Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Biggest fed land grab since Clinton with Grand Staircase in 96'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... co/?page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All this is gonna do is hamper border security....

"....Zack Taylor, the Chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, told Breitbart News the creation of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument "is the biggest breach of border security I have seen in the lat 20 years. The people don't want it, and the sheriff doesn't want it. It is an open invitation for the foreign drug cartels and transnational criminals to bring their illegal drugs and aliens into the U.S."......"

Dona Ana County Sheriff Todd Garrison:

"Once the land becomes a national monument, local law enforcement can no longer effectively patrol the areas. When the Obama Administration makes it a monument, the existing roads there will close down. We will not have access to the land. I can't go out and patrol the area like I do now, which lessens crime. If we cant get out there to control it, only law abiding citizens will follow the law and criminals wont."

"Local law enforcement was never brought to the table to discuss this issue," he continued. "We have one of the largest cartels right across the Mexican border, and one of the most unsafe cities in the world. Are we supposed to believe that nothing's going to happen here if we impede law enforcement authorities from doing their jobs? That's just stupid."

Ultimately, Garrison does not understand the president's motives for using unilateral authority to create the monument. "He has the right to do this, but why is he doing it?" Garrison asked. "We have a real issue on the border. People say they want to protect that land for our children, but criminal activity is being conducted on it daily. It's up to us to stop it."

Garrison isn't the only sheriff to oppose the monument.

"The Southwest Border Sheriffs opposed the it, and the New Mexico Sheriffs oppose the it. Their input and testimony has been summarily suppressed in the media. It is past time their voices are heard," Taylor said."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... e-Security" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only half of it will be closed to vehicle use and I'm guessing that would be unauthorized vehicle use so border patrol can still access it. Besides, wouldn't unauthorized users (drug cartels) stand out more if nobody else can operate vehicles there? Also, why are the locals so involved with border patrol? Seems like a fed issue anyway and a waste of local tax dollars.

Great looking piece of land. Kudos to Obama for occasionally doing something right and protecting this for future generations.

kalm wrote:Only half of it will be closed to vehicle use and I'm guessing that would be unauthorized vehicle use so border patrol can still access it. Besides, wouldn't unauthorized users (drug cartels) stand out more if nobody else can operate vehicles there? Also, why are the locals so involved with border patrol? Seems like a fed issue anyway and a waste of local tax dollars.

Great looking piece of land. Kudos to Obama for occasionally doing something right and protecting this for future generations.

It is a nice looking piece of land, so why the takeover again?
Haven't heard any evidence of the land being abused or harmed. Since the border patrol probably won't be able to patrol the area, it's nothing but an open door for illegals and drug cartels.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:Only half of it will be closed to vehicle use and I'm guessing that would be unauthorized vehicle use so border patrol can still access it. Besides, wouldn't unauthorized users (drug cartels) stand out more if nobody else can operate vehicles there? Also, why are the locals so involved with border patrol? Seems like a fed issue anyway and a waste of local tax dollars.

Great looking piece of land. Kudos to Obama for occasionally doing something right and protecting this for future generations.

It is a nice looking piece of land, so why the takeover again?
Haven't heard any evidence of the land being abused or harmed. Since the border patrol probably won't be able to patrol the area, it's nothing but an open door for illegals and drug cartels.

The takeover is to limit certain types of usage (cattle, ORV's) that can be destructive and protect fragile ecosystems, rock paintings, etc. Also to enshrine a great chunk of land in its most natural form possible. Hence…wilderness area. We have plenty of non-wilderness.

And why wouldn't the border patrol still be able to use it?

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: It is a nice looking piece of land, so why the takeover again?
Haven't heard any evidence of the land being abused or harmed. Since the border patrol probably won't be able to patrol the area, it's nothing but an open door for illegals and drug cartels.

The takeover is to limit certain types of usage (cattle, ORV's) that can be destructive and protect fragile ecosystems, rock paintings, etc. Also to enshrine a great chunk of land in its most natural form possible. Hence…wilderness area. We have plenty of non-wilderness.

And why wouldn't the border patrol still be able to use it?

So there has been a problem with people and cattle destroying the ecosystems, and that is why the feds took it over? From the looks of it, it is in the middle of nowhere. Why enshrine an area where nobody lives...you know out in the wilderness?

Because the border Patrol is a part of DHS, and the land will now be a part of the BLM. In most circumstances the only access the Border Patrol has to BLM land is when they are in hot pursuit. Routine patrols aren't allowed in designated wilderness areas....you know to save the ecosystems.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
The takeover is to limit certain types of usage (cattle, ORV's) that can be destructive and protect fragile ecosystems, rock paintings, etc. Also to enshrine a great chunk of land in its most natural form possible. Hence…wilderness area. We have plenty of non-wilderness.

And why wouldn't the border patrol still be able to use it?

So there has been a problem with people and cattle destroying the ecosystems, and that is why the feds took it over? From the looks of it, it is in the middle of nowhere. Why enshrine an area where nobody lives...you know out in the wilderness?

Because the border Patrol is a part of DHS, and the land will now be a part of the BLM. In most circumstances the only access the Border Patrol has to BLM land is when they are in hot pursuit. Routine patrols aren't allowed in designated wilderness areas....you know to save the ecosystems.

kalm didn't read the article.

US Customs and Border Protection support the designation .

kalm wrote:US Customs and Border Protection support the designation .

They don't do their job effectively anyway, so why should they care?

kalm wrote:US Customs and Border Protection support the designation .

Seriously, Kalm? Thta might be the weakest defense you've ever made.

CBP HAS to publicly support administration policy. As do ALL Federal agencies.

What you basically just said is "Father Bob supports the latest Papal Bull"

kalm wrote:Only half of it will be closed to vehicle use and I'm guessing that would be unauthorized vehicle use so border patrol can still access it. Besides, wouldn't unauthorized users (drug cartels) stand out more if nobody else can operate vehicles there? Also, why are the locals so involved with border patrol? Seems like a fed issue anyway and a waste of local tax dollars.

Great looking piece of land. Kudos to Obama for occasionally doing something right and protecting this for future generations.

So now you support picking and choosing when to protect our borders?

Gotcha...............

So much idiocy in this thread, mostly from people that don't have a clue.

1) This is already Federal Land - so Obama is not "seizing" anything. Main effect will be no new mining, and increased tourism. Most locals support it.

2) Existing cattle grazing leases are still valid.

3) The Border Patrol is still vary active and works unencumbered in all Federal Land along the border, including Organ Pipe Cactus NM, Coronado National Memorial, National Forests, etc. This doesn't change that.

dbackjon wrote:So much idiocy in this thread, mostly from people that don't have a clue.

1) This is already Federal Land - so Obama is not "seizing" anything. Main effect will be no new mining, and increased tourism. Most locals support it.

2) Existing cattle grazing leases are still valid.

3) The Border Patrol is still vary active and works unencumbered in all Federal Land along the border, including Organ Pipe Cactus NM, Coronado National Memorial, National Forests, etc. This doesn't change that.

Damn son you are naive. The 1/2 designated Wilderness means no roads which will encumber Border Patrol enforcement. Of course the brass isn't going to say that because they have to toe the Obama admin line. And local law enforcement will no longer be able to patrol any of it. Both the local Sheriff and the Border Patrol union rep, people who are actually there on the ground, both said this will hamper their efforts on the border. The New Mexico Sheriffs Association is against it. The Southwest Border Sheriffs Association is against it. They wouldn't be opposing it if it wasn't going to hamper border enforcement.

And the local ranchers are against it because there will be new restrictions on their grazing rights. Every single article out there that mentions the local ranchers says they are against this.

BDKJMU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:So much idiocy in this thread, mostly from people that don't have a clue.

1) This is already Federal Land - so Obama is not "seizing" anything. Main effect will be no new mining, and increased tourism. Most locals support it.

2) Existing cattle grazing leases are still valid.

3) The Border Patrol is still vary active and works unencumbered in all Federal Land along the border, including Organ Pipe Cactus NM, Coronado National Memorial, National Forests, etc. This doesn't change that.

Damn son you are naive. The 1/2 designated Wilderness means no roads which will encumber Border Patrol enforcement. Of course the brass isn't going to say that because they have to toe the Obama admin line. And local law enforcement will no longer be able to patrol any of it. Both the local Sheriff and the Border Patrol union rep, people who are actually there on the ground, both said this will hamper their efforts on the border. The New Mexico Sheriffs Association is against it. The Southwest Border Sheriffs Association is against it. They wouldn't be opposing it if it wasn't going to hamper border enforcement.

And the local ranchers are against it because there will be new restrictions on their grazing privileges. Every single article out there that mentions the local ranchers says they are against this.

BDKJMU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:So much idiocy in this thread, mostly from people that don't have a clue.

1) This is already Federal Land - so Obama is not "seizing" anything. Main effect will be no new mining, and increased tourism. Most locals support it.

2) Existing cattle grazing leases are still valid.

3) The Border Patrol is still vary active and works unencumbered in all Federal Land along the border, including Organ Pipe Cactus NM, Coronado National Memorial, National Forests, etc. This doesn't change that.

Damn son you are naive. The 1/2 designated Wilderness means no roads which will encumber Border Patrol enforcement. Of course the brass isn't going to say that because they have to toe the Obama admin line. And local law enforcement will no longer be able to patrol any of it. Both the local Sheriff and the Border Patrol union rep, people who are actually there on the ground, both said this will hamper their efforts on the border. The New Mexico Sheriffs Association is against it. The Southwest Border Sheriffs Association is against it. They wouldn't be opposing it if it wasn't going to hamper border enforcement.

And the local ranchers are against it because there will be new restrictions on their grazing rights. Every single article out there that mentions the local ranchers says they are against this.

There areThe Border Patrol already deals with other wilderness areas near the border. Grazing rights are not effected. The does not designate any NEW wilderness areas - only Congress can do that.

A survey taken in January showed 72 percent of county residents supported the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks national monument proposal.
http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-ne ... l-monument" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Local elected Rep is in favor:

"This new monument will enable countless generations of citizens to enjoy and learn from our diverse Chihuahuan Desert wild lands, and the rich history and archaeological sites that exist in them," said N.M. Rep. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, in a prepared statement from the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance — he is that organization's director in southern New Mexico. "We extend our heartfelt gratitude to President Obama and Sens. Udall and Heinrich for their visionary leadership."


Also - this is NOT on the border - El Paso and Las Cruces separate much of this area from the Border. The areas south of I-10 have plenty of roads that the BP can patrol.

http://www.nmwild.org/nmwa/wp-content/u ... al-map.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMO we need more National Parks, State Parks, Wilderness Areas and land set aside for public use for today and the future. We also need to protect our key water shed areas as they are vital.

I look at it like the rain forests in Brazil. Every year the amount available gets smaller and small. Once it's gone, it's gone for good....

Deciding upon which areas should be set aside is open for discussion but IMO we need to set aside as much as we possibly can. PERIOD!

VictorG wrote:IMO we need more National Parks, State Parks, Wilderness Areas and land set aside for public use for today and the future.

Montana.

89Hen wrote:

VictorG wrote:IMO we need more National Parks, State Parks, Wilderness Areas and land set aside for public use for today and the future.

Montana.

Ha. Good one.

kalm wrote:Only half of it will be closed to vehicle use and I'm guessing that would be unauthorized vehicle use so border patrol can still access it. Besides, wouldn't unauthorized users (drug cartels) stand out more if nobody else can operate vehicles there? Also, why are the locals so involved with border patrol? Seems like a fed issue anyway and a waste of local tax dollars.

Breathe.......



Breathe.......



Breathe.......

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: Montana.

Ha. Good one.

Works for me! I've been saying lock down the borders for years. No fully loaded moving vans allowed.

Plus, we need to organize a lottery where for $10 you put a name in a drawing and if that name is chosen they have to MOVE OUT!!! I'll run that BTW.....

VictorG wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Ha. Good one.

Works for me! I've been saying lock down the borders for years. No fully loaded moving vans allowed.

Plus, we need to organize a lottery where for $10 you put a name in a drawing and if that name is chosen they have to MOVE OUT!!! I'll run that BTW.....

Please. They bring you mouth breathers in by the bus load all day long here.

89Hen wrote:

VictorG wrote:
Works for me! I've been saying lock down the borders for years. No fully loaded moving vans allowed.

Plus, we need to organize a lottery where for $10 you put a name in a drawing and if that name is chosen they have to MOVE OUT!!! I'll run that BTW.....

Please. They bring you mouth breathers in by the bus load all day long here.

Those are the ones going west from CA. and WA.....They just coast down the divide and keep going!

VictorG wrote:IMO we need more National Parks, State Parks, Wilderness Areas and land set aside for public use for today and the future. We also need to protect our key water shed areas as they are vital.

I look at it like the rain forests in Brazil. Every year the amount available gets smaller and small. Once it's gone, it's gone for good....

Deciding upon which areas should be set aside is open for discussion but IMO we need to set aside as much as we possibly can. PERIOD!

We already have plenty of parkland. And the govt already owns almost 35% of the land in the country, which is plenty.
http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDKJMU wrote:

VictorG wrote:IMO we need more National Parks, State Parks, Wilderness Areas and land set aside for public use for today and the future. We also need to protect our key water shed areas as they are vital.

I look at it like the rain forests in Brazil. Every year the amount available gets smaller and small. Once it's gone, it's gone for good....

Deciding upon which areas should be set aside is open for discussion but IMO we need to set aside as much as we possibly can. PERIOD!

We already have plenty of parkland. And the govt already owns almost 35% of the land in the country, which is plenty.
http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plenty for now maybe...but once it's gone it's gone for good. I'm thinking of our children and our childerns children...Plus, I'm leaving out BLM land and mainly confining my comment towards parks and wilderness areas that are not supposed to be changed by "humans". BLM is a big question mark even in my own mind.

Looks like wasteland to me. Good place for a landfill.
Good job Obama.