Friends of Big Bend National Park
Big Bend Conservancy

Over-estimating your experience or under-estimating the terrain in a place like Big Bend can result in serious injury or death. Use the information and advice found here wisely. Climb/Hike/Camp/Drive at your own risk.

+-Calendar for sale

 2019 BigBendChat Calendar on sale now!


National Park Service may acquire Christmas Mountains

  • 66 Replies
  • 14763 Views
*

SHANEA

  • Guest
Re: National Park Service may acquire Christmas Mountains
« Reply #45 on: November 02, 2007, 08:58:35 AM »
I think the NPS does a fine job. I don't feel oppressed by park rules. My first choice is that the land becomes part of Big Bend.

I think the NPS does a fine job.   I think the NPS does an outstanding job with what little resources they are provided.  I also want my elected national officials to provide more resources to the NPS so that the NPS does not get into as bad of shape that TPWD did. 


*

Offline presidio

  • Soaptree Yucca
  • Mountain Lion
  • *
  • 3507
Re: National Park Service may acquire Christmas Mountains
« Reply #46 on: November 02, 2007, 04:10:16 PM »

One of the problems with the BLM - They manage more land with less funding than any other agency. Also they have historically managed land for resource exploitation. (I do not use the word "exploitation" in a negative context)

Yes, that is all true. However, they manage far more truly wild land than the NPS could ever hope for in their wildest dreams. As to resource extraction...you bet, all the things people have that let them go to Big Bend have to come from somewhere and some of it comes from public land. That said, the agency also preserves and very well manages national monuments, wilderness areas, conservation areas, and general recreation areas.

Folks who don't live in public land states generally (you do seem to have some familiarity) have no idea about what the agency is or does. There's rarely any boundary signs so you don't have all the pretty entrance signs you see going into parks or national forests, but there's more land, more freedom, less people and hardly any fees. A long time ago the NPS areas had more freedom and less people and few fees. That all changed...and not for the better.

The kiss of death to most areas is to slap an NPS sign on it as that results in hordes of people showing up, all wanting to stamp that silly passport. That's not bad, I guess, if that's the kind of experience they are looking for (and most apparently are, as the clientele of national parks is a markedly different demographic than users of BLM and USFS lands). Big Bend is somewhat an anomaly in the NPS to a certain extent because of location, but its tourist load is still largely driven by being a national park, as opposed to being designated something less appealing to the crowd that thinks all the best land is under NPS control. It most assuredly is not.

Some people cannot see past their desire to have the NPS run things. That's okay too (though I surely am not of that opinion), but when that viewpoint becomes so narrow as to let a piece of land remain in private ownership (in a state with precious little land the public can use) when it could go to another public agency, that strikes me as not being logical. Usually, the folks who are enamored of the NPS have never used or even knowingly been on public land. My experience has been that when people learn what public land has to offer they get less concerned about the NPS. That happened to me when I left TX 32 years ago and discovered BLM lands.

I guess we'll see whether Mr. Patterson holds onto his objections about the NPS, or the NPS gets the land. I wouldn't hold my breath betting on the NPS. The NPS certainly could allow hunting and firearms if they wanted to; they do in other areas. None of the land in question was ever earmarked to national park purpose by any expression of congress. Just because they might obtain control of it does not mean it automatically could or must or would come under national park status. It could be managed differently, just as the Wild and Scenic River is managed under different provisions. Ask the park about that and why, if they want the ground so badly, they are not willing to consider other options. It doesn't even have to be called 'Big Bend' anything, it could be the Christmas Mountains Recreation Area or Conservation Area or some other title. Does that in any way diminish its value? Of course not.
_____________
<  presidio  >
_____________
Wendell (Garret Dillahunt): It's a mess, ain't it, sheriff?
Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones): If it ain't, it'll do till the mess gets here.
--No Country for Old Men (2007)


*

SHANEA

  • Guest
Re: National Park Service may acquire Christmas Mountains
« Reply #48 on: December 01, 2007, 04:52:04 PM »
Good catch.  Thanks for the post.  Now, can you find anything on Lajitas and what's going on with the fire sale?

I was wondering how Patterson's trip out there went.  Now I know.  For some reason he has this notion that no one ever gets off trail or too far from the road backpacking.  Perhaps Okiehiker or TWWG needs to show up and show Patterson how it's done. 

I knew this was going to come up with regards to money.  Yes, the GLO is in the "business" of making money for the perm. school fund.  I would like to know why the land was put under the GLO in the first place.  I guess it seemed like a good place to park it.

*

SHANEA

  • Guest
Re: National Park Service may acquire Christmas Mountains
« Reply #49 on: December 03, 2007, 10:56:51 PM »
Thanks goodness for FOIA's and Open Record Requests...

Details -- but not price -- of Christmas Mountains bids released.  Land Commissioner Patterson says bids value land at more than $60 an acre.

Craddock Bid...

Poindexter Bid...  <-- Be sure and read #6.  It's actually a long and fascinating document...
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 11:08:19 PM by SHANEA »

*

Offline RichardM

  • Admin/Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Mountain Lion
  • *
  • 7618
Re: National Park Service may acquire Christmas Mountains
« Reply #50 on: January 21, 2008, 09:25:20 AM »
What's this all about?

TIGUA INDIAN DISCLOSURE

The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in El Paso, Texas (the Tigua Tribe) has asserted a claim to PSF tracts in Brewster County.  The claim was evidenced by a 1983 federal register filing.  Court records reflect that the filing (to intervene in a pending suit) was denied; however, as of this date, the State of Texas has no documentation that the claim has been resolved.

The whole sale appears to be a cluster.

That is pretty much a standard declaration for all real estate transactions in Brewster county

Hmmmm, looks like the Tiguas aren't completely without support:
Federal study backs up land claim by Tigua tribe
 
AUSTIN, Texas A new federal study supports long-held claims by an American Indian tribe that the state of Texas stole 36 square miles of tribal territory in El Paso.

The 172-page report, completed last year, was obtained by the San Antonio Express-News under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Now, members of the Ysleta Pueblo del Sur, known as the Tiguas, are trying to determine what to do with the information in the study.

The territory, which the tribe lost in 1871 when the Texas Legislature used it to incorporate the town of Ysleta, is now home to tens of thousands of homes and businesses.

"The real huge problem here is what do you do about it?" Tom Diamond, the attorney for the 1,600-member tribe, told the newspaper.

The tribe says it does not plan to evict anyone, or to use the report as leverage to resolve their conflict with the state of Texas over the reopening of the tribe's Speaking Rock Casino.

...

No telling on whether this will lend credence to any claims in Brewster County.

*

Offline Roy

  • Mountain Lion
  • *
  • 1529
Re: National Park Service may acquire Christmas Mountains
« Reply #51 on: January 21, 2008, 10:44:18 AM »
The Tigua have a long standing "claim" to just about everything in West Texas;  showed up when I did a title search before buying land on Terlingua Ranch.  I doubt this new report changes anything. 

*

Offline Timbo

  • Jack Rabbit
  • *
  • 29
    • Hill Country Flying Monkey Ranch Studios Flickr Pix:
Re: National Park Service may acquire Christmas Mountains
« Reply #52 on: January 21, 2008, 02:40:26 PM »
There is a similar line item in the contract I just signed to sell 6 acres in Jeff Davis County. The same language was in the contract I signed to BUY the land 4 years ago. It does make one pause...  :eusa_think:

*

SHANEA

  • Guest
~~~ HOT OFF THE PRESS: NPS Plan for the Christmas Mountains ~~~
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2008, 10:06:05 PM »
NPS Christmas Mountains Proposal

SEE story @ The Texas Observer:  Christmas Mountains: The Park Service Plan

If you can't be in Austin, you can view the proceedings, IF THEY WORK THIS TIME, @ School Land Board Meeting
Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / 10am


Here is Pattersons Press Release

*

SHANEA

  • Guest
Re: ~~~ HOT OFF THE PRESS: NPS Plan for the Christmas Mountains ~~~
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2008, 10:20:17 PM »
I like the plan based on my first reading.  Well balanced and thought out.  Addresses the concerns of Patterson quite well.  I especially like the idea that it will not cost NPS any money to acquire the land, the land has already been paid for and donated to the state of Texas.   Texas, Patterson, and the rest of the School Board should honor the commitments that the State of Texas made when it originally acquired the land.

Heck, when Big Bend National park was originally formed, Texas bought up/acquired the land and gave it/donated it to the Park Service.  What is going on here is not precedent setting.

*

BigBendHiker

  • Guest
Re: ~~~ HOT OFF THE PRESS: NPS Plan for the Christmas Mountains ~~~
« Reply #55 on: February 02, 2008, 04:22:48 AM »
Woo-Hoo!  I hope this comes about!!  This is great news and seems to fit so well for that area of Texas.


BBH

*

SHANEA

  • Guest
Re: ~~~ HOT OFF THE PRESS: NPS Plan for the Christmas Mountains ~~~
« Reply #56 on: February 02, 2008, 09:42:26 AM »
Woo-Hoo!  I hope this comes about!!  This is great news and seems to fit so well for that area of Texas.


BBH

I wholeheartedly agree with you BBH.  If this comes to fruition, then there are a lot of people to thank for this that have done a bang up job.  Of course, there are all of the NPS people involved, but extra special mention goes to Luke Metzger and his crew @ Environment Texas for doing a superb job of getting out the word and setting up an action network.  BTW - I'm a card carrying member of Environment Texas - supporting their endeavors with my pocket book.  Environment Texas and you to can become a member @ Membership.  When you signup, I suggest you indicate that you do not want to receive the snail mail newsletters, etc. and get all of the information from the Wild West Web (saves a ton of money in printing/mailing costs).

*

Offline badknees

  • Actually, I was there once
  • Mountain Lion
  • *
  • 4394
  • I think I know that place
    • Through the Mirror
Re: ~~~ HOT OFF THE PRESS: NPS Plan for the Christmas Mountains ~~~
« Reply #57 on: February 02, 2008, 11:02:08 AM »
I sent a followup to the Governor's Office, and the GLO yesterday. and encourage the rest of us to do the same. I believe we are close to a happy conclusion to the Christmas Mountains  dilemma. A few more emails can't hurt this close to the end.
Not all those who wander are lost.
J.R.R. Tolkien

Through the Mirror
http://mirrormagic.com

*

SHANEA

  • Guest
*** NOT ACCEPTED *** !!!!!!!!
« Reply #58 on: February 05, 2008, 12:11:25 PM »
The GLO has just emerged from Executive Session and has voted unanimously to "NOT ACCEPT" either of the private bids for the Christmas Mountains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 


 :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap:

 :eusa_dance: :eusa_dance: :eusa_dance: :eusa_dance: :eusa_dance: :eusa_dance: :eusa_dance: :eusa_dance:

THE MEETING HAS BEEN ADJOURNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


*

SHANEA

  • Guest
Re: *** NOT ACCEPTED *** !!!!!!!!
« Reply #59 on: February 05, 2008, 01:19:38 PM »
Quote
BC-TX--Christmas Mountains,0078
Board rejects bids to buy Christmas Mountains
Eds: APNewsNow; Will be led.
AUSTIN (AP) The School Land Board has rejected two private bids to buy about 9,200 acres of rugged West Texas state land.
The move Tuesday in Austin pushes to the forefront a proposal from the National Park Service to acquire the Christmas Mountains and add them to Big Bend National Park.
Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson had proposed the sale, but it was vigorously opposed by environmentalists.
The board will now consider the Nation Park Service's plan.

 


©COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All photographs and content posted by members are to be considered copyrighted by their respective owners and may not be used for any purposes, commercial or otherwise, without permission.

+-Calendar For Sale

 2019 BigBendChat Calendar on sale now!

Powered by EzPortal

Facebook Comments