What’s Best For The Christmas Mountains?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
We may be close to knowing the fate of the Christmas Mountains, a near-10,000-acre tract of sensitive wilderness in that fearsome, beautiful part of Texas just north of Big Bend National Park.
The School Land Board meets February 5 to consider whether or not to accept one of two active bids from private parties. The board has waited 90 days to allow a proposal to be put forward by the National Park Service to either buy the land or engineer some other way to take over the property — as many are urging.
For people who don’t want the land developed, or parceled, there is a strong desire to see the range folded into the National Park Service’s domain. Once it becomes a national park, the idea goes, either in conjunction with Big Bend, or on its own, it will have secured permanence — lasting boundaries, rules, and caretakers.
The fact is, most of the people that care think they can trust the National Park Service to keep the Christmas Mountains in as close to a pristine state as possible — as well as accessible.
The problem with that argument is that, because of the permanent encumbrances put on the land by its donor, the Conservation Fund, in private hands the land would also remain undeveloped — and according to Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, at least one of his private bidders promises to allow public access and, perhaps more importantly, to facilitate access to a mountain range which all parties agree has no easy access.
Patterson says the tract is surrounded by private property on all sides except one southern edge, where it abuts Big Bend. He took two reporters to the site two weeks ago, he said, just to demonstrate how one would have to hike to get into the mountains from the national park. He said it took him, a Texas Monthly reporter, and a reporter for the Big Bend Gazette four-and-a-half hours to trek from Big Bend to the edge of the Christmas Mountains — and at that point, he said, the terrain is impassable.
“I’m looking for the best public access,” Patterson says.
The problem for Patterson — government watchdogs, environmentalists, and much of the press find it hard to believe that the land would be better maintained and preserved under private ownership than as a park. Apparently the Conservation Fund felt the same way. The organization stipulated in the deed that they must approve any transfer of the property to a private owner. Patterson has said he won’t abide by that provision because in his estimation it wouldn’t stand in a court of law, an assertion that has been met with strong disagreement.
One of Patterson’s most able critics is my colleague Forrest Wilder, who wrote first for the Observer about the proposed sale, and who has pointed out the weaknesses in Patterson’s argument that difficult access is a problem.
Wilder wrote: Anyone who has ever been to Big Bend, like any other park, will tell you that you can’t really understand the majesty of the place until you actually explore on foot. It’s called hiking. And the last thing anyone wants to see while hiking is some gun-slinging yahoo on a four-wheeler.
Wilder failed to convince Patterson, of course. I think Patterson really believes a private steward and allowing hunting would be better for the mountains. As far as I know he has not suggested allowing four-wheelers as yet — but guns? Hell yes.
He says it’s a mistake to assume this mountain range is a park waiting to be certified. And he says the lack of access matters.
“This perception is out there that this is public land or park land — and that’s just bogus,” Patterson told me. “The bottom line is this is not public land, but if it were public land, nobody could get there.”
He says one of his bidders has suggested he would buy adjacent property in Terlingua Estates, build a road up to the border of the tract, facilitate habitat for game therein, and allow public access — including hunting. And, by God, Patterson thinks that is the brightest future for the land. The problem is he has to convince another land board member to go along with him — depending, of course on what the National Park Service ultimately offers.
Patterson did say the board decided that there will be access from Big Bend into the Christmas Mountains. “No matter what happens, we’re going to implement a perpetual, irrevocable easement to allow access from Big Bend National Park,” he said. “This is never going to be a park, but it is a wilderness area.”
Patterson bristles when he is reminded that many feel he is making a point about guns at the expense of the public’s right to enjoy a pristine patch of Texas. But, he insists, this is not about public lands.
“You know what?” he says. “I am making a point about guns… If I thought it was about public lands, I wouldn’t be making a point on this one.”
At bottom, this one is about trusting a private landowner to provide access and preserve the land. Patterson says, regardless, the land will be protected. In a way, one’s position on the sale of the Christmas Mountains may come down to whether or not you trust Jerry Patterson.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
[…] of the long-awaited National Park Service’s proposal (.pdf) for the Christmas Mountains. (Background on the Christmas Mountains […]