Christmas Mountains: The Park Service Plan
February 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
It’s Friday afternoon so that means it’s time for only one thing… No, not happy hour Lone Stars at your favorite watering hole. It’s time for the government news release, dropped at the very moment the whole workaday world - reporters included - are muttering TGIF.
Today’s late-breaking news comes courtesy of Jerry Patterson’s General Land Office. This afternoon, Patterson announced the release of the long-awaited National Park Service’s proposal (.pdf) for the Christmas Mountains. (Background on the Christmas Mountains dispute.)
We haven’t had time to look at the proposal thoroughly but the upshot is that the Park Service wants the GLO to honor its commitment to the original donors and donate the Christmas Mountains outright to the NPS for incorporation into Big Bend National Park. As an alternative, the NPS proposes working with private conservation organizations to find a third-party to purchase the property.
The NPS would manage the property as a backcountry area for hiking, primitive camping, and horseback riding. The advantages of NPS management vs. privatization, according to the proposal, are:
1. The area would be permanently protected and preserved as part of the national park.
2. Public use of the area would be assured and the public would be able to participate in the planning process.
3. The park has extensive experience in managing public use in backcountry environments including law enforcement, search and rescue and emergency medical expertise.
4. The park can provide a full range of professional educational and interpretive services which are essential to a safe and enjoyable experience in a rugged and remote area.
5. The park has an excellent resource management staff including wildlife biologist, physical scientist, geologist, botanist and archeologist. In addition, we have access to numerous NPS resource specialists and academic institutions.
The exact nature of access to the Christmas Mountains would be determined through a public planning process, something that private ownership would presumably not include.
As to Patterson’s insistence on public hunting in the Christmas Mountains, the NPS weighs the pros and cons and finds mostly cons: High-powered rifles would pose a risk to nearby landowners; an excess population of huntable species may never arise; and access would prove difficult.
“In summary, while it would be technically possible to provide a hunting opportunity in the Christmas Mountains, it would be extremely expensive and of limited benefit to the public. We would not support hunting in the Christmas Mountains if the NPS acquires the property.”
From Patterson’s circumspect press release:
“The National Park Service has submitted a well thought out document,” Patterson said. “It will take some time to review and seek additional information.”
Patterson said the plan could be discussed in public at Tuesday’s School Land Board meeting, but reiterated it could not be posted on the agenda therefore no action could be taken by the Board.
However, the Board is scheduled to consider two private bids on the 9,269-acre tract of mountainous West Texas land adjoining Big Bend National Park.
To respect his fellow Board members, Patterson refused to elaborate regarding next week’s meeting.
We would love to hear from readers - especially Big Benders - on what you think about the proposal.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:59 pm
From Shane Allen / shanea@sfajacks.com and you can publish my email address as I have nothing to hide.
SEE: http://www.bigbendchat.com for information on how to inundate the GLO, the Governors Office, and the Atty. Generals office with emails, fax, phone calls, etc.
SEE: http://www.bigbendchat.com/portal/forum/national-park-news/your-attention-action-please-t5299.0.html
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 am
I have spent considerable time in this area. I believe the best solution - legally, for the environment and for the people - is to go with the NPS plan. They have done an excellent job of managing Big Bend. It only makes sense.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Thanks for the coverage y’all have given this important story. It’s a symptom of all that’s wrong with Texas politics that Patterson thinks he’s immune from the consequences of his self-absorbed, churlish handling of this entire situation.