Outside species threaten Arizona's native wildlife

At night on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge southwest of Tucson, a low, insistent bellow drowns out the chaotic insect symphony under way along the edge of small ponds. At times, it's a solo, at others a raspy chorus. Bullfrogs own this pond. All other aquatic creatures take notice and don't make any long-term plans. But this is not the natural soundtrack for a pond in the southern Arizona desert. Bullfrogs are not native to these waters, and they do not play well with the local fauna. At 8 inches long, or longer, they eat smaller native frogs, fish and snakes, among other things, and have wiped out communities of Chiricahua leopard frogs and northern Mexican garter snakes. Arizona is losing its native wildlife in part because non-native species are thriving on landscapes that have been altered by development, water loss and climate change. Non-native species threaten Arizona's native wildlife in more insidious ways than people do. A road or a structure can be removed and the landscape restored, but most of the invading plants and animals dig in and hang on, damaging habitat and edging out the native species...more

Finance Overhaul Casts Long Shadow on the Plains

Farmer Jim Kreutz uses derivatives to soften the blow should the price of feed corn drop before harvest. His brother-in-law, feedlot owner Jon Reeson, turns to them to hedge the price of his steer. The local farmers' co-op uses derivatives to finance fixed-price diesel for truckers who carry cattle to slaughter. And the packing plant employs derivatives to stabilize costs from natural gas to foreign currencies. Far from Wall Street, President Barack Obama's financial regulatory overhaul, which may pass Congress as early as Thursday, will leave tracks across the wide-open landscape of American industry. Mr. Kreutz's brokerage, AgWest, thinks the new finance law will hurt both firm and farm. If big investors and dealers have to keep more cash on hand, there will be less liquidity in the market and therefore the cost of derivatives will increase, Mr. Hoelscher, the broker said. A few minutes from the Kreutz family farm are the corrals of Jon Reeson's feedlot. Mr. Reeson, 43, is married to Mr. Kreutz's sister Jane. His feedlot holds as many as 1,500 steer, mostly Black Angus, which grow from 600-lb. calves into 1,300 pounders ready for slaughter. Mr. Reeson uses derivatives to hedge both the price he pays for feed and the price he gets for selling his steer. The fattening takes about 7,000 pounds of food for each animal. Mr. Reeson can't count on a favorable price from his brother-in-law's farm, in which he has a stake, so when he sees a feed price he likes, he seals it with a futures contract. In April, he called AgWest and locked in a price with a futures contract for $95 per hundredweight of cattle. Since then the market price has dropped to $90. If the price stays there until October, he'll have made the right call, earning a higher price than if he'd relied on the market alone. If the price spikes higher, though, he'll miss out on potential gains...more

In making food safer, will Congress make farming harder?

For years now, American consumers have been drawn in bigger numbers to local producers like McKinzey and Paskin-Flerlage in hopes of becoming better connected to their food sources. Yet at the same time, there is a growing chorus of health advocates who say the government needs to keep better tabs on the food Americans eat, and are pressing for an act of Congress that could, among other things, regulate how spinach is grown at Solana Farm. And while both movements hope to put healthier foods on the table, many wonder whether the country is big enough for the both of them. The Food Safety Modernization Act aims to shore up what has been long considered a dearth of funding and authority at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It would increase the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's scrutiny of food production and processing and give that department more latitude in ordering recalls. Small-scale farmers like McKinzey and Paskin-Flerlage, however, worry that more government regulations could bring added costs to a business already running on tight margins. Local-food advocates often attribute the "globalized" food system to government fees and regulations that favor large producers with the capital to overcome them. "They are just making it more and more difficult," said Jenny Sabo, a Harrison cattle rancher and outspoken local-food advocate. "They are making higher and higher costs to entry that (big producers) can cover. It is just more regulations, more paperwork and more costly infrastructure."...more

Chupacabra - Video Report and Pictures

Here's a video report on recent Chupacabra kills, from KXAN-TV.



Here's some Chupacabra pictures from TODAY24NEWS

Song Of The Day #358

Ranch Radio presents George Jones' 1957 recording of Nothing Can Stop My Love.

Jones' stuff is widely available, as you can see by going here.

Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce Board Reaffirms its Stance on Wilderness Bill

Las Cruces, NM, July 13, 2010 – The Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors’ voted unanimously to re-confirm its prior position on SB 1689; especially as it pertains to homeland security. A review of the legislation, by the Chamber Board, was conducted following Senator Bingaman’s recent modifications to the legislation. His modifications were made after a field hearing of the United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was held in Las Cruces this past February.

Kiel Hoffman, Chairman, states, “While the Chamber commends the Senator for listening to concerns raised by the public and making modifications, we remain concerned that complete border security and law enforcement access are being denied unencumbered access by this legislation.”

We commend the Las Cruces Sun News Editorial Board, which stated, on June 27th, the following: “We urge Senator Bingaman to go as far as necessary to ensure that the Border Patrol will have complete and unfettered access to all areas along the border before putting the bill (SB 1689) up for final action.” Complete and unfettered access means zero conditions. Unfortunately, SB 1689 still has conditions placed upon border security.

We strongly encourage the Senator to further modify the language that removes any and all barriers to entry, in all protected lands in Doña Ana County, for routine surveillance by our United States Border Patrol, United States Armed Forces and any local, state or federal law enforcement agency. Anything short of removing all conditions and barriers only serves to increase risks to our citizens and further create a negative image for those considering relocation to Doña Ana County to live, work and/or retire.

We further encourage the consideration of designating the Potrillos Mountain Complex as a National Conservation Area, still prohibiting development, versus Wilderness Designation. Attached is copy of stated position on all other aspects of SB 1689.

We know that other organizations in our community have taken an opposite view. We respect all viewpoints; however, we are deeply troubled by one local organization’s apparent acceptance of significant funds from special interests groups to promote their position without full disclosure of doing so to its members. For the record, the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce has not taken any money from any special interest groups to promote our position.

###

Endangered Animal Horning In on Arizona Border Security

If not for an elusive, antelope-like creature in the Arizona desert, the Department of Homeland Security might have a much easier time cracking down on illegal immigration in hotbeds along the border. The Sonoran Pronghorn, which roams in Arizona, is an endangered species on the verge of extinction. As a result, environmentalists and governmental stewards have been repeatedly blocking Customs and Border Protection from expanding border technology in their habitat -- despite complaints that illegal immigrants are taking advantage of the security gap and doing plenty of harm to the environment in the process. Concerns about a host of species for decades have prompted standoffs between border and environmental officials. Border officers have limited access to federal lands in some of the most heavily trafficked areas because of the harm the patrols could do to the environment. But pronghorn preservation is popping up more and more as a barrier to Border Patrol and catching the attention of some on Capitol Hill. A 2008 letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service obtained by FoxNews.com showed that the agency rejected a CBP plan to install seven towers throughout the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge because of concerns it would lead to Sonoran Pronghorn extinction. The towers would have been part of the virtual border fence project that was partially suspended this year but is still underway in the area surrounding Cabeza...more

About those decapitations in the Arizona desert

By Joan Neuhas Schaan
OpEd Contributor
July 13, 2010

With some concern and disbelief, I have been astounded at the lack of understanding of the severity of the situation in Mexico and the possibility that it has crossed the border.

Last week, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post severely ridiculed reports from Arizona of decapitated heads found in the desert. This comment was made within a day or two of the discovery of two decapitated bodies in Chihuahua, Chihuahua, just south of El Paso, Texas.

While I cannot comment on the veracity of specific reports of headless bodies in the Arizona desert, the occurrence of headless bodies in Mexico has been epidemic. It is only a matter of time until the phenomenon is regularly encountered in the U.S.

Let me suggest the general public familiarize themselves with press reports since the first of this year. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the decapitation incidents, as many, if not most, incidents do not go reported.

* July 6, 2010: Two decapitate bodies found in Chihuahua, Chihuahua.

* Junue 30, 2010: A severed head was found on the doorstep of Ciudad Juarez mayoral candidate Hector Murguia. (Wall Street Journal)

* June 16, 2010: A police officer is found decapitated in Apodaca, Nuevo Leon. (Expresion Libre)

* June 2, 2010: Six human heads found in two Durango cities, Lerdo and Gomez Palacio. (EFE)

* May 10, 2010: Two decapitated bodies found in Cancun. (El Universal)

* May 4, 2010: Three decapitated bodies found in Costa Chica region, Guerrero. (Proceso.)

* April 12, 2010: Dismembered body found in Cuernavaca. (El Universal)

* April 11, 2010: Decapitated body found on Morelos highway between Cuernavaca and Acapulco. (El Universal)

* April 9, 2010: Report on December 2009 Reynosa dismemberment. (The Washington Times)

* April 3, 2010: Decapitated body of a female found in Chihuahua, Chihuahua. (El Diario Chihuahua.) Spring 2010: Police Chief of Aguascalientes, Nuevo Leon found decapitated.

* March 25, 2010: Decapitation victim found at shopping center in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. (El Agora de Chihuahua)

* March 22, 2010: Two dismembered bodies found in Acapulco. (Reforma)

* March 10, 2010: Police find five heads in ice coolers in Guadalajara, Jalisco. (BBC News)

* Janaury 28, 2010: A head is found in an ice cooler in Quiroga, Michoacan.

* January 25, 2010: Decapitated head found on grave in Altamira, Tamaulipas. (El Universal)

As an example of those incidents that go unreported, in 2009 an acquaintance shared a story from Juarez. While transiting a major road or highway out of town, there were more than two dozen decapitated heads atop a series of fence posts along the road. Certain such an event would make the news, press reporting was scoured for days. The incident was never reported.

Does this mean the event never occurred? Clearly that is a possibility, though I consider my acquaintance reliable and credible. The Mexican press is under severe pressure to self-censor reporting of violence and drug cartels or suffer the consequences.

On July 6, 2010 the body of Mexican journalist Hugo Alfredo Oliveras Cartas of the "La Voz de Michoacan" was found. He had been reported as missing the day before and is the fourth journalist to be killed this year in Mexico. Since 2000, 61 journalists have been killed in Mexico. Twelve were killed in 2009.

To suggest that those on the front lines who are most aware of the rampant phenomenon of decapitations are delirious or untruthful would indicate the author does not have an understanding of the truth on the ground.

Joan Neuhaus Schaan is a fellow in homeland security at the James A. Baker III Institute on Public Policy at Rice University in Houson, Texas.

From the Washington Examiner

UK won't let Iroquois lacrosse team go to tourney

An American Indian lacrosse team will not be allowed entry into England for the world championship of the sport the Iroquois helped invent unless members accept U.S. or Canadian passports, the British government said Wednesday. The Iroquois Nationals team won't be attending the world championship in Manchester unless the British government reverses its decision and allows them to use passports issued by the Iroquois Confederacy, said Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a lawyer for the team. "They're telling us: 'Go get U.S. passports or Canadian passports,'" Frichner said Wednesday shortly after getting the news. "It's pretty devastating." The team's 23 players — who are all eligible for passports issued by those nations — say that accepting them would be a strike against their identity. The British government's decision was announced hours after the U.S. cleared the team for travel on a one-time waiver at the behest of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. U.S. authorities initially had refused to accept the passports issued by the Iroquois Confederacy, which lack new security features now required for border crossings because of post-Sept. 11 crackdowns on document fraud and illegal immigration. Asked why the State Department had dropped its opposition, spokesman P.J. Crowley said: "There was flexibility there to grant this kind of one-time waiver given the unique circumstances of this particular trip."...more

Don't you think Hillary had a pretty good idea, if not advanced information, that the British would reject the Iroquois-issued passports?

Mucho wilderness activity, so this is a shortened version of The Westerner.

If you want to know how we got to where we are today on border issues, be sure and check out the essay by Ham & Wilmeth. A piece of that length is not normally published on a blog, but the importance of the issue and the quality of the information is such that we are publishing it here first.

Solar wells displacing windmills on Western range

The pump installer toppled the old windmill in about an hour, first climbing up the wobbly 27-foot tower to stop the broken mill's whirling blade and then pulling the underground pipe to make way for a new solar-powered electric pump. Iconic mechanical windmills of metal and wood have pumped life into American ranches and farms for 150 years, their function withstanding rural electrification in remote locations beyond the reach of power lines. These days, however, an increasing number of Western ranchers are pulling down their old windmills and converting to solar-powered systems. "They are displacing windmills everyday," said Scott Blakeley, owner of Pronghorn Pump and Repair in Glenrock, as he traveled to a July installation job on a ranch southwest of Casper. "Primarily because of the mechanical problems that you have. You fix one issue on a windmill today, something else is broke tomorrow. And in August, when you need water the most, the wind blows the least in Wyoming, and in most Western states." Solar-powered pumps have been available for more than 20 years, but their efficiency and durability have recently improved to the point that many ranchers are at least considering the solar option when they need to replace an old windmill or drill a new well...more

Billy the Kid: a pardon at long last?

"I expect you have forgotten what you promised me," Billy the Kid wrote to New Mexico Territory's governor, Lew Wallace, in 1881. The Kid was writing from a Santa Fe jail cell. He was there because of the dogged efforts of Pat Garrett, who had been elected sheriff of Lincoln County, which comprised the southeastern part of the territory, on the promise that he would put a stop to Billy and his gang of rustlers. Now Billy was waiting to be transported to Mesilla, where he would be tried for the murder of another Lincoln County lawman, Sheriff William Brady. Billy's pointed reminder to Wallace referred to a deal the two had made two years earlier. Wallace had promised to grant Billy amnesty for his role in shooting Brady and other misdeeds if the Kid agreed to testify before a grand jury investigating another Lincoln County murder. Billy held up his end of the bargain, but the governor failed to follow through with his. The Kid's letter went unanswered, as did all the others he sent to the Palace of the Governors on Santa Fe Plaza. In 2003, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson announced that he would consider making good on Wallace's promise and issue a pardon for Billy. Richardson's announcement came in the midst of international media attention over a modern-day forensic investigation looking into the circumstances of the Kid's death. But as the hoopla subsided, so did the talk of a pardon. Now the governor, whose term expires in January, is reportedly again giving serious consideration to Billy's pardon. Just what would a pardon for Billy the Kid mean? It can no longer help the Kid, of course, whose body lies buried beneath a stark metal cage at Ft. Sumner. Richardson would certainly make headlines, but after that would Billy lose some of his outlaw mystique? Would Garrett's obsession be made ridiculous? Would the two deputies killed during Billy's sensational daylight jailbreak have died in vain?...more

"Billy" Bonney and "Billy" Richardson...hmmmm

Are Bizarre Canines Really Goat- Sucking Chupacabras?

Is the legendary "goat sucker" stalking Hood County? Two strange, coyote-like creatures have been killed with in 10 miles of each other, and locals say the animals could be chupacabras. Hood County Animal Control Officer Frank Hackett killed the first creature last week. He found it in an old barn. When it growled at him, he put the animal down. "It was ugly, real ugly, I'm not going to tell no lie on that one," he said. A few days later, a rancher killed a similar creature. Jack Farr, who owns the property where the first coyote-canine-cross was spotted said he thinks more of the strange animals are out there. "I have heard of a chupacabra before, but I thought it was some sort of mythological thing," he said. But after seeing firsthand the creature killed on his property, he doesn't know what it was. Hood County Animal Control sent the animal to Texas A&M for testing. Until DNA tests are returned Doctors at Texas A&M would only say it's some kind of coyote hybrid...more

You see, there's nothing like sittin' under a windmill, eating some freshly grilled Chupacabra with plenty of home made salsa all over it.

To hell with the solar folks, the vets and the FDA.

That's my kind of West.

The Arizona Smuggling Corridors

A Profile of Government in Disarray

By David B. Ham and Stephen L. Wilmeth

Perhaps the greatest threat to the security of the United States today is the 2045 miles of Mexican border. It is there that the drug war in Mexico can be heard at night. It is there that the politics of environmental radicalism has breached the independent thinking of conservation minded leaders. It is there that the very existence of the American experiment may face its toughest challenge.

Prior to 1924, border conflicts were handled by the states or various military operations depending on actions from Washington. The most violent border conflict in the history of the United States occurred in Texas. That conflict was not a single event. Rather, it was a conflict that began before statehood and continued following the Mexican American War when the United States government largely removed its military presence from south Texas.

Texas mounted its own protective service in what it called its Ranger force. Over time, the Texas Rangers evolved from a largely Indian fighting force to a special assignment and border protective service in the days and times up to 1904. During World War I, a United States contingent called “Mounted Inspectors” was put afield due to concerns of national security. Texas also responded to the war effort by beefing up its own security and sent additional Rangers to the border.

The United States Border Patrol was established by Congress in 1924 in response to the demand by Border States to halt illegal immigration. The first offices were established in Detroit and El Paso. Subsequent offices were established on the basis of what is now called “corridor development”. That was also extended to maritime locations where illegal entry expansion was occurring. The early Border Patrol was an organization that hired its officer force largely from candidates that had roots in the border region. They were men with a common background to the American citizens whose security they pledged to protect.

From the inception until the Bracero Program in the ‘50s, the Border Patrol did its work without a great deal of fanfare. If there was conflict it was largely with landowners who employed illegals. Thousands of miles of fence and other infrastructure were built by Mexican labor at that time. That conflict ultimately prompted the idea of the Bracero Program, whereby Mexican workers were allowed conditional entry into the United States in exchange for legal employment. The plan required the Border Patrol to enforce the conditions of the program as well as to oversee the return of the same workers following their temporary visits.

The demand for labor across a wider segment of American business accelerated in the ‘60s. As a result, the country experienced a dramatic expansion in illegal immigration. Interaction with the Border Patrol and a broader profile of American business spectrum took place.

By the ‘70s, the number and the profile of illegal aliens were changing. The border was becoming a more intense and the motives of illegals were changing. Drugs, and the war on drugs, were starting to shape a new and dangerous challenge.

By 1986, the Border Patrol had to start shifting its focus from the border to areas more inland. This change in the mission of the Border Patrol was largely the result of Congressional action. The Immigration Control and Reform Act (IRCA) was passed. It mandated that an amnesty program be implemented, and it authorized the prosecution of American employers who hired illegals. Congress was putting the burden of proof on American business to determine the legal status of aliens. The Congressional mandate to secure the border was being passed to American businesses.

By the early ‘90s, Americans living in urban border centers were in near revolt as the hordes of illegal immigrants swarmed across the largely open borders and quickly disappeared into the mass of humanity on the American side. Something had to be done, and the Border Patrol figured out a plan that worked.

Starting in El Paso, the idea of going back to the actual border, making eye contact with illegals, and pinching off the flows was started. The operation was instituted and the horde of illegal border crossings was stopped. The numbers went down in El Paso, and the Border Patrol was able to reduce the numbers crossing in the Sector as a whole.

The next operation was instituted in the urban centers of southern California. This operation made use of what was learned in El Paso but it also incorporated higher tech ideas. It brought to the border increased agent numbers, border fencing, stadium lighting, and ideas in high tech monitoring. This more sophisticated approach also worked. Numbers of illegals entering San Diego went down and the San Diego Sector numbers were down as well. The idea of putting pressure on the border at the point of corridor entry was working. It only needed to be expanded.

Following the success at El Paso and the urban centers of southern California, the Border Patrol was intent on expanding the idea into southern Arizona. Nogales and the greater Tucson Sector was the target. That operation brought the factors learned at El Paso and San Diego to the Arizona border at Nogales. The operation failed.

What the illegals found in Arizona was exactly what made the efforts in El Paso and southern California work. The immense and harsh conditions of the open desert outside of the Nogales entry became a major entry into the United States. Unlike the urban centers of southern California and El Paso, the Arizona lands outside of the preferred entry points were not fully patrolled and controlled by the Border Patrol. Much of the Arizona border allowed the Border Patrol only conditional and limited access.

The hordes of illegals found the American invention of federally designated Wilderness, and the United States has been at an ever increasing risk ever since. The powerful United States Border Patrol couldn’t access the millions of acres of wilderness, but the human and drug smugglers certainly could, and they did.

A Closer Look at the Corridor Concept

The Border Patrol first started using the corridor concept as a method of controlling illegal immigration in the late ‘80s. The concept was developed by David Aguilar and his staff at the Border Patrol’s Southern Region office in Dallas. The purpose was to control the heavy influx of illegal aliens from Central American entering illegally through the McAllen Sector. There were a lot of factors that led to the heavy influx including natural disasters, protected status for certain aliens from El Salvador, and a policy of releasing the other than Mexicans (OTMs) from detention facilities because of absence of funding to detain them. Regardless of the reason, the McAllen Sector of the Border Patrol was inundated by OTMs from Central America.

To combat this problem, Aguilar created the McAllen Corridor and soon resources and manpower began to flow into the Sector. Agents were pulled from other Border Patrol Sectors to implement the staffing in the Sector on a temporary basis. Anti-smuggling agents and resources, including operational funding, were taken away from different Sectors all over the nation to reinforce the McAllen corridor.

Eventually, the OTM invasion slowed and resources were returned to their respective Border Patrol Sectors, but the corridor concept was established. To determine what might qualify for the creation of a corridor, Border Patrol Stations were required to report a whole new set of metrics that were created to measure what was going on in their respective station areas. Line watch stations, stations whose area of responsibility were adjacent to the Mexican border, were instructed to divide their areas of responsibility into zones and report the activity that occurred in a respective zone. “Zone Reports”, “Got aways”, and “turn backs” were examples of the new metrics.

With the amnesty and employer sanction provisions of IRCA, apprehensions in the late ‘80s dropped. The lull didn’t last long, though, when it became apparent that the Clinton administration wasn’t serious about enforcing employer sanctions. By the early ‘90s, apprehensions across the southern border were again increasing.

In 1991, El Paso, Texas was approaching chaos. Crime had increased dramatically, auto theft was rampant, beggars and windshield cleaners were at almost every intersection in the city. To combat this problem, El Paso Sector Border Patrol Chief Sylvestre Reyes and his staff created Operation “Hold the Line”. The idea was simple. Instead of chasing illegal aliens after they entered the United States, the Agents would prevent them from entering illegally by deploying right on the border. Interestingly, this plan wasn’t approved by the regional hierarchy because El Paso was not an approved corridor.

Although it was a struggle, the plan worked. Gradually the illegal aliens began to realize that things had changed and the days of being able to cross whenever and wherever they wanted in El Paso had changed. Reyes’s idea had been to close the urban border and force the aliens out into the desert where it would be easier to apprehend them. The success of “Hold the Line” soon led the San Diego Sector to adopt a similar strategy with the implementation of Operation “Gatekeeper”. At that time, the San Diego Sector had been the consistent leader nationwide in apprehensions (McAllen and El Paso battled for second). The Tucson Sector was still considered a Sector where nothing much happened. Its harsh, isolated border expanses were not yet seen as a pathway into the United States.

As anticipated, the illegals began to move out of the El Paso/ Juarez metro area and seek easier ways to cross into the United States. Apprehensions in the Deming, New Mexico station area 100 miles to the west began to skyrocket. In the far western reaches of the Sector area at Lordsburg, New Mexico large increases in apprehensions occurred as well. The Deming corridor was created and by the late ‘90s other stations in the El Paso Sector were being asked to detail agents and equipment to Deming to try and stem the flow. Deming tried to emulate the El Paso strategy of forward deployment of its agents, but the aliens would continually outflank them. The farming area west of Columbus, New Mexico was soon overrun by illegal aliens entering on foot and in vehicles headed north. The chaos that had been happening in El Paso was now pushed into the Deming corridor.

The chaos would soon hit the Tucson Sector as well. Douglas and Nogales, Arizona soon experienced the effects of increased illegal entry. By then, David Aguilar was in Tucson as the Sector Chief and he had brought many of his staff officers from the Southern Region to help gain control in that Sector.

In 2003, Chief Aguilar was sent to Washington D.C. to take the place of retiring Chief of the Border Patrol Gustavo De La Vina. The Tucson Corridor had been created and accordingly extra manpower and technology had been poured into the area. Zones and special enforcement areas were created, and different strategies were created almost monthly, but nothing seemed to work as entries continued to soar.

In 2004, a new theory of border control began to evolve and it became the Border Patrol mantra for achieving control of the border. It was believed, and ultimately shown, that with the right mixture of personnel, technology, mobility, and infrastructure control of the border could be achieved. This strategy was developed in conjunction with the pending implementation of the Secure Border Initiative (SBInet). Using this strategy Deming began to gain control of its area of responsibility. With increased numbers of agents, camera surveillance technology, improved infrastructure, and the authority to go anywhere without constraint, the Border Patrol was able to develop a plan that was effective in the farming area west of Columbus. Apprehensions dropped and a more orderly operational control of the area was returned.

By 2009, apprehensions were down all across the nation largely because of the economy. The El Paso Sector, once among the top two most active Sectors in the nation, had experienced a whopping 51% decrease in apprehensions. That was the largest decrease in the nation. Meanwhile, Tucson’s share of illegal apprehensions soared as a percent of the whole. That year, nearly half (241,673) of the 540,865 apprehensions caught nationwide occurred in the Tucson Sector.

While alien apprehensions were down nation wide, narcotic seizures increased by 57%. As with human smuggling numbers, the Tucson Sector led the way with 1,204,702 pounds of narcotics seized. That was a nearly 48% of all marijuana interdiction along all United States borders.

Another measurement suggests the extent of the problem. The Tucson Sector represents about 13% of the entire Mexican border, but, in 2009, the rate of human apprehensions occurred at about 920 per mile of border for the year. The southern border as a whole experienced a rate of 167 per mile of border, but the El Paso Sector had an apprehension rate of just fewer than 6% of the Tucson result, or just 54 per mile. Those results would suggest that El Paso still has pressure, but Tucson is out of control.

The Tucson Sector has received more manpower and technology in the past ten years than any Sector, yet it has not achieved control of its border. The question must be asked, “Why”? The answer is access to the border. Prohibitions against accessing border wilderness areas, wildlife management areas, wilderness study areas, a large Indian reservation on the border and Department of Agriculture forest lands have dramatically hampered the Border Patrol’s ability to patrol and control that segment of the border. At the same time, illegal aliens and drug smugglers aren’t constrained by the prohibitions and are accessing and abusing those areas.

Corridor profile

The most violent and explosive growth of the Arizona human and drug smuggling corridors is a fact of life in the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector. It is ground zero where the unexpected circumstances of Operation “Safeguard” and the displacement of illegals from “Hold the Line” and “Gate Keeper” took root and flourished. What is unique about the Tucson Sector that has created such danger even with the presence of increased manpower and technology?

Starting at the New Mexico/Arizona line and running west, that stretch of border is dominated by federal land holdings. The corridor entry points discovered by illegals following Operation “Safeguard” were expanded from the east into designated Wilderness dominated lands of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Coronado National Forest, and other Departments of Interior and Agriculture managed lands. These lands all have some common characteristics. Those similarities are:

1. The corridors have wilderness/de facto wilderness safe havens.
2. They have east /west highway access north and south of the corridors.
3. They have rugged and complex north/south mountain and drainage orientation which provides channels of movement.
4. They are almost entirely or heavily dominated by federal land agency management.
5. The concentration of American private property rights at risk is limited as is the presence of resident American habitation.
6. All corridors have high, strategically located points of observation.

The First Step toward Solution

The lessons from history in Texas and in the urban centers now indicate that success of controlling the border will come only by taking the fight back to the border itself. Success cannot be achieved by dropping back and focusing on peripheral issues. Silvestre Reyes’ simplistic order to his officers in the Operation Hold the Line to “go to the border and make eye contact with illegals” is more valid today than it has ever been. The problem is the Border Patrol cannot do that in Arizona. They are constrained in the wilderness and de facto wilderness areas as discussed, but the federal government has also created a loop hole whereby they can be blocked from entry to other federal lands.

By statutory authority, the Border Patrol has the right to enter into any private property for any reason and without announcement within 25 miles of the Mexican border. That authority was granted years ago in order to defend the sovereignty of our nation. Nothing was deemed more important than the need to protect American citizenry.

The Border Patrol, however, has no similar access authority to federal land holdings. An individual American cannot lock his or her gate and keep the Border Patrol off private property, but the United States can do the same thing and preclude the Border Patrol from entering. At the time the private entry authorization was done, nobody dreamed that a federal agent would ever be restricted from accessing federal lands. The federal land management agencies and the converging Wilderness and Rewilding agenda of the environmental movement have changed that situation. That agenda is trumping national security, they have done much to confound Border Patrol activity, and they have created havoc on the Arizona border.

Implications of that double standard played into the March, 2010, murder of rancher Rob Krentz. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Regional Manager, Benjamin Tuggle, wrote three letters to the Border Patrol in 2009 detailing how, henceforth, they would have only conditional access to the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge directly on the border east from Douglas, Arizona. The stipulations were that the Border Patrol would only be allowed onto the refuge in the event of life or death (human) conditions. Normal, mechanical access for patrolling and illegal interdiction would be denied and if the Border Patrol did not abide by the demand all access would be removed and future access would take place only on the basis of a special use permit.

Money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was used to rebuild fences and barriers around the refuge on the condition of National Security enhancement. The majority of the money was spent on fencing that blocks Border Patrol mechanical access. The actual portion of the work that blocks illegal alien entry was the lesser amount of the total project. The Krentz murderer used the sanctuary of the refuge both for accessing the United States as well as for his escape back into Mexico. Based on the conditions set forth by Tuggle and his staff, the Border Patrol could not have interdicted the murderer with mechanical means even if they had known the exact location of the murderer.

The blind insistence that more and more lands be protected for the purposes of creating an environment largely “untrammeled by man” has made it dangerous for traditional and legal activities in those lands. The void that is being created is being filled by drug and human smugglers. The Border Patrol cannot fully accomplish its mission, few Americans now want to visit those areas, and far too few productive endeavors that maintain a presence of Americans with property rights at risk are allowed and cultured by the federal agencies managing those lands. In the place of a protective and historical American presence, the proliferation of corridor expansion and the escalation of the war to control that growth have exploded.

At a minimum, the Border Patrol must have the same rights and authority to enter federal lands within 25 miles of the border as they do on private land holdings. That organization cannot be encumbered and denied access in order to attempt to carry out its mission while at the same time drug and human smugglers make full use of the lands where that access is conditional or denied. The universal message to Congress should be, “Start defending this country by installing the full rights and authority of the Border Patrol by allowing full and unencumbered access to any and all lands, at any and all times, without any time or conditional constraints to the 25 mile buffer along the entire Mexican border from Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean”. The Border Patrol has demonstrated in the El Paso Sector that, if it has such authority, it can control the border and the human and drug smuggling corridors. Without it, it is a defensive war that America is losing.


David B. Ham served the United States 31 years as a Border Patrol Officer. He was instrumental in establishing the Anti-smuggling team in the El Paso Sector. At the time of his retirement in 2003, he was the El Paso Sector Assistant Chief. He has extensive experience in the areas of southern New Mexico being considered for federal wilderness designation. He is adamantly opposed the any restriction to Border Patrol activities within 25 miles of the Mexican border. He is the current President of the Board of Governors of the National Border Patrol Museum. Mr. Ham is a native of Andrews, Texas and resides in El Paso.

Stephen L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New Mexico. He believes that long established desert ranches are ecosystems within the greater landscape of the Southwest. Any disruption in best management practices affects the balance of those stewardship units, and the designation of wilderness poses the highest risk of all artificially imposed restrictions. The disruption of established water systems, the curtailment of turf improvement projects, the elimination of brush control, and the elimination of land stewards are threats to wildlife, and, in the case of border ranches, outright threats to the security of the United States.

Report disputes Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's claims of 'rushed' energy leases in Utah

An investigative report by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's own Office of Inspector General disputes his claims that oil and gas parcels offered for lease at a controversial December 2008 auction in Salt Lake City were "rushed." Salazar used that reason to justify pulling 77 parcels that had been bid on in the Bureau of Land Management auction, asserting that they were offered as a result of a rushed midnight decision by the Bush administration. The report released Monday said an investigation "found no evidence to support the allegation that undue pressure was exerted on BLM personnel" to complete the resource management plans so the parcels could be offered prior to a change in the White House administration. It did note, however, that the BLM contributed to the "perception" that the lease-sale was rushed because the agency failed to notify the National Park Service in advance, as is standard, and refused to defer parcels on which the service sought additional reviews for their eligibility. Arguing that too many of the parcels were located on the doorsteps of national treasures such as Arches National Park, Salazar rescinded the leases, leading to an uproar in Utah by county officials and state policymakers, who said the move cost millions in lost revenue and usurped a lengthy review process...more

Nation’s New Drilling Chief Plans to ‘Jump on Evidence of Violations’

The former federal prosecutor who now heads the government agency that oversees offshore drilling says he is not afraid to fine lawbreaking oil companies or even put some executives in jail. But Michael Bromwich says he is not an anti-drilling zealot and will probably take actions that upset both industry groups and those who oppose drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and other sites. Bromwich, 56, had no previous experience in the oil and gas industry before taking over the 1,700 employee agency three weeks ago. Still, he said he understands that offshore drilling is "an energy reality for us for the foreseeable future. Anybody who tries to stop that dead in its tracks is, I think, blinding themselves to the realities of what we need in order to make this country run and keep our economy going." At the same time, he added, "We've just seen the incredible economic and human tragedy that's caused when the values of safety and regulation and environmental protection are not observed adequately, and when there is too much of a rush to drill, even when it is not safe."...more

Moratorium on Offshore Deepwater Oil Drilling Wrong Move

Not only does the president's moratorium on deepwater drilling fail to stop the oil leak, it costs jobs on the offshore rigs that he has shut down; reduces the amount of crude oil available for refining into gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil; and penalizes BP's competitors, who have been pumping oil from offshore wells responsibly for decades. Until BP's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, no oil had been spilled as a result of offshore drilling in U.S. waters since an accident off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969. Without energy production from deepwater areas, a vital source of jobs and tax revenue will be lost. And if offshore rigs remain idle for long, the Gulf's economy will wither. Yes, BP bears all responsibility for the explosion that killed 11 workers and caused staggering economic and environmental damage that is still ongoing. BP must be held accountable for its mismanagement. Among industry insiders, the fact that an "accident" occurred at a BP offshore drilling site was no surprise. BP has a reputation for cutting corners and disregarding risk. If President Obama truly wanted to supply incentives for trading off risk and reward optimally, he would press for legislation that holds oil companies strictly liable for the economic and environmental damages they cause. Because such damages may exceed the responsible company's ability to pay, the sanctions for wrong-doing also should include jail time and fines for the executives responsible for business decisions that harm others...more

Dash for Gas Raises Environmental Worries

American politicians often extol natural gas as abundant, cleaner-burning than other fossil fuels, and domestically produced, unlike Middle Eastern oil. But the process of extracting it is raising concerns among people with wells in their backyards. Anger and fear were on display last week at a public meeting convened by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Fort Worth, a gas-drilling hub. Dozens of local residents took turns at the microphone to voice concerns about potential contamination of drinking water. A film called “Gasland,” released last month on the cable channel HBO, showed people in drilling areas lighting their tap water on fire, as gas found its way into their water supply. “I am frustrated and angry,” said State Representative Lon Burnam, Democrat of Fort Worth, who spoke at the meeting and decried the “inadequacies” of state regulators. At issue is a procedure known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which has been adopted widely in the United States over the past 10 years to extract gas trapped in shale formations. It is just starting to spread to other parts of the world, including Europe, China and Australia. More than 20,000 wells of this nature have been drilled in the past 10 years, according to a study of natural gas released last month by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...more

A Green Retreat

Just three years ago the politics of global warming was enjoying its golden moment. The release in 2006 of Al Gore’s Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, had riveted global audiences with its predictions of New York and Miami under 20 feet of water. Within 12 months, leading politicians with real power were on board. Following two of the harshest winters on record in the Northern Hemisphere—not to mention an epic economic crisis—voters no longer consider global warming a priority. Just 42 percent of Germans now worry about climate change, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Australia, only 53 percent still consider it a pressing issue, down from 75 percent in 2007. Americans rank climate change dead last of 21 problems that concern them most, according to a January Pew poll. Last month Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, blasting climate change as a “sideshow” to global economic issues, canceled the meeting of environment ministers that has preceded the G8 or G20 summit every year but one since 1994. What has turned the fight against global warming from vote getter to political hot potato in so many places at once?...more

Greenhouse Protection Racket

Climate policymaking in our Nation’s capital often resembles the heavy-handed dialogue of old-time mobster films. “Are you gonna come along quietly, or do I have let the California Air Resources Board (CARB) muss ya up?” That was pretty much the line White House Environment Czarina Carol Browner took to obtain the auto industry’s support for the joint EPA/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NTSHA) greenhouse gas (GHG) emission/fuel economy standards rule. EPA is now in a position both to determine the stringency of fuel economy standards for the auto industry and to set climate policy for the nation. Yet the Clean Air Act provides no authority to regulate fuel economy and says nothing about greenhouse gases or global climate change. ”Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges.” Here’s how the regulatory mugging went down...more