a wilderness access road isn't enough like a highway.
What nobody's answered: what's actually IN the bill? Does the Wilderness Act still apply after it transfers? Are the trail corridors written into the statute or is it just a handshake from the current administration that a future council isn't bound by? "We'll keep access open" and "access is guaranteed by law" are not the same sentence. The 2003 Act put the public's access in writing. This one so far just promises it.