The Smithsonian Report starts out on page one by stating
“The most extensively studied and scientifically significant Robledo tracksite occurs in redbeds of tidal flat origin at UTM 3584120N, 323070E, zone 13”. At the bottom of page one, the report states that “…with the discovery of the deposit now known as AF2 (NMMNH locality 846), on which this report is primarily based.”
The 1994 Smithsonian Report qualifies the “most significant” statement by saying that it primarily looked at the discovery site and acknowledged that only one small area was studied
This is also the site that Senator Bingaman was taken to in the late 1980’s and where everyone else is taken to in an attempt to sell the idea of the national monument – one site of less that 1 acre!
Discuss other "SIGNIFICANT" statements by Hunt.
It is total incompetence to pull one statement out of context from a 246 page report and want to designate a national monument based on that one miss-applied statement.
There are many other ways to protect the area without national monument designation.
.JPG) |
.JPG) |
| This is what that “most significant” site looks like today | |
20 years of continuous research has not produced even one other tracksite.
On page 45 of The Smithsonian Report is a list of 34 GPS coordinates that claim to be other trackway sites.
Jerry MacDonald gives a different number of sites:
Eight years of exploration of redbed occurrences in the Mesilla Valley area produced 32 track sites in the Robledos (out of literally hundreds of redbed exposures), 8 in the Dona Ana Mountains, 8 in the McLeod Hills, and 6 so far in the Caballos. And, more are still being discovered (Fig. 13).
These sites were investigated and ranked on a number of criteria. First, how much good material could be found as debris, which included variety and quality of preservation. Secondly, a good amount of time was spent seeing if big tracks could be found at the site. Also of interest was if there were any plant or invertebrate material to be found. Some sites were phenomenal, while others were poor to moderate in yielding good specimens. All sites have been pinpointed by the Global Positioning System (GPS), and have been visited by a number of paleontologists.
During the summer of 2006, several local people took many field trips to locate the 34 sites listed in the Smithsonian report. About ten of the GPS coordinates led right to where someone had dug years before. A few tiny tracks about the size of a finger tip were found at five sites, but nothing that met the expectations that one would have of a national monument The coordinates to about ten other sites were within a stones throw of promising Abo redbeds. But, these were usually broken up rubble that make up the canyon walls and very dangerous to explore. The other sites were not anywhere near Abo redbeds.
After this was pointed out in the local newspaper, the proponents released a brochure stating that:
“There are at least twenty sites within the boundaries of the proposed national monument…”
So, only the Smithsonian Report makes the claim to there being 34 sites. This implies that 14 of the Smithsonian report sites, or 30%, may not contain any trace fossils at all and may have been put in the report to make it look like there was more here that there really is. Or, maybe it was just an error. A 30% error is not acceptable in any field or business and certainly calls for an independent verification