BENEFICIAL AND BALANCED STEWARDSHIP OF THE LAND
REQUIRES AN ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS.

Our public lands can only be managed appropriately when all of the complex issues are
addressed and understood.  Opinions formed from incomplete or inaccurate information
and emotions are not beneficial to anyone. 

"WILDERNESS" AND "OPEN SPACE" ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

OUR MISSION:  To preserve, promote and protect the farming, ranching,
and rural heritage of our western lands.

We encourage you to learn more, and we hope the resources and
material provided on this website will be helpful and informative.
 

DONA ANA COUNTY PLANNED GROWTH,
OPEN SPACE AND RANGELAND PRESERVATION ACT
----- THE PEOPLE'S PROPOSAL -----

Help us PERMANENTLY PRESERVE these special areas
for the public's ACCESS, ENJOYMENT and BENEFICIAL USE.

HR 6300 Legislation Overview & Facts

Learn more about this Legislative Proposal, endorsed by respected professionals and
supported by a Coalition of nearly 800 businesses and community organizations.

The Case for Rangeland Preservation Areas - an overview of this new and innovative land use designation.

For additional background information, see our videos and audio/visual presentations.
 

WHAT'S NEW!

See The Westerner for daily news updates on federal lands and environmental issues.

WEBSITE INDEX

Our website contains a significant amount of information, and our site has grown to the point where it can be a bit overwhelming.

To help you quickly find the information contained in our site, we have added a Home Page Index (below) and a Website Index listing all the main pages of our website. 

HOME PAGE INDEX - THIS PAGE ONLY  (Alphabetical)
 

AUDIO/VISUAL PRESENTATIONS

PRESERVING WESTERN HERITAGE

Most of us are located here in southern New Mexico because of it's surroundings and because of our love and respect for the true Western Heritage that is part of the history and culture of Dona Ana County.  This is our home, and many of us have several generations of family history in this area.

We all cherish the beautiful open space that is so abundant in our county.  We believe we should ALL be able to enjoy the beautiful areas that surround us in a responsible manner. 

Ranching exists in the southwest only because of the historic preservation of open space.  Without open space, ranching disappears.  Displace the rancher, and open space will be gone.

Ranchers and farmers are the historical stewards of the land.

The historical stewardship of the land has contributed to our beautiful rangelands we enjoy today.  The rangelands are the lifeblood of the rancher.

A group of ranchers and other concerned citizens formed the group PEOPLE FOR PRESERVING OUR WESTERN HERITAGE in late 2006, in response to proposed designation of Federal Wilderness for lands in Dona Ana County, New Mexico.

One of our areas of focus is to inform the public of the serious issues and community impacts related to the Federal designation of Wilderness.

Initially, our concerns were focused primarily on the devastating impacts to ranching and agriculture that history has shown after Federal Wilderness designation in other areas.  You can read an article on the history of one ranching family that was faced with federal Wilderness designation: "The Gila Wilderness and a Ranch Family History".  However, we soon began to see that there were serious consequences that reached far beyond the ranching and agricultural community. 

We can protect these areas and maintain the character of the history the area represents.  Man is an important part of that history, and should not be banned from its future.
 

COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS

Throughout the City of Las Cruces Regional Land Planning meetings, many people had the opportunity to provide their perspectives on the priorities for preservation of the special areas in Dona Ana County.  Additionally, members of our group met with numerous professionals, groups, organizations, businesses and individuals in and around Dona Ana County. 

The results were consolidated into the following list of "Community Expectations" for responsible and appropriate management and preservation for the identified Federal lands in our county. 

People for Preserving Our Western Heritage have held these Community Expectations as the standard that must be met for any proposed legislation affecting Federal land protection and management.
 

WHAT IS "WILDERNESS"?

Most people have an image that comes to mind when they ear the word wilderness.  On the surface, some of the arguments for designating some of the public land in Dona Ana County as "Wilderness" may sound reasonable, and even desirable.  However, the word "Wilderness", in terms of Federal legislation, carries a strict definition and serious management implications that must be clearly understood to make an informed decision.

The Original Wilderness Act

It is in the public interest to retain some lands in Federal ownership, for the benefit of all people.  Aldo Leopold, a key individual in the history of the original Wilderness Act, once wrote: “A wilderness should be big enough to absorb a two-week pack trip without crossing your own tracks.”  This statement does a good job of capturing the "spirit" of the word wilderness.  True wilderness areas are very special, and should remain special. 

The Federal definition of Wilderness, as specified in the Wilderness Act of 1964, is very restrictive.  More than 50% of the designated Wilderness areas (well over 57 million acres) are in Alaska, where the areas are roadless, remote and truly wild. 

Qualification for Federal Wilderness Designation

In reality, a very low percentage of the total land base of the United States meets the rigorous qualifications for Federal Wilderness designation.  The first step is to understand what the Federal designation of "Wilderness" really involves.  "Wilderness" is not simply a large area of open space.  Federal Wilderness Designation has a very specific and detailed legislative definition, including a wide-sweeping collection of restrictions and prohibitions. 

A simple look into the realities of Federal agency management in designated Wilderness areas is a much better way to gain an accurate understanding of the true impacts of the Federal Wilderness designation.  Although it may or may not have not been the original intent of the Wilderness Act, the ultimate objective and use of the Act today is to restrict or eliminate access to the areas in an effort to "remove human impact" from the land.

Read the article "Wilderness Act Hijacked" by William Rice for more background on this trend.

The Push from Environmental Groups for MORE Federal Wilderness

The original ideal of Federal Wilderness has been increasingly compromised as environmental special interest groups try to designate as much acreage as possible as Federal Wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964.  These groups attempt to frighten people into believing that the open space areas will be quickly consumed with housing and development if a Federal Wilderness designation is not immediately imposed upon the areas.  In reality, the total forestland acreage has remained stable since 1900.  The information provided by many of the environmental and wilderness groups is often incomplete, misleading, and in some cases quite biased and inaccurate.  They boldly state that a Federal Wilderness designation is the only way to "protect" the land. 

This trend has become all too common across the western states where there are large amounts of federally owned lands, and now the activists have targeted Dona Ana County.  To attempt to apply a Federal Wilderness designation to areas a few miles from an urban area and label it "wilderness" is offensive to the original intent and spirit of the Wilderness Act and its founders. 

A proposal developed and promoted by the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance calls for roughly 1 of every 3 acres managed by the BLM in Dona Ana County to be designated as Federal Wilderness, with even more land targeted in their sights for future designation in what they call their "inventory".  While this would preserve our open space, the severe restrictions of a federal Wilderness designation would have far-reaching impacts that must be carefully considered.

What Is Behind The Push For More Federal Wilderness?  WHO Is Behind It?

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., stated: "We are not suffering from a lack of wilderness areas in the United States. According to the Census Bureau, we have 106 million acres of developed land and 107 million acres of (officially declared) wilderness land."  

The Census Bureau defines "developed land" as land with more than 10 residents per square MILE.  The 2009 Omnibus lands bill designated an additional 2 million acres, making the total wilderness over 109 million acres.  With so much Federally designed Wilderness, why is there such a strong push for more?

Using words like "conservation", "preservation" and "protection", there are groups and individuals promoting an agenda which would restrict the access to our public lands to an elite few.  The numerous issues surrounding the "Wilderness" and "Rewilding" environmental movements are quite serious. 

The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance Summer 2007 newsletter had an article on the founding board members of NMWA.  They stated in that article that Mr. Dave Foreman "provided many, if not most, of the philosophical underpinnings that guide the work of NMWA." 

Mr. Foreman was a founder of NMWA, and was listed on the Board of Directors through 2005.  To understand these "philosophical underpinnings", it is necessary to look in to Mr. Foreman and his career as an environmental movement leader.  Mr. Foreman has a long and well documented history. 

He co-founded the radical environmental group EarthFirst! and he wrote the book "Eco-Defense, A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching" along with several others.  He has been arrested by the FBI on conspiracy charges, among many other "accomplishments".  Mr. Foreman's most recent efforts focus on the "Rewilding of America" with his Rewilding Institute.

In Mr. Foreman's Own Words

There is a video titled "EARTHFIRST! The Politics of Radical Environmentalism" by Manes.  Excerpts of this 1987 documentary appeared on 60 Minutes.  The video is available in 4 parts: "Part 1", "Part 2" and "Part 3" and "Part 4". 

Featured in the videos are past and present NMWA Board Members Dave Foreman, Nancy Morton (Dave Foreman's wife), and many other EarthFirst! followers.  Mr. Foreman has publicly stated that their philosophy and purpose is to "destroy civilization and technology, and eliminate the need for the word 'wilderness' because everything will be 'wilderness'". 

Ms. Morton states in the documentary that "monkeywrenching" (sabatoge in the name of "eco-defense") is "using the tools of the devil against the devil". 

Foreman is attributed with these quotes: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”. and “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

John Davis, editor of the EarthFirst! Journal stated “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”

Read additional quotes from a variety of "Environmental Leaders" to understand their position and philosophy.

The NMWA Connection To EarthFirst!

The book "Coyotes and Town Dogs" indicates that the current Chair of the Board of Directors of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, C. Wesley Leonard, was also heavily involved with Dave Foreman in the inception of EarthFirst!.  Former NMWA Chairman Dr. Robert Howard has also been closely associated with Mr. Foreman in NMWA and The Wildlands Project and continues to be involved with Foreman's Rewilding Institute.  NMWA Board Member Todd Schulke also has ties to EarthFirst!.  For some background on the Wildlands Project, see these articles by Judy Keeler.

One of Mr. Foreman's numerous famous statements revealing his view that humanity is a scourge upon the land is ""We humans have become a disease -- the Humanpox.".   Mr. Foreman also states "For almost forty years, I’ve supported slowing and then halting human population growth."   In the above videos, he states that EarthFirst! members are "antibodies against the Humanpox".

The NMWA website reflects several changes in the individuals serving on their Board of Directors, one of which is the addition of Nancy Morton to the Board.  Ms. Morton is recognized as a founding member of NMWA.  She is also the wife of Dave Foreman, and is listed on the "Working Group" for the Rewilding Institute. 

For more information, see our Dona Ana County History, Understanding the Agenda and our References and Resources sections.   

The background and past actions of these groups and individuals provide information which must be taken into consideration when evaluating their current positions and proposals.

If these groups succeed, beneficial use and enjoyment of our public lands would be severely restricted for most of the public.  Anyone unable to walk or hike into the areas from the perimeter or the selected "cherry stemmed" roads would no longer have access to the areas. 

Read the New Mexico Stockman article "The Wilderness Man (Likely) cometh!" for more background on the increasing push for more federal Wilderness designations in New Mexico.

Federal Wilderness Designation, BY LAW, Requires:

• NO motorized or mechanized equipment
• NO forms of mechanized transport (bicycles, etc.)
• NO permanent improvements or structures
• NO permanent roads and no temporary roads
• NO appropriation of funding

Some Wilderness advocates have publicly stated that a federal wilderness designation provides additional funding resources.  However, that would be ILLEGAL.  The Wilderness Act of 1964 expressly prohibits additional appropriations. 

Section 2. (b) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 states: "No appropriation shall be available for the payment of expenses or salaries for the administration of the National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any appropriations be available for additional personnel stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System."

The restrictions on Federal Wilderness must be understood and raise many concerns and serious issues that must be exposed to the community for consideration.

Federal Wilderness Designation has SERIOUS COMMUNITY RAMIFICATIONS:

Existing areas are already experiencing a decline in visitors.  A November 2008 article in the Oregon News reported on the issue: "National Forests See Fewer Visitors" - "Total forest visits dropped from 204.8 million in 2004 to 178.6million in 2007, a 13 percent decline."  The question is, "Why the decline?"  Comments on the Oregon News website for this article included the following perspectives:  "Two things that have made me visit the national forests and parks less are: the seemingly unending volume of new rules, regulations and restrictions on what I can do and where I can do it; and, the fact that lots of the national forest trail head parking lots are now meth-head shopping centers where you are surprised if your vehicle is not broken into." and "We don't go because our national forests in this state have a bad reputation for bad people....your car gets broken into if you go hiking/fishing,etc. We just don't feel safe anymore.".

Wilderness designation has serious impacts on any area:

• LOSS of motorized access in the areas for ALL segments of the public

• Law enforcement, border security and National Security  - loss of ability for motorized patrol and limited pursuit ability creates a refuge for criminals and illegal activity

• Restraints and limitations on water capture, water management and flood control projects and structures

• Unrealistic hardships on SEARCH & RESCUE operations

• Impacts on FIREFIGHTING operations

• Unrealistic operational hardships on RANCHING & GRAZING in the designated areas

• Loss of opportunity for pro-active CONSERVATION, STEWARDSHIP & WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT projects

• Severe limits on RECREATIONAL opportunities

• Reasonable and beneficial COMMUNITY GROWTH opportunities through Federal land disposal are eliminated

Each area above is covered in more detail below.

What About a Compromise?

Wilderness organizations are in business to advocate and lobby for Federal Wilderness designation.  Occasionally, they support other land designations, but their primary focus has consistently been Federal Wilderness designation. 

Because the requirements for Federal Wilderness designation and the management of designated areas is mandated by Federal law, the only point of possible compromise is the location of the boundaries for the areas.

There is no opportunity to structure the requirements for the area, or the management of the area, to meet the specific needs of the community.  Clearly, there is no real opportunity for compromise.

This is one of the reasons the news throughout states with pending Federal Wilderness designation reveals so much conflict and controversy that rises from the local communities who will be impacted.

What are the Alternatives?

Once the Community Expectations have been identified, the question that follows should be:  "What is the best tool to appropriately protect and manage these areas?"

While nearly everyone in our community agrees that our open spaces should be protected, there are opposing views on how to best accomplish this worthwhile goal. 

FEDERAL WILDERNESS DESIGNATION IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION

There are numerous administrative and legislative Alternatives that can be used to appropriately manage specific resources while protecting property rights, providing reasonable flexibility to land management agencies and law enforcement agencies, and preserving access to the general public for recreation and enjoyment. 

DONA ANA COUNTY - A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Organizations like the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance (NMWA), The Wilderness Society and other similar groups promote legislation to designate as much Federal land as Federal Wilderness as possible.  Federal Wilderness designation is their singular focus and the sole purpose.  These well funded, environmental activist groups have targeted numerous areas throughout the western states, including Dona Ana County. 

NEW MEXICO WILDERNESS ALLIANCE

To make any sense out of the issues surrounding the Dona Ana County Wilderness proposals, it is necessary to understand the background and philosophy of these groups.

The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance Summer 2007 newsletter had an article on the founding board members of NMWA.  They stated in that article that Mr. Dave Foreman "provided many, if not most, of the philosophical underpinnings that guide the work of NMWA." 

As we mentioned above, Mr. Foreman has a long and well documented history in the environmental movement, including authoring books on sabotage techniques in the name of "environmental defense" and an FBI arrest record.  For more information, see our Understanding the Agenda and our References and Resources sections.   

These groups that follow Mr. Foreman's philosophy pursue and promote legislative land designations to restrict or eliminate access to the areas in an effort to "remove human impact" from the land.

NMWA WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

In early 2006, the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance promoted resolutions to several governmental entities in Dona Ana County proposing federal wilderness designation for 422,138 acres in Dona Ana County, and a National Conservation Area of 108,000 acres for Organ Mountains area.  Assurances were given to the governmental entities that the proposals would not affect existing ranching operations and that they had the support of the ranching community, and yet no input from ranchers within the affected areas was solicited.  The ranchers were completely unaware of the NMWA proposal and resulting resolutions until much later in 2006.

RESOLUTIONS PASSED

Resolutions supporting Wilderness designations were adopted by the Dona Ana County Commission, Las Cruces City Council, Sunland Park City Council, Village of Hatch Council, and Mesilla Town Council, solely on the information provided by the wilderness activists and without notice or input from the ranching community or any others with a differing perspective.  Wilderness proponents have frequently cited these resolutions as evidence of "support" for their proposal.  See our "Ranchers Concerns" page for more information on the Dona Ana County events. 

NO COMMUNITY CONSENSUS REACHED

At Senator Domenici's request, the City of Las Cruces initiated a workgroup process, termed "Regional Land Management Community Response", intended to build community consensus.  Sixteen individuals, termed "stakeholders", were identified to participate in the workgroup meetings.  Tom Mobley and Tom Cooper served as stakeholder representatives from the ranching community.  A series of meetings were held, but consensus across stakeholder representatives was not reached.  The conclusion of the final report from this process stated:

"The range of suggestions made by the stakeholder groups in their Position Papers illustrates the diversity of our community and the need for careful consideration of the potential impact on all users of public lands as legislation is drafted and decisions are made."

The city workgroup process was terminated, but it did serve to provide an education for those involved.  The more people learned about the restrictions imposed on Federal Wilderness areas, the more concerned they became.  Review of current wilderness management history and resulting issues only served to reinforce and magnify those identified concerns.

HATCH UNANIMOUSLY RESCINDS RESOLUTION

On August 16, 2007, The Board of Trustees of the Village of Hatch unanimously voted to rescind the Village of Hatch Resolution No. 669, which supported the NMWA proposals.  In the letter from Mayor Judd L. Nordyke, he states "In the past weeks, the Board of Trustees has learned that the information they had at the time the resolution was adopted did not give them all they needed to make an informed decision."   And from the Meeting Minutes, from Trustee Sment: "What they presented to us at that time has proven to be only half true and there has since been plenty of opposition to supporting their request.  He feels it is in the best interest of the Village Trustees to rescind Resolution No. 669 which was passed at that time." 
 

NATIONAL SECURITY & LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

Motor vehicles are prohibited in wilderness areas, which creates a very serious handicap for members of our law enforcement community, resulting in a direct threat to our national security.  These areas become havens for drug smuggling, human smuggling and other criminal activity.

New 09/14/2009:  From an April 9, 2009 press release from the BLM - "BLM Cautions Public Regarding Border Violence" - "The international border with Mexico is becoming of increasing concern to the U.S. Government due to an increase in dangerous illegal activities and an escalating trend in border violence."

From the National Park Service - The following announcement is posed on the website for the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: "Due to an increase in illegal border activity, all backcountry areas are closed indefinitely to both hiking and overnight camping. Please check with the staff at the Kris Eggle Visitor Center for current information.   We anticipate this will be a temporary closure, though we are not certain when we can expect areas to reopen."  Note: We are uncertain of when this advisory was first posted, but it was on the above website for most of 2008, and was still on the website as of 4/14/09.

Roger Hedgecock, San Diego KOGO radio talk show host interviews Zack Taylor, retired Border Patrol officer, on the proposed Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness designation (HR 3287 & 2593) and how it would affect fire fighting efforts and hamper the Border Patrol efforts to stop drug smuggling, human smuggling, and terrorist smuggling on our borders.

NEW 10/21/2007:  Video of Fox News report by Hannity & Combs - "The Price We Pay - The Smuggler's Highway".  The Coronado National Forest is 1.7 million acres, and adjoins the Mexican border.  According to this report, "The National Forests and Parks along the southern border have turned into super highways for drug and immigrant smuggling."  Developed sites for recreation are well known to drug smugglers, and used for distribution and load out.  Drug smugglers sometimes deliberately set fires to divert enforcement officers.  Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument also shares 31 miles with the Mexican border.  It is recognized as the most dangerous National Park in the US.  Park rangers spend an average of 80-90% of their time doing law enforcement activities.  Park Ranger Kris Eggle was killed by drug smugglers in this park.  In the Coronado National Forest alone, there have been over 33,000 apprehensions of undocumented aliens to date in 2007, and 650 drug seizures totaling 182,000 pounds of processed marijuana, with a conservative value of $182 million dollars.  Officials estimate each person leaves an average of 8 pounds of trash, and they estimate there are hundreds of thousands of tons of trash in the area.

Other areas along our country's southern border have already discovered the serious impacts on law enforcement and threats to national security that result from the restrictions on areas designated as wilderness.  Dona Ana County Sheriff Todd Garrison has stated "I have seen what has happened along the border in Arizona where it also has been turned into a wilderness area, and because of this, I, as Sheriff, had concerns for county residents."

Richard Hayes, retired Chief of Air Operations for the Border Patrol, expresses his concerns by stating "The current effort to create Wilderness along the border in Dona Ana County and ultimately the expansion of such activities along the extended border is dangerous and ill conceived."

David Bemiller, the Border Patrol Tucson Sector's public-lands liaison is quoted as stating "The smuggling organizations are very aware of where the protected lands are. They're aware of where the [Border Patrol's] restrictions are, and tend to take advantage of them. They exploit the wilderness areas." 

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBO) has prepared a document which expresses their concern about proposed wilderness areas.  Current government employees face many organizational and political pressures which can heavily influence what they are able to say and put in writing.  Retired employees are not bound by those constraints and are at liberty to speak freely. 

In their cover letter, Mr. Kent Lundgren, Chairman, states "The purpose of this document is to bring attention to the fallacy, and danger, of efforts underway to further deny Federal Law Enforcement Officers (Border Patrol Agents), access to areas necessary to defend our southern borders by granting additional "wilderness area" designations.  Our southern border is today more vulnerable to terrorist activities than at any other time in our National history.  This is not the time to consider additional designations as 'wilderness'.  It may be appropriate at this time for our Country to repeal some previously approved wilderness designations to insure the best possible chance for success in ongoing security activities." 

The press release prepared by the NAFBO also includes this:  "In each wilderness debate, there has been a continued reference to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was agreed to between the Departments of Homeland Security, Interior, and Agriculture which provides for Border Patrol access to Federal lands.  That MOU spells out clearly the ability to operate on such lands including designated wilderness.  In wilderness designated areas, the Patrol has the right for entry if in pursuit, however, normal deterrent operations, including the maintenance and placement of technical surveillance equipment would require negotiations between the Agencies involved.  Considering the urgency of protecting our borders, negotiating for access which could take up to 90 days is unacceptably dangerous."  It is also important to understand that a MOU is not a binding document.

Their document, titled "WILDERNESS, BORDER PATROL, AND NATIONAL SECURITY", contains some very significant information.  In this document, they state "This effort to create a wilderness designation for a large portion of our southern border did not originate from citizens of New Mexico and Arizona.  It originated from the NMWA and Sky Island Alliance.  These groups share genesis and past board membership from the environmental movement, Earth First!.  The father of Earth First!, Dave Foreman., is the founder of NMWA.  It was Mr. Foreman who wrote the book “Ecodefense; A Field Guide to Monkey Wrenching.”  These are the folks who promoted the spiking of trees, the burning of high end condominiums, the destruction of new cars on parking lots, and the sinking of whaling ships."  (Note: NMWA is the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance)  They go on to state "The Tumacacori Highlands of Arizona, and the Potrillo Mountains and Broad Canyon portion of the New Mexico proposal are not just idealistic areas where “earth and its community of life are undisturbed by man”.   If they become wilderness, they will be heralded not only by those who believe wilderness designation should be made at any cost, but equally by human smugglers, drug runners, and those committed to the destruction of our country."

Click here for additional information on Dave Foreman, EarthFirst!, and Mr. Foreman's association and influence on the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance.  The Summer 2007 NMWA newsletter states that Dave Foreman "provided many, if not most, of the philosophical underpinnings that guide the work of NMWA."

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers has a website, with information on border issues, immigration, and the effects on National Security.  See also the Border Invasion website.

The GAO (US Government Accountability Office) release a report on 09/27/07: "Security Vulnerabilities at Unmanned and Unmonitored U.S. Border Locations".  They state "The possibility that terrorists and criminals might exploit border vulnerabilities and enter the United States poses a serious security risk... Congress is concerned that unmanned and unmonitored areas between these ports of entry may be vulnerable. ... In unmonitored locations, CBP does not have this equipment in place and must rely on alert citizens or other information sources to meet its obligation to protect the border." 

In the summary of the GAO report, they indicate for "Federally managed lands adjacent to border", that "Investigators approached the U.S.-Mexico border", and observed "No visible law enforcement response, no observable electronic monitoring equipment, investigators observed evidence of frequent border crossings into the United States at this location."   They also state "However, our limited security assessment identified potential security vulnerabilities on federally managed lands adjacent to the U.S.–Mexico border; we did not observe monitoring or a law enforcement presence during the time our investigators visited these areas. The Department of the Interior (Interior) provided us with a memorandum of understanding between itself; the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), of which CBP is a component; and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) documenting the agreed approach to protecting federal lands along U.S. borders. Although CBP is ultimately responsible for protecting these areas, officials told us that certain legal, environmental, and cultural considerations limit options for enforcement. ... Our observations on the southern border showed a significant disparity between the large law enforcement presence on state lands in one state and what seemed to be a lack of law enforcement presence on federally managed lands."

The "environmental considerations" mentioned in the GAO report that have such a crippling effect on national security will only increase with federal wilderness designation.  A Fox News article from 5/7/08 stated "In 2006 alone, more than 1.18 million pounds of trash was collected along the southern Arizona border... Arizona officials have spent approximately $4.4 million over five years to clean up the mess, that continues to build with each crossing. Nearly $1 million was spent for 2007 from a base BLM appropriation.  Border Patrol's Tucson sector, which covers most of the Arizona border, doesn't have statistics about how many people cross through each year, but on average, agents apprehend 1,500 people a day, with 378,000 undocumented immigrants caught in 2007 alone."

There are also similar concerns about White Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss, and the potential for negative impacts on military operations and security.  Fire fighting activities and Search & Rescue operations will also be burdened with the restrictions imposed on areas with a wilderness designation.

Our law enforcement officer's ability to pursue criminals, drug traffickers, illegal aliens, etc. will be next to impossible when they are unable to use motorized vehicles as they deem necessary on public lands. 

Read more about National Security Issues.
 

SEARCH & RESCUE, FIRE CONTROL ISSUES

The prohibited use of motorized vehicles impedes efforts for search & rescue, and places unnecessary burdens on fire fighting personnel. 

At best, fire fighting forces and search & rescue operations are delayed when attempting to operate in a designated wilderness area.  The constant threat of litigation from the environmental community creates a very challenging and difficult environment for these professionals.

Debra Russell, President of the Dona Ana County Sheriff's Posse, writes "There are two issues that we are immediately concerned about regarding the designation of Wilderness status in our County.  The first is access to open spaces heretofore unrestricted.  The roads and points of access into the present WSA's designated bounds have become and remain immediate access for our activities.  As such, we believe they are legal right-of-ways that must be permanently and without qualification left open to access.  Secondly, the Homeland Security demands that are increasing annually have huge implications especially in the West Portrillo area of the proposal.  If access is closed to the West Potrillo WSA, we believe the only observers of the closure to mechanized access will be the drug runners and coyotes that will welcome the presence of a huge chunk of open space adjacent to the border.".

The Dona Ana County Sheriff's Posse position is: "Our organization does not and cannot support the current scheme of carving out Wilderness in Dona Ana County for the stated reasons presented and pushed by advocates who knowingly or unknowingly disregard the qualification of true Wilderness designation according to our understanding of the Wilderness Act."

Fire fighting challenges in other designated wilderness areas are in the news almost daily.  In many cases, fire prevention activities are completely prohibited.  This results in disastrous fires which kill wildlife, destroy property and sometimes take human lives. 

The "hands off" approach to wilderness area management and prohibition of motorized vehicles is a very dangerous combination, with serious impacts.   
 

WATER MANAGEMENT & FLOOD CONTROL ISSUES

Managing the water resources in the arid Southwest is a significant concern for all residents of this area. 

Water conservation projects in our region typically focus on managing arroyo runoff to prevent flooding through delayed release of water, and allowing for beneficial use of excess water that otherwise would not be used.  These projects can require the construction and maintenance of various structures and the installation of monitoring equipment.

Elephant Butte Irrigation District has expressed serious concerns about management of water, flood control, and reliable capture of runoff water in the proposed wilderness areas.  In the conclusion of his letter, Gary Esslinger, Treasurer/Manager of EBID, states "We urge everyone else to take into consideration the dynamics of protecting future watershed resources without imposing such restrictions in these designated wilderness areas that the water resources cannot be used appropriately."

The Elephant Butte Irrigation District Board of Directors voted unanimously on 12/10/2007 to endorse and support the DONA ANA COUNTY PLANNED GROWTH, OPEN SPACE AND RANGELAND PRESERVATION ACT.  To learn more, read the minutes from the 12/10/07 Board meeting.

Read more about Water Management Issues.
 

LAND DISPOSAL AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

Managing growth and development is an important issue, but it should not be a factor for designating wilderness areas. 

Many groups and individuals who support congressional wilderness designation of public lands bring up the issue of land disposal and development of Federal lands.  They state that a wilderness designation will block all future development, thus "protecting" the land, and imply that a wilderness designation is the ONLY way to protect land from disposal and development.

There are many other tools available, both legislative and administrative, which can be used to permanently withdraw Federal land from the disposal process.

Another important reality that must be understood is that any vibrant, prospering community must have room for growth.  Because less than 10% of Dona Ana County is privately owned, growth for our community is a complicated issue.  Without gradual and managed release of designated Federal lands for disposal and sale into private ownership for development, the pressure to sell farm and private ranch lands becomes significant.  We have already seen many historic farms in our community sold and subdivided for housing or commercial development.  Unless we take steps to protect the farm and ranch lands that remain, they may also disappear.  Releasing small amounts of the Federal land into the private sector is necessary for beneficial growth of our community.

Interestingly, according to the Census Bureau, only 5.4 PERCENT of the US is considered "developed".  The bureau considers an area to be "developed" when there are 30 or more people per square mile. 

A quick look at a few of the larger agencies reveals the VAST amount of land currently being managed by the Federal government.  4 federal agencies currently manage 642 MILLION ACRES of land.  This does not include State Parks, military land and other land designations.   To put that in perspective, the total land mass of the United States is roughly 2.3 billion acres. 

Read more about Land Disposal And Development Issues.
 

RANCHING, GRAZING & LAND STEWARDSHIP

Wilderness restrictions create substantial hardships for ranchers, often resulting in the loss of economic viability for the operation. 

Federal Wilderness designation causes management agencies to prioritize the management plan for an area differently than when the area is in the multiple-use designation.  Areas designated wilderness must, by law, be managed with priority given to the "wilderness characteristics and values".

The Wilderness Act of 1964, Section 4 (b), lists the only allowed uses for designated Wilderness areas as "recreation, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use."  Grazing is not listed. 

Section 4 (d) addresses Special Provisions, which has the following language:

"The grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue, subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture."

Clearly, it was the intent of the authors of the Act to protect grazing and ranchers.  Grazing is allowed, or more accurately "tolerated", as a special provision with great latitude given to the administrating agency. 

When the original grazing provisions revealed weaknesses and issues surfaced, Congress responded in 1980 in the Colorado Wilderness Act by reaffirming that the grazing of cattle was allowed where it existed prior to the Wilderness Act of 1964.  Further, the Forest Service was instructed to update its Grazing Guidelines within its operating manual to assure that wilderness areas would not be de-stocked by any future interpretations of the Wilderness Act by Forest Service officials.  However, these Congressional "Grazing Guidelines" are in the report language and are not part of the law.

In practice, history has shown that these measures have failed to provide a reasonable level of protection for the ranching industry, resulting in many ranching families losing their business, their livelihood and their heritage. 

SYSTEMATIC ELIMINATION OF RANCHING OPERATIONS

The Gila, with its designated wilderness areas, is a classic example.  The Gila Wilderness and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Area are separate areas.  In 1964, Congress officially designated the 588,014 acre Gila Wilderness, within the 3.3 million acre Gila National Forest, as Federal Wilderness.  In 1970, the 202,016 acre Aldo Leopold Wilderness Area and the 29,304 acre Blue Range Wilderness Area were added to the designated wilderness within the Gila.  The Aldo Leopold Wilderness was created from the Mimbres and Black Range Primitive Areas, which were named "primitive areas" in 1924 when Congress unofficially declared the Gila Wilderness Area.  The Blue Range Wilderness was extended from the Arizona Blue Range Primitive Area along the New Mexico/Arizona line south of Reserve, New Mexico.  The managing agency is the U.S. Forest Service.

The NMSU Range Improvement Task Force (RITF) studied these areas in the Gila.  Dr. John Fowler presented their findings in 2000.   The study showed an 86.7% decrease in cattle grazing in the Gila National Forest, including the designated Wilderness areas.

The RITF study evaluated numerous factors (cattle prices, precipitation, etc.) that could have contributed to this staggering reduction in grazing.  Their conclusion was that the U.S. Forest Service administrative policy, notwithstanding the Congressional actions of 1980, was the single greatest factor in the decrease of livestock numbers in the area. 

A website for the "Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics", in their "FSEEE Appeals" section, has an article under the heading "Stop Destructive Grazing and Preserve Species on National Forests".  The article opens with "Cattle grazing accounts for the most widespread abuse of public land in the American West..." 

"ONE BITE AT A TIME..."

The BLM also recognized the reality of the methodical administrative elimination of grazing.  At a City of Las Cruces meeting, Mr. Ed Roberson, Las Cruces BLM District Manager at the time, publicly stated "The ranchers are afraid of being 'eaten' one bite at a time". 

The administrative and policy decisions can be applied to systematically add increasing burdens, and cost, to daily operational activities.  Because of the low margins of profit in the ranching industry, these added burdens can quickly bring an operation to the point where economic viability can not be maintained.  The value of the allotment and the ranch as a whole evaporates, and the rancher is forced out of business with no compensation for the damages.

For a perspective on the impacts of federal wilderness designation on ranching operations, see the Western Livestock Journal article: "New Mexico faces possibility of new wilderness designation".

GRAZING GUIDELINES OFFER LITTLE PROTECTION

Additionally, it is important to note that the grazing guidelines were developed and written for areas with natural sources of water, and areas where grazing is seasonal, with ranchers bringing cattle to the areas in the spring, and removing them in the fall.  Many of these areas have natural boundaries which provide natural "fences", eliminating the need for access for fence repair and maintenance.  Principally, the Congressional Grazing Guidelines apply to seasonal grazing allotments.  They were not designed to address the requirements necessary for year-round grazing in the arid desert regions of southern New Mexico and the Southwest.  And finally, these Grazing Guidelines are in the report language, and not part of the law.

In Dona Ana County, ranchers have year-round grazing allotments.  There are no permanent streams in any of the areas proposed for Federal Wilderness designation.  The arid conditions of the desert region require construction and virtually daily maintenance of wells and dirt tanks to manage grazing operations.

RETURNING TO THE 19TH CENTURY

Activities in a Wilderness area are highly controlled and regulated.  The prohibition on motorized vehicles is significant, since there is daily need for the use of motorized vehicles on ranches in our county to maintain viable ranching operations.  Many routine ranching activities require individual advance written authorization each time they occur, followed by a comment period for "interested parties".  Administrative burdens and impediments have caused many ranchers attempting to operate in wilderness areas to go out of business.

Section 4 (c) of the Wilderness Act clearly prohibits permanent and temporary roads and motorized vehicles, among other uses.  Many areas in Dona Ana County contain numerous roads which are used regularly by the ranchers, sportsmen, recreationalists and others.  The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance assures everyone they will get those roads "cherry stemmed", a mapping technique which carves the roads out of the designated wilderness area on paper.  However, since federal Wilderness designation is a legislative act of Congress, NMWA does not have the ability or the authority to create cherry stems.

The prohibition on motorized vehicles is significant, since there is daily need for the use of motorized vehicles on ranches in our county to maintain viable ranching operations. 

The reality is that grazing is technically "allowed" in designated Wilderness areas, but ONLY if the rancher is content with and able to operate using the methods of the 19th century.  This can be better understood by contemplating the response of any business owner today being asked to operate without the use of telephones, fax machines and computers.  While in some cases it may be possible, it is neither practical or realistic.

The ranching community is deeply concerned about the proposed wilderness designations and the consequences this designation would have for ranching and ranchers.  View a short video clip of an impromptu interview by Erik Ness, New Mexico Farm Bureau and Jodi Denning, People for Preserving Our Western Heritage.

LOSS OF STEWARDSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

Many professional range scientists believe that active range management, sometimes with intervention techniques such as mechanical or herbicide brush control, is essential to avoid desertification of this environment, with or without livestock grazing.

The ranchers also have serious concerns about the impact to their operations and damage to the value of their property and loss of property rights.  Mr. Mark Hillman, former Colorado state Senator, eloquently stated "When a mere majority, which has no investment of time or labor nor any legitimate stake in your property, can seize it for their own purposes or regulate it into financial ruin, property ownership has become a privilege, not a right." in a Denver Post article titled "Property rights become privileges".

We recognize that not all members of the environmental community and not all environmental organizations are opposed to ranchers and grazing.  Some groups do recognize the beneficial relationship between ranching and conservation, and understand the numerous benefits of ranching, both to the land and to the wildlife.  View some great wildlife photos taken by a camera stationed near a rancher's drinker.  However, we also must acknowledge that many groups and individuals in the environmental community DO actively support policies which call for the reduction or even the complete elimination of grazing. 

For a more thorough understanding, take a look at our Grazing Issues and Rancher's Concerns pages, which outlines some of the complex issues related to wilderness and ranching.  We also have additional information on the history of ranching and related property rights.
 

CONSERVATION, STEWARDSHIP AND WILDLIFE

A wilderness designation and the accompanying restrictions will eliminate most, if not all, beneficial land management practices. 

Research at the Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico State University and other locations has shown that active management practices are required to return an area to its historic vegetative conditions.  The majority of these management practices would be prohibited by the restrictions places on management of wilderness areas. 

Bob Alexander, Certified Professional in Rangeland Management and retired BLM Rangeland Management Specialist, states "It is now recognized by rangeland ecological science that rangelands often go through thresholds and they will not return to the historic vegetation conditions without significant physical management actions."  and "Keeping areas that do not have the historic vegetation out of designated Wilderness and Wilderness Study Area status is necessary because it is likely that applying the required herbicides and mechanical practices will not be allowed in areas designated as Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas. Thus, the areas that are not in the historic vegetation condition would be doomed to remain without historic vegetation if put under Wilderness or Wilderness Study Area designation". 

The limitations placed on the activities allowed in areas designated as wilderness apply to ALL activities, including positive and beneficial conservation efforts for land and wildlife.  Wilderness restrictions and limitations impose a "hands-off" philosophy on stewardship, effectively eliminating beneficial conservation efforts.  Activities which help maintain rangeland health and assist wildlife are obstructed, or at best made much more difficult and costly.

Southern Arizona Sportsmen's Alliance member Larry Audsley stated in a recent Arizona Daily Star article "Only careless thinking or lack of familiarity with existing Forest Service policies could allow anyone to believe a wilderness designation is really about preventing urban sprawl, all-terrain vehicle abuse, power lines, development of National Forest lands or proliferation of forest roads. These issues can be better addressed through other means that would yield fewer unintended consequences.".  He also states that "Wildlife advocates should be especially concerned that lands managed under a wilderness designation give priority to the human wilderness experience above the needs of wildlife."

The Arizona Game & Fish Department wrote a document titled "Historical Perspective of Wildlife Management in Wilderness", which was intended to  show the difficulty in managing wildlife in areas that have special designations, such as wilderness, monuments, etc.  The department states "The Arizona Game and Fish Department has experienced restrictions resulting from Special Land Designations including project delays, increased costs, increased man-hours, etc.  This ultimately leads to decreased efficiency in protecting and managing Arizona's wildlife resources. ... From a project planning standpoint, it is extremely difficult to second-guess a particular reaction to implementing a study, developing or maintaining a wildlife project or requesting permission for emergency access to a Wilderness area."

Laws specifically intended to restrict human activity result in a legally mandated neglect of the area.
 

RECREATIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND CONCERNS

A wilderness designation limits access and decreases (and in some cases eliminates) recreational opportunities. 

The photos above show some of the signs that are CURRENTLY POSTED in areas of the Organ Mountains (Aguirre Springs and Dripping Springs).  A Federal designation of Wilderness is EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE than the current land use designations already in place!

When unveiling a proposed trial system for the Black Hills, Forest Service employee Tom Willems stated "We're going to tell you where you go, when you can go there and what equipment will be allowed".   This statement clearly demonstrates their attitude toward the public users of the Federal lands. 

The prohibition on all motorized and mechanized vehicles substantially restricts access for recreationalists and sportsmen.  This restriction includes motorized wheelchairs, which raises concerns about conflicts with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Mountain Biking is prohibited.  Hunters have great difficulty removing game, since motorized vehicles and some deer carts are prohibited.  Even horseback riding is vulnerable, with the instances of trail closure to horseback access in wilderness areas increasing at an alarming rate and increasing animosity towards stock animals on Federal lands from some organizations. 

The BlueRibbon Coalition is one organization which promotes preserving our natural resources for the public's use and enjoyment.  Advocates for Access to Public Lands is a another group working to preserve Multiple Use Lands and preserve access to trails.  For more information about this group, see their website.  They are also sponsoring a petition to stop further inappropriate Wilderness Designation.

The severe restrictions imposed on wilderness areas result in land that is accessible to only the most athletic and fit hikers, and the majority of the public is no longer able to enjoy their recreational pursuits on the pubic land. 
 

THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES

The congressional designation of Wilderness brings with it a very stringent level of management requirements and restrictions which must be followed by the agency responsible for managing the land.  The public needs to be fully aware of the numerous consequences of Federal Wilderness designation that will impact every citizen. 

Read more about Alternatives to Wilderness.

Learn more about this legislative proposal, endorsed by respected professionals and supported by a large Coalition of businesses and community organizations.
 

 UNDERSTANDING THE ENVIRONMENTALIST AGENDA

Proponents of wilderness state many reasons for their desire to "protect the land".  Preserving open space for future generations, preserving the view shed, stopping development, and so on.

The question is ...

WHY ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEREST GROUPS INVOLVED
SO UNWILLING TO CONSIDER ANY ALTERNATIVES
TO THE WILDERNESS DESIGNATION?

Jim Scarantino, a former Executive Director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance (NMWA) and past Chairman of the Coalition for NM Wilderness, had a blogsite titled "New Mexico Wilderness".  He wrote several posts which provide important background, perspective and insight into the environmental groups and individuals involved in the proposed Dona Ana County wilderness areas. 

Mr. Scarantino also wrote a letter, stating: "Underlying the problems with the Dona Ana County wilderness campaign is the fact that the persons ultimately calling the shots, behind the screen of a legitimate-seeming coalition and local organizers, hail from the most radical wing of the environmental movement.  They include persons who founded and participated in EarthFirst, the nation's first eco-terrorist group. ... That is not the sort of mindset that makes legislation possible, and helps explain why the wilderness community has produced so little new wilderness legislation in New Mexico over the past two decades."   

IT QUICKLY BECOMES CLEAR THAT SOME ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS HAVE A MUCH BROADER AGENDA, WHICH IS TO ELIMINATE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE FEDERAL LANDS --- AND THEY ARE WILLING TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR OBJECTIVES.

The publication titled "Eco-Terrorism: When Violence Becomes an Environmentalist Tactic" contains an eye-opening overview of this trend in the environmental community.  The 6 part series "How Eco-terrorism Works" by Discovery Communications, Inc. "How Stuff Works" is another good source of information.  FBI testimony reveals the depth of this problem in the following statements:

·         "In recent years, animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists have become the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States."

·         "The eco-terrorist movement has given rise and notoriety to groups such as the Animal Liberation Front, or ALF, and the Earth Liberation Front, or ELF. These groups exist to commit serious acts of vandalism, and to harass and intimidate owners and employees of the business sector."

Dave Foreman was a founder of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance (NMWA) and is also credited as co-founder of the radical environmental group "Earth First". 

According to the FBI testimony, "In 1992, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) was founded in Brighton, England, by Earth First! members who refused to abandon criminal acts as a tactic when others wished to mainstream Earth First!.  In 1993, the ELF was listed for the first time along with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) in a communique declaring solidarity in actions between the two groups. This unity continues today with a crossover of leadership and membership."   The FBI goes on to state "During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat."

Although the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance has removed Mr. Foreman from their website, there is most certainly what appears to be a close working relationship.  Mr. Foreman was a featured speaker at the 2006 New Mexico Wilderness Conference, sponsored by NMWA, on Nov. 11, 2006 in Santa Fe.  A flyer for the event read: "Dave Foreman, Director of The Rewilding Institute and Founding Father of NMWA, presenting “The Future of Wilderness". 

The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance Spring 2007 newsletter featured an article by Mr. Foreman.  The Summer 2007 newsletter had an article on the founding board members of NMWA, and stated that Dave Foreman "provided many, if not most, of the philosophical underpinnings that guide the work of NMWA.".  A quote from an article on the EarthFirst! Journal website sums up the philosophy well with the statement "Humanity is not seen as a part of nature but an enemy of it."

Click here for more background information on Dave Foreman.

We have provided numerous resources to help people learn more about environmental groups and their objectives, and we strongly encourage everyone to learn more about the underlying principles and purposes behind the wilderness and "re-wilding" movement. 

"WILDERNESS" IS JUST THE BEGINNING...

There are often concessions that are made to secure support for designating new Wilderness areas.  Local groups and individuals are encouraged to compromise, with assurances that the concessions they agree to will be included in the wilderness legislation for the area.  What people don't realize is that the Wilderness designation is just a start.  It creates a foothold. 

Once the wilderness designation is in place, other groups like "Wilderness Watch", "Forest Guardians" and others move in to begin their work of initiating legislation to remove the concessions put in place when the wilderness designation was established.

See our Reference & Resources section for more information and background.
 

A FEW CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The wilderness ideal that is discussed and promoted can sound very appealing, but the reality can be quite another matter. 

WE ALL CHERISH OUR OPEN SPACE.

We believe that all these issues must be weighed and given serious consideration and thought.  We should carefully evaluate the historical facts from other areas where wilderness has been designated to better understand these complex issues.  The consequences and ramifications must be clearly understood before allowing any land in Dona Ana County to be designated "wilderness". 

We do believe that most people in Dona Ana County do support protecting the open space and the view sheds.  Our group supports that as well, because without open space there can be no ranching.  We also believe that most people have unfortunately been led to believe that a wilderness designation is THE ONLY way to protect the land.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS OF A WILDERNESS DESIGNATION, AND THAT WILDERNESS IS NOT THE ONLY MEANS AVAILABLE TO PROTECT OUR OPEN SPACE. 

THERE ARE MANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO US THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION.
 

Voice your concerns NOW