With more than a century between us of working the land, farming and ranching are in our blood. We work 1,500 miles apart — one near the Mexico border, one near the Canada line — but we share a lifestyle rooted in being stewards of America’s borderlands.
As border-area landowners, we strongly oppose two bills pending in Congress: HR 1505, sponsored by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and S 803, co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Both bills would give unrestricted power to the Department of Homeland Security on all public lands within 100 miles of the border (land currently under the jurisdiction of the Interior or Agriculture departments, a great deal of which is leased to ranchers and farmers).
This legislation — ostensibly for national security purposes — would allow the department to do many things on this land, including using vehicles, building roads, fences, living quarters and airstrips and deploying forward operating bases. For example, national parks advocates have raised concerns that if the department determined it needed surveillance equipment in a park — say on Chief Mountain in Glacier National Park — it could install it without any public comment or even internal review process.
These bills would allow the department to run roughshod over ranching and farming operations in the area, and waivers to existing laws would remove any incentive for it to work with landowners and communities. These bills are unnecessary and would be harmful to our rural economy, to our successful collaborations with the Border Patrol and, most important, to our public and private borderlands.
Even the DHS is not backing the bills. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate subcommittee in March that unrestricted authority over public lands was unnecessary for the Border Patrol to do its job and was “bad policy.” Those of us who live and work near U.S. borders know that collaboration helps rather than hinders border security efforts.
The kind of indiscriminate road building and other development allowed would not have to take into account the detrimental effects on nearby neighbors.In addition, there are 36 landmark laws (including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, hazardous waste laws, tribal preservation law, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the National Park Service Organic Act) that could be waived to give the DHS complete “operational control” and “immediate access” to these lands.
Many southern border ranchers already have seen the problems created by previous such waivers. The costly results for landowners and communities have included significant flood and erosion damage as well as damage to individual landowners’ efforts to restore vegetation and range-land health.
The border lands of Montana and Arizona are not for everyone. It’s hard to get to some of these places. It is often either bone-chillingly cold or unbearably hot. But when we are out working the land, we are still stunned by its natural beauty. We work tirelessly to restore and protect the health of this land while also relying on it to turn a profit so we can provide for our families.
We support the Border Patrol’s mission to secure our borders. We also strongly believe that compliance with laws and regulations is key to ensuring that the rights of borderland landowners and rural communities are protected as the agency carries out that mission. But our natural heritage does not need to be sacrificed for the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol to do their jobs.
• Skari is a farmer in Montana; Ladd is a rancher in Arizona.
Comments (25)
Add commentAccountability
Giving any federal agency complete unfettered power, with almost no accountability, is bad policy. Seems that this is something liberals and conservatives can agree upon.
If DHS was asking for these powers, saying they couldn't perform their mission without them, that'd be one thing. But they aren't.
they should
Ironwood Forest National Monument
BLM >Arizona>What We Do>NLCS>National Monuments>Border Concerns
Print Page
Border Concerns
When Visiting Southern Arizona
Bureau of Land Management public lands lie adjacent to 44 miles of the international border with Mexico. Visitors should be aware that narcotic smuggling activities occur within this national monument. If you see any activity that looks illegal, suspicious, or out of place, please do not intervene. Note your location and call 911, or report the activity to a law enforcement ranger as quickly as possible.
Be Aware, Be Safe
Cell phone service is often out of range in many remote areas of the monument.
Know where you are at all times, follow good safety procedures and use common sense when making decisions.
Do not pick up or approach hitch hikers.
Keep valuables, including spare change, out of sight and lock your vehicle.
Avoid traveling outside of well-marked roads and routes.
People in distresss may ask for food, water or other assistance. Do not make contact. Report the location of the distressed people to the nearest BLM or other law enforcement authority.
Report ANY suspicious behavior to the nearest BLM office or contact Law Enforcement Dispatch at (623) 580-5515 as soon as possible.
The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge has been adversely affected by border-related activities. The international border with Mexico has also become increasingly violent. Assaults on law enforcement officers and violence against migrants have escalated. Violence on the Refuge associated with smugglers and border bandits has been well documented. Many of these activities are concentrated at, or near, the border. The concentration of illegal activity, surveillance and law enforcement interdictions make these zones dangerous.
Closure is in effect until further notice.
Most of the problem areas are located in southern Arizona and are annually visited by thousands of unsuspecting people. In an effort to protect the public, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has posted warnings at various parks, including the Sonoran Desert National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Coronado National Forest.
The situation has become so dire that authorities recently put up stronger warnings at several of the parks, according to a national news report. Nearly a dozen new signs have been erected at various locations in an effort to give the public a heads up on the increasingly dangerous situation. The new signs warn visitors about smuggling vehicles speeding, instruct them to walk away if they see something suspicious and avoid abandoned vehicles and backpacks because they may contain drugs stashed by smugglers.
The problem is especially critical at the Sonoran Desert National Monument, located about 80 miles south of Phoenix. The most biologically diverse of the North American deserts, the park spans nearly 500,000 acres and houses three congressionally designated wilderness areas as well as significant archeological and historic sites. It’s popular among families but also a favorite pathway for Mexican smugglers making their way into Phoenix.
Somewhat agree with Latitude
There is no evidence whatsoever that giving these people more power solves any problem. However, doing so creates problems for law-abiding citizens like the farmers writing this article. The people running Homeland Security are rejects from broken agencies like the FBI and BATF, so shutting them down would make more sense than would giving them more power. Look at the TSA people working at our local airport; the notion that those people could protect anyone from anything is sad and comical at one time. These people are going to be on the dole one way or another, so let's get them back in the SNAP line ASAP!
Bureaucrats invent problems in order to increase their power, salaries, retirement income, and importance. Lawmakers are often guilty of duplicity. Remember that not that long ago local officials were warning us of the growing gangs and gang problems in Juneau. Not one gang was arrested.
Mexico is a dysfunctional country. There would be problems at that border with or without drugs. The federal government does a terrible job of protecting residents of border states.
There is absolutely no evidence that the border with Canada has any abnormalities. After all, who worries about the huge, remote border between Canada and Alaska?
conservative adgenda
It almost unbelievable that these conservatives who complain about government control are the first to want more government control. A 100 mile zone along the entire border for DHS to use at their discretion is about as rediculios as it could be. Has anyone figured out the total part of the country that this involves?
Immigration and border security is truly an issue to be dealt with. I don't see how this proposal is going to make anything more secure than it already isn't.
I envision after this legislation would be enacted the conservatives will be looking to privatize the supervision of all this land under the guise that it will save cost.
"Even the DHS is not backing the bills."
Another excuse for a federal power/land grab. If they can't do their job at the border lines, what makes them think they can do better spread out over 388,248,600 square miles? How much more wilderness can the government designate before we all have to move out? Are they looking for a place for returning military vets to patrol? I knew McCain was a globalist, but, this is totalitarian police state occupation. We don't need a DMZ. Just efficient border patrol.
Juneau...
...sits within this proposed DHS jurisdiction.
Every town...
...in Southeast would be affected by this legislation. No thanks!
Spam
Flag as offensive and click on Spam. Are you watching, Empire editors?
What's the problem?
Missing is the analysis of the problem: what are these legislative bills trying to accomplish? “ostensibly for national security purposes” is not good enough – even Sec Napolitano isn’t buying it. Ostensibly, this could also include DHS purview over US coasts and waterways, which reach into the Heartland. Again, what are we trying to accomplish?
What do the bills really say?
What do the bills really say? We have one opinion piece from a couple of citizens with skin in the game. Why should we believe their interpretation of the bills?
Don't jump to conclusions - read the bills and what the sponsors hope to accomplish with their passage.
I trust that Rubio and Kyl have good reason to push these bills.
Update - Seems the left is all in a tizzy over these bills. Had to slog through page after page of google results from huffpo and all the usual progressives to try and find what's in the bills. It appears that they are nothing more than beefed up border security.
Of course the left has to get overly dramatic and carry on that all our National Parks are going to be ripped up and trashed by the feds and we'll all be drinking dirty water and on and on with the same old spin. Kiss all the Indian tribal grounds goodbye too, they'll be history!
Glacier dogs
Great statement "Lawmakers are often guilty of duplicity."
Thanks for the observation.
Although the bill states that...
...it does not give permission to DHS to disallow legal activities on these federal lands such as grazing rights, mining, hunting, etc., it gives them the right to not be impeded by Secretaries if Agriculture or the Interior for building roads and fences and monitoring and patrolling activities on these public lands. If this isn't a land/power grab, I don't know what is. This is akin to the EPA usurping authority to fine and shut down anything at their whim. This will turn BLM and Forest Service and Park Service land into a police state. Once Homeland Security gets their grubbies on these public lands, you can kiss the "public" part goodbye. I don't care which political leaning the sponsors of this bill hail from. It is an affront to the freedom of Americans' use of Americans' land.
Bin Laden is dead. A member
Bin Laden is dead. A member of SEAL Team 6 popped a cap in his ass. He was buried at sea which allows anybody with access to salt water to pee on his grave. There really is no longer any need for the Department of Homeland Security. It's time to move on.
More fear mongering from the
More fear mongering from the left. We all know that the progressives want our federal lands locked up tighter than a drum - no logging, no oil or gas development, no mining, no roads, no guns and on and on. I believe that this train of thought is the only thing driving opposition to these bills.
Where do these progressives get the idea that republicans or conservatives want our federal lands destroyed? Where do they get the idea that this faction of citizenry want dirty air and water? It's all made up, in their own liberal minds, and then used to turn Americans against the republicans. Pathetic...
Heck, this group doesn't even want a border fence. Throw the borders open wide and come one, come all. Yikes...
Calypso...
...I am not on the left. I am not a fearmongering liberal. I read the summary of BOTH versions of the bill. Did you? If anything, this bill would lock up federal lands. Read it. It will lend toward a Gestapo-like presence on federal lands that currently allow the possession of firearms for hunting and personal protection, explosives for mining and general access to public domain. What do you think will happen when federal agents start throwing their weight around your favorite hunting camp or your mining claim or grazing lease in the name of homeland security? They will have the power to cut a road or throw up a fence anywhere they want. They can pull you over for a TSA style screening, detain you, confiscate your guns, etc. I consider myself a conservative and register to vote as a Republican. This bill is fascism.
As I recall a Republican
hatched the DHS, Patriot Act, TSA, I could go on. It does not matter what direction the manure is being spread from, left or right, the goal is dominion over the population and the land. J.E. Fume makes a good point here...DHS has become a mirror image of the agencies it was designed to improve upon. There should be a national debate on when these emergency measures should be eliminated, before they become too large and powerful to be challenged.
I did read the bills. I see
I did read the bills. I see them as an attempt to get our southern border, and to a lesser extent the northern border, under control. It's a matter of national security. Obama and his administration are playing games with the illegal aliens and the drug smuggling.
This is a very good article that explains the urgency of the situation -
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_21_4/tsc_21_4_walsh...
"Then, to make matters worse, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). It set forth 21 requirements that must be met by the U.S. Border Patrol before its agents can step foot on wilderness and other federal lands. In addition, the Border Patrol must pay “mitigation fees” to USDA or DOI for repairing land “harmed” by agents in pursuit of drug and alien smugglers."
"In addition, the cartels also are using federal lands as marijuana plantations. The U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) estimates that marijuana production on U.S. lands constitutes 60 to 65 percent of the Mexican cartels’ annual multi-billion dollar revenues."
"December 22, 2010. Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3310, granting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) authority to designate BLM areas with wilderness characteristics as “Wild Lands” and to manage them to protect wilderness values."
" April 13, 2011. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced H.R. 1505, The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act. Sponsors of the bill are Doc Hastings (R-WA), Peter T. King (R-NY), Lamar Smith (R-TX), and Rob Bishop (R-UT). This Act would prohibit the DOI and USDA from using environmental regulations to hinder Border Patrol enforcement actions to secure federal lands located along the border. H.R. 1505 would assign operational control of the border lands to the Border Patrol rather than to federal land managers. In opposition, Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) seeks legislation to preclude the U.S. Border Patrol from operating at all on federal lands. He seeks to designate additional federal border lands as wilderness, including areas already in use as corridors by drug cartels and illegal aliens."
"The current void in enforcing the Wilderness Act gives the impression that the Obama administration considers the control of federal lands by Mexican drug cartels a minor annoyance."
@skirkz - your paranoia that American citizens will suffer is misplaced. Until we've lived first hand the destruction and violence that is occuring along our southern border I don't think we have much place to voice our opinion on these bills. It's practically a war zone down there and these two ranchers have misplaced concerns, in my opinion.
If you google the one guy from Montana he and his wife appear to be heavily invested in the Democrat part - giving lots of campaign donations over the years.
I stand by my opinion that these bills are highly partisan with the left having a particular agenda in mind - and as always it's not for the good of the country.
Since no one has stated the obvious
Guess I'll be the one.....
LEGALIZE MARIJUANA
and the border violence evaporates because you cut the cartel money stream.
It's our drug policy that turns our borders into war zones
Mama T nailed it. Marijuana
Mama T nailed it. Marijuana trafficking is the number one source of income for the cartels. Take that out of the mix and things will mellow significantly. It's not the cure all. However, no income from marijuana sales will weaken Mexican organized crime.
Legalizing pot
That'll help. But what about the harder drugs - coke, heroin, meth...
My idea on them: Make coke and heroin available cheap with a prescription, but you can only get them, AND CONSUME THEM, in designated junkie facilities. And you can't leave until the buzz has worn off. And you get drug counseling while you're there.
If you get busted with the drugs outside the facility, automatic 18 months in the Junkie Wing of Lemon Creek. With more intense counseling.
Addicted to meth? You're disposable. Sorry.
Ken, Im sure all the Dems
Ken, Im sure all the Dems voted against those though. Only Republicans wanted them, right? Oh, you mean both sides voted to create the agencies? Guess all the blame cant fall on the republicans. Nice try though...
Kommitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnasti,
or KGB, had its humble beginnings with a charter to protect the revolution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Not to sound alarmist, but when you build an apparatus with a core function, and then that function is resolved -- well, how do you tell the monster it's not needed anymore?
We need DHS! to fight domestic terrorism, foreign terrorism, narco-terrorism, eco-terrorism, metereological terrorism, disgruntled veteran terrorism, workplace violence (at least to confirm it is not terrorism)...
Decent observations all! But...
I stated before that the gvmnt usually starts with the "lemme in I'll be good" BS! If any one of the commentors have ever been to a southern border town, I don't think a reference to Gestapo would seem inflammatory at all. Border Patrol don't BS and one of the few times I've found myself with tight stomach fear, was watching BP agents go through the bus terminal in El Paso! A very good thought to have is the 100 mile thing, then look at Juneau's locale. People get confused and believe it's just the area along the Mexican/Canadian borders. 100 miles means every inch of our country's border, 360 degrees--"Everywhere". Example! Build a shed or whatever on the parking strip in front of your house. Gov has 'Eminant Domain" and can demolish without so much as a "Howdy!" This forum always gets sadly drawn into the Right/Left arguments. There shouldn't be a distinction!! If the fed is goin 'don't touch it's mine to do what I want' on America's Wilderness/National park area property rights or availabilities, it's time to change the fed, period! Don't much care if he's pink with noodle clusters or ambidextrous! If you don't believe that the fed will be at our campground/hiking trail door, with a cease n desist in the next few years citing your 'OK' to let em in.....look up tree huggin, whale savin, hippie peace freak, legalize it, give a damn and march against all BS issues, freedom fighter, "ME"!----"Told ya!" Will be little reward and a lot too late.
@Grendel!
People sometimes get all worked up and say absolutely the most stupid things! How the slaughter of 20,000,000 Russian people under Stalin, who installed the forerunner of KGB, out of the early Cheka force's total suppression ideology of Lenin, can be seen as "humble beginnings", is so far from an intelligently or even minorly researched statement.....WOW!