In the comments section, Michael Swickard writes "Hey Heath - Is Nathan Small a Las Cruces City Councilor or a Wilderness Alliance employee? While the column talks straight from the point of view of the Wilderness Alliance, he is an elected and paid Las Cruces City Councilor. The Las Cruces City Councilors represent the citizens 24/7. So, where is his fiduciary relationship, is it with the City of Las Cruces where he is paid a good sum of money or is it with the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance where he is also paid money?  It cannot be both. Much like in real estate an agent must decide the fiduciary relationship and not represent both sides of a transaction. Nothing of Nathan Small’s job with the Wilderness Alliance can seep into his job as city councilor or it is an ethics violation.  Since he always represents District 4, he must not publicly speak of Wilderness issues. And, he must recluse himself from all votes that have any bearing on areas of interest in his other job with the Wilderness Alliance. Otherwise, his election as city councilor is enriching his job at the Wilderness Alliance. Councilor Small can privately cheer on the Wilderness activities and work for them privately, but not publicly. I would hope this is his last statement about Wilderness issues while serving as a Las Cruces City Councilor. This column by Nathan Small appears to me to be an ethics violation." 

Jim Scarantino wrote "I will deal with what Mr. Small calls "truths" in my next column, when I go through the actual wording of Mr. Pearce's legislation rather than throwing rhetoric and hyperbole across the path of progress on this issue. As for Mr. Small's claims that I have misrepresented specific facts, I point out:
1) Two governments have switched from supporting the wilderness proposal, the village of Hatch and La Union Soil and Water Conservation District. The Dona Ana Wilderness Coalition, however, still includes La Union in its list of endorsers.
2) 712 business and 22 local, state and national organizations have endorsed the proposal of People for Preserving Our Western Heritage, including the chambers of commerce of Las Cruces and Hatch Valley. That is not a "shaky claim at best" of substantial support. By comparison, the most the paid organizers for the wilderness coalition ever amassed was a group of just over 200 businesses, some of whom have since written the wilderness coalition asking that their names be removed from their list.
3) Not mentioned in Mr. Small's article is the fact that when Dona Ana County, the city of Las Cruces and other governments were asked to endorse the wilderness proposal, no other ways for preserving Dona Ana County's open space, while avoiding conflicts with law enforcement, water authorities and agriculture, were presented. Indeed, an opposing position was not even present at some of those hearings.
Further, as two Hatch village trustees have written to the Congressional delegation and as Rep. Pearce has also pointed out, representations were made that the agricultural community, particularly ranchers, supported the wilderness proposal when that was untrue. Indeed, it is undisputed that the ranching community wasn't contacted until after the government resolutions had been obtained and the wilderness campaign had been underway for more than two years.  My next column on Rep. Pearce's conservation bill for Dona Ana County will appear in its regular schedule. An open and full debate on the two competing bills, rather than competing articles and/or press conferences, should be considered by both sides of this issue as a better way of making progress on this matter."

Click here for the language of the pertinent sections of the two bills.