TRUTH IN POLITICS

Untrue Testimony
I listened to the testimony given at the Wilderness hearings at Corbett Center on the 15th and was shocked to hear such testimony given by Sharon Thomas which was totally misleading. Her testimony gave the impression that all 90,000 people in the city of Las Cruces were in agreement with her and this simply was a lie. She said and I quote; “I’m honored to represent the city of Las Cruces and our over 90,000 residents.”

She is a City Councilor and does not represent the City and but a very small amount of the residents of the city. She misled Bingaman, Udall and most of all the people in the audience. To say she represented the whole city was a bald-faced lie and totally misleading in every way.

Jim Bates testified, and I quote; “I have been and still am associated with a number of hunting associations and believe I have a good understanding issues and concerns of their members”, leaving people to think he represented the hunters as a whole. This is another bald-faced lie and very misleading. He may have an understanding of a few of these people and groups, but as a hunter and member of one of a gun club that helps maintain the shooting range west of our city, he doesn’t have any idea of what the hunters want as a whole or in any large part. Most of the hunters and gun enthusiasts I have talked to do not agree with him about his views of a Wilderness area.

There are many areas of the U S that have been designated as Wilderness and most of them have been a large mistake of management of the open lands. The current status of the lands included in the area of the Organs, Robledos, Uvas Valley and Potrillos mountains would be better served if left the way they are.

If the proposed areas, of which I believe there are a total of eight,  it will have a detrimental impact on southern New Mexico in many ways. It will impact the issue of flooding of the towns and areas along the Rio Grande River as far south Texas. The floods of that happened in 2006 that flooded Hatch, El Paso and the towns immediately southeast of El Paso are a good example. To close the areas as a Wilderness would exclude motorized vehicles in the area and stop the building of dams, water retention ponds and many other water regression programs that may be developed by the city, county and the state.

The dams we have at present are more than 50 years old and were built for only a 50-year span. If they are not upgraded, rebuilt, (simply because it take heavy equipment to do such a job) along with other regressive devices and methods; when we get a really big rain, many will see their homes destroyed, along with many personal belongings, and may even find themselves floating down the Rio Grande. This is the desert and the land here is not porous enough to percolate the water into the aquifers fast enough to avoid such a catastrophe as 2006, doubled or tripled in amount of rain.

Border security would be severely impacted by SB 1689, because of the nearness tot eh Mexican border, because the Border Patrol would not effectively be able to do their job without motorized vehicles. This would allow the regions of the Potrillos and the mountains all the way north of Hatch to be opened to rampant drug and alien smuggling, many of which could and would be enemies of this country.

The area would become as difficult to patrol and police as the Organ Pipe Monument, which was turned into a Wilderness and is now so dangerous it has been closed to the public. It is also one of the most dangerous areas for law enforcement to police because of these same dangers, not to mention that with the flow of illegal traffic in the area, it has become a dumping ground for the smugglers and illegal aliens alike. If one looks at the pictures of the area now and before it was a Wilderness it likened unto the difference of daylight and dark. Even if it were safe to enter the area, who wants o look at mounds of garbage?

If it would be so easy to police, why is the Border Patrol, Sherriff’s Department and all other law enforcement being gagged from speaking out? Why don’t the proponents of the Wilderness and Bingaman and Udall allow these people to voice an opinion? They are the people with the most experienced to speak out on this subject. Instead of loading the panels and audience with the few that want the SB 1689 to be enacted, they should look for an alternative that would satisfy all.
This not withstanding the rancher in the area would be put out of business, crime in all the towns and the city of Las Cruces of southern New Mexico would be increased, causing many losses on home values and the movement of many retirees to other areas. This alone would impact the taxes paid into the county, city and state. Less people would mean fewer taxes. Then one must consider the impact on the price of beef that is a major industry of our agronomies state. The ranchers deserve to be able to supply water and feed to their cattle, even on leased land. How about the wild animals in the area, where would they get water, if not for the rancher’s efforts?

The main focus of Wilderness is to preserve the land in perpetuity, but the passage of SB 1689 is a catastrophe in the making. It is the pet project of the Wilderness Alliance, who has stacked the deck with money for candidates such as Bingaman and Udall with huge contributions through their organizations and the forming of PACS for the same purpose. They have not made an in depth study about the repercussions on the citizens of this country or southern New Mexico and could care less about your welfare. They only want humans to be taken out of the areas and kept out at all costs, whether it be a safety concern or an economic concern.

Doing It The Right Way
We can do it simply as it was done for the region around Taos, but Bingaman and Udall do not want to do it sanely or simply. They want their names in the papers and news media as often as they can get it there. They are interested only in the re-election to their respective offices in 2012. What they are not aware of is that the media does not vote, the people do and the people will remember the harm these two have done when it come their time to be re-elected.

Making it into a protected area is one thing, but closing it off would hurt many and create a cesspool of criminals plying their trade routes to the north. When I watched Bingaman and Udall at the hearings, I could see that they did not want to hear the words of the people with knowledge, who could give them truthful answers to the problems that would arise from such a bill. When Esslinger, Cooper, Dubois and Hummer spoke, Bingaman and Udall showed they were bored and did not want to hear the truth. What does that tell you about the hearings?

The use of motorized vehicles and mechanical devises in a Wilderness area was put in there in 1964 to protect the pristine areas from being destroyed by mans use in the areas. To say that it will be taken out to accommodate the Border Patrol, law enforcement, etc is a circumvention of the act. There are some areas that would need the Wilderness to protect them, but not in the areas of the southwest, not this close to the border, and not at the expense of mankind or the animals that are there.

Creating a no build area to stop development of homes in the area is one thing, but there must be access to those areas to stop flooding, curtail smuggling and protect the communities that are close, but to go to the extreme of creating a Wilderness area is a large overkill. The land is there for all to enjoy, with rules applied to protect them from encroachment of houses. Why does Bingaman, Udall, Steinborn, Cote, and Fischman want to lock the land away as Wilderness, so no one can enjoy it, except at a distance?