How should the Valles Caldera National Preserve look 100 years from now? That's a question we have been wrestling with since Congress created the 89,000-acre National Preserve in 2000.

Recently, I saw Congressman Ben Ray Luján touring the preserve. It is a phenomenal cultural and natural resource area in his Northern New Mexico congressional district. I imagine he was asking himself that question.

The Valles Caldera Trust has been soliciting opinions, and I think it would make an excellent addition to our National Park system. The preserve is next to the National Park Service's Bandelier National Monument, and it has extensive experience with national preserves, managing them from Alaska to Florida.

The enabling legislation asked the trust to seek financial self-sustainability in 15 years. They have tried to manage the preserve in a manner to achieve that objective; it has fallen short. Most public lands and open space do not generate the income needed to be self-sufficient.

Public lands and preserves provide opportunities for encounters with our heritage and for the soul: wildlife, the peace of quiet, the lung-full of fresh clean air, the azure sky. These direct benefits are worthy of public cost. The preserve could also benefit gateway communities like Jemez Springs. Sustainable economic opportunities abound around our open lands in tours, lodging, restaurants, etc.

Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall recently requested a feasibility study from the National Park Service on managing the preserve. Many conservation and environmental groups, besides the trust, look forward to reading the results. My experiences lead me to support the inclusion of the preserve in the National Park system. I'm biased, but on the side of what is best for the resources and public.

The preserve has nationally significant archaeological, biological, geological and recreational resources that are worthy of Park Service stewardship. You might be thinking: "whoa, there... the National Park Service doesn't allow hunting. Not true — most preserves do have a continued use of hunting; the preserve's enabling legislation maintains the state's (Department of Game & Fish) authority in regards to hunting and fishing.

The trust spends more than $41 per acre to manage the preserve (same as Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming) compared to $27 per acre the National Park Service spends at Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve in Colorado; $30 an acre at Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas; $12 per acre at Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida; less than $7.22 per acre at Mojave National Preserve in California.

The Valles Caleras National Preserve's hunting, grazing, lodging, tour and use revenues will fall significantly short of self-sufficiency. To achieve it, the trust would need $50-plus million in resort-style development. Do we want to create a resort environment?

During these times of fiscal austerity, another consideration is duplication of governmental efforts. The federally funded preserve has a larger budget than Bandelier National Monument. Both are federal lands. Within Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area there are state parks managed by the State of California, and the state-funded Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy; they've duplicated ranger services, infrastructural needs and systems, and bureaucratic overhead.

Can we afford to continue down that same trail? With our record deficits, we need consolidated, experienced and prudent management. I believe the National Parks Service option would be the best for the taxpayer and the resources. Please join me in letting our congressional representatives know our thoughts on the subject.

Phillip A. Young is a retired National Park Service senior special agent and former State Historic Preservation Division archaeologist and SiteWatch coordinator who lives in Santa Fe.