Local officials blast move by Obama to set aside 500,000 acres in NM

Big ChiefBig Chief Senior MemberPosts: 32,995 Senior Member
Smells fishy to me. I'm all fer land preservation, but WHY and Why NOW???????

OK, maybe fine, but don't let it be LEO-restricted corridor fer ILLEGALS/Cartels!

Maybe he wants the space fer his presidential library to house the volumes of horse manure his administration has generated. :devil:


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/21/new-national-monument-nm/



WASHINGTON – Local officials in New Mexico warn a move by the Obama administration to designate nearly a half-million acres as a national monument could open up a crime corridor making it easier for illegal immigrants to cross the border and for drug cartels to operate undetected.

President Obama plans to make the announcement Wednesday afternoon, setting aside 498,815 acres of land as the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. Unlike national parks which must be approved by Congress, the president has the power to designate national monuments.


But Dona Ana County Sheriff Tom Garrison told FoxNews.com the monument will likely hamper law enforcement’s ability to patrol the area. That’s because nearly half of the land will be set aside as wilderness. When that happens, the area will be largely closed off to vehicles, including police cars.

Garrison said his concerns have fallen on deaf ears, and says he’s been shut out of the process.

“They tell the media they have talked to law enforcement, but they haven’t talked to local law enforcement,” he said. “They haven’t talked to me. They talk to Border Patrol and Border Patrol tells [lawmakers and media] whatever Washington tells them to say.”

The White House, in explaining the designation, cited the historic and scientific value of the land, under powers granted to the president under a more-than-100-year-old law called The Antiquities Act.

The law, signed by Theodore Roosevelt, was originally passed out of concern for protecting Native American artifacts but allows a president to set aside land for "historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest."

But Garrison argues the designation hurts his deputies’ abilities to keep the area safe. Garrison said while his deputies will not be legally allowed on the land, it is unlikely smugglers will suddenly start obeying the rules.

“The cartel is smart. It’s not a stupid operation,” Garrison said.

Citing “unresolved security gaps along the border,” Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, asked Obama to reconsider the monument designation.

“National parks, monuments and wilderness areas along our southern border have become prime drug-trafficking corridors for violent criminals and drug cartels,” Bishop wrote to Obama in a May 19 letter.

Bishop, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee’s public lands subcommittee, said it is “irresponsible” for the administration to focus on new land designations rather than address existing criminal activities at the border.

The White House, though, says the new national monument could generate more than $7.4 million in new annual economic activity.

The money, the White House said in a written statement, would come from “new visitors and business opportunities while preserving access for sportsmen, ranchers and recreational users.”

The area is known for its petroglyph-lined canyons of the Sierra de las Uvas Mountains. It’s also the old stomping grounds of Billy the Kid and Geronimo and was once the training ground for the Apollo Space Program.

New Mexico Republican Rep. Steve Pearce initially supported a much smaller 54,800-acre monument – about one-tenth the size of the one being declared Wednesday. But the state’s two Democratic senators, Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, lobbied for the much larger land deal.

In a recent Facebook posting, Henrich thanked “the local community’s tremendous grassroots efforts over the last decade,” in pushing to have the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks designated as New Mexico’s newest national monument.

Local ranchers have also expressed concern and say they are worried the designation will cut into their grazing rights.

In April, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy gained national attention after claiming grazing rights to federally owned land. The Bundy case drew media coverage after armed militia groups forced the Bureau of Land Management to abandon its roundup of his herd.

Calls to the Border Patrol were not returned. Calls to the Bureau of Land Management, which operates under the Department of Interior, also were not returned.
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,292 Senior Member
    Anybody living in the area taken up by the new national monument will be forced out by the government. They are good at doing that. It won't be a legal buyout; more like making conditions so untenable for the residents that they will give up and sell out. BLM, NPS, and USFS are experts at this.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    Clinton did something similar towards the end of his 2nd term. A stroke of the ink pen, all perfectly legal.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,315 Senior Member
    Clinton did something similar towards the end of his 2nd term. A stroke of the ink pen, all perfectly legal.

    By what standard?



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,045 Senior Member
    Clinton did something similar towards the end of his 2nd term. A stroke of the ink pen, all perfectly legal.

    Yeah, Joshua Tree was a victim of Clinton. It was catagorized as a Nat'l Monument, which meant you could hunt within its boundaries. Clinton made it a National Park and all hunting ceased. Now they post signs warning people that the coyotes have taken to predating on pet dogs. The coyotes are so brazen they will enter a camp site and just stare at you. Absolutely no fear of people.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,292 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    By what standard?



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

    Dude! Don't question the actions of the Emperor of the U.S. of A.! The standard is whatever he says it is. :rotflmao: :tooth:
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,045 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    By what standard?

    For Joshua Tree, it was the Desert Protection Act of 1994.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,016 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Anybody living in the area taken up by the new national monument will be forced out by the government. They are good at doing that. It won't be a legal buyout; more like making conditions so untenable for the residents that they will give up and sell out. BLM, NPS, and USFS are experts at this.

    All libtards think they own the planet. If anything disagrees with their agenda then it's wrong no matter what the Constitution says. That old outdated paper is a hindrance to them and they know better what's good for us all. If you don't believe it just ask one.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,906 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Anybody living in the area taken up by the new national monument will be forced out by the government. They are good at doing that. It won't be a legal buyout; more like making conditions so untenable for the residents that they will give up and sell out. BLM, NPS, and USFS are experts at this.

    I could be wrong here, but there is no new land being taken by the government, just designating land already owned by the government as a national monument vs. just regular old BLM land.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Yeah, Joshua Tree was a victim of Clinton. It was catagorized as a Nat'l Monument, which meant you could hunt within its boundaries. Clinton made it a National Park and all hunting ceased. Now they post signs warning people that the coyotes have taken to predating on pet dogs. The coyotes are so brazen they will enter a camp site and just stare at you. Absolutely no fear of people.

    (laughing) ...some of the crazy theories you come up with ...too funny. I visit Joshua Tree 20+ times a year and have yet to see a Wile E. Coyote "stare down" in camp. Lol, where do you come up with this stuff? I can just picture a coyote "stare down" to a Ennio Morricone theme! :rotflmao:

    As far as Joshua Tree being made into a National Park? It was about damn time. Face it, not everyone hunts nor shuts themselves off from society and forts up. Many like to enjoy life, interact with people and visit these places to enjoy nature as it is. The National Park system is far from perfect but it's a far better option than having thousands of hunters, shooters, miners and off-roaders congregating in one place and leaving all their garbage behind. Not everything is a Ed Abbey novel Cali.
    "The reflection upon my situation and that of this army produces many an uneasy hour when all around me are wrapped in sleep. Few people know the predicament we are in" ~General George Washington, January 14, 1776
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,045 Senior Member
    (laughing) ...some of the crazy theories you come up with ...too funny. I visit Joshua Tree 20+ times a year and have yet to see a Wile E. Coyote "stare down" in camp. Lol, where do you come up with this stuff? I can just picture a coyote "stare down" to a Ennio Morricone theme! :rotflmao:

    I suppose driving from Oasis Visitor Center to Cottonwood Visitor Center counts as a Park visit. Getting out of the car to take photos at Jumbo Rocks also counts as a visit.

    There is the difference. I didn't just "visit" Joshua Tree; I back country camped, hiked, hunted, and rock climbed there ALOT (pre & post 1994),
    Doesn't surprise me you never saw a coyote in camp. That requires getting off the beaten path.
    Many like to enjoy life, interact with people and visit these places to enjoy nature as it is. The National Park system is far from perfect but it's a far better option than having thousands of hunters, shooters, miners and off-roaders congregating in one place

    You like to interact with people, just not the people that enjoy public land differently than you. Using gov't as a means to bar people that enjoy activities that don't suit your ideals is very liberal of you.

    Zip up your pants; your Sierra Club membership is showing.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.