Trouble in the Christmas Mountains?

[SHANEA]

Technical error delays sale of Christmas Mountains

[SHANEA]

Merry Christmas

The Christmas Mountains are just north of Terlingua, Texas. That puts them just north and west of Big Bend national park and the Chisos Mountains. The area's a little rougher than Big Bend, and they get even fewer visitors. It's too bad, because they're plenty spectular in their own way. They don't look like much, but the peaks are more than a mile above sea level. The state of Texas owns the land around the Christmas Mountains, and has since 1991 when the R.K. Mellon foundation donated it to the state.

After sixteen years of owning the land, the state has decided to put it up for sale.

Not that I have any experience with seeing gifts put up for sale, but this strikes me as unbelievably bad manners. It sets a bad precedent and would, I suspect, discourage other donors from giving anything to the state. Why, you might ask, did the Mellon folks not stipulate that the state couldn't sell the land? Well, they did, but the Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has decided that the state will simply ignore that provision of the donation, saying that it's unenforceable in court.

Even better is the reason why Texas is so hell bent on getting rid of the land (from the Austin American Statesman):

Patterson wants to make this an ideological argument by attacking what he says is an idea that a private owner can't be as good a steward of the land as the government. In this case, he said, a private owner would be a better steward than the state has been.

You got that? A representative of the state is saying a private owner would do a better job than he is doing. Not to mention, he's doing it primarly to make a pissing match out of it. Is this not fairly mind-boggling?

Now, Patterson makes the fair point that there is not a great deal of public money available for public lands. He fails to mention, though, that the reason for this is that the legislature has been raiding the funds set aside for public lands, and that the funding levels have just been drastically increased. This is another wonderful example of what we've seen on the national level. It's a win/win situation for these folks, because, by governing really, really badly, they're proving their point that government can be really, really bad.

If anyone's not busy tomorrow, the public hearing starts at 10:00 at the Stephen F. Austin Building, 1700 North Congress Ave. Room #170. I can't be there. I don't know that anyone being there can make a difference. But this kind of crap needs to stop. I guess this is what you get when you elect people who hate government to govern.

[rgibson]

Can not believe Patterson has joined Perry, Dewhurst and Craddock in yet another scheme. These four are the greatest traversty to hit Texas since the carpetbaggers the 1870's during Reconstruction.  They hardly speak to each other, just think where we would be if they joined forces.  Sounds like I am a Democrat.  No, independent that tends to vote more Republican.

btw, the Mellon Foundation also donated the Chinati Mountain area land to Texas.  Seems like around 30,000 acres of unique and in need of protection land.  The Chinati land is West of the Big Bend State Ranch Natural Area and is technically part of the park, though access technicalities were, and I guess still, restrict this unique area from being used.

The Mellon Foundation does things right when they donate land.  They  set up a perpetual trust to ensure a like amount of money goes to the county and School district as if it were taxed.  Forever!

This latest Patterson plan will have the effect  of other possible donators to think twice about donating land to Texas, forever.

Very familar with the Christmas and have hiked and explored most of it. Lived and owned land that joined.  Around 1990 when a Corpus Christi bank  foreclosed on the Christmas, I worked with the bank and the board of directors of Terlingua Ranch for the Board to buy the Christmas for $20 an acre.  It would be available for hiking and a natural area.  Terlingua Ranch surrounds the Christmas on all sides except what joins BBNP.

By phone, the Board seemed to all agree that it would be a great thing and they would pursue.  Attended my only board meeting ever when the next board meeting was held in Irving TX.  The subject of the Christmas was not on the aggenda and at breaks, would talk to the members and they all gave the Christmas lip service.  Nothing happened.  I was, and other supporters were livid.

The Christmas was then purchased by the Mellon Foundation thru the Conservancy Fund for $28 an acre to donate to the BBNP.  Unfortunatly, the Supt of the BBNP did not have a pair and did not want to take on the group that had fought the then recent Rosillas Ranch addition to the BBNP.

The land was then  donated to the Texas General Land Office for "safe keeping"  (ha) until the BBNP or the Texas Parks could sort it out.

There is much more behind the press info that I will share in a later post, but gotta go now.

Some of the press releases showing up here and on google mention that the BBNP had turned down the Christmas donation.

Sorta true with a great big exception!

The BBNP Supt in 1991, who did not have a pair, turned it down at the then, present time, because they did not want to go thru another fight with the group that fought them on the Rosillas addition.

He did not reject ever taking the Christmas into the park.

Will check with the new Supt today to gauge his feelings and report back.  If open to the Christmas, we could have a new project to promote.

The Christmas is really special to me and I really want to see it in state or federal lands.

Poindexter has good intentions and would probably do the right thing with the land, but somehow it is not the same.

btw, his plans for the BBRSP really helps out the park regarding access and many other problems the BBRSP has with the northern part.  These problems have never been addressed in the press.

It would be a win, win situation for both.  Will outline why in a later post.

[Boojum1]

Here's an op-ed from our beloved land commish.  Apologies if I skew things with the url.

COMMENTARY

Patterson: Selling the Christmas Mountains gives us the chance to save them
Jerry Patterson, TEXAS LAND COMMISSIONER
Click-2-Listen
Wednesday, September 26, 2007

'If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.'

— President Reagan in a speech to the British House of Commons, June 8, 1982

As the editor of President Reagan's diaries, Douglas Brinkley should recognize that quote. As a misinformed historian, he embodies it. In his recent opinion piece, Brinkley has clearly deluded himself in the face of the facts about the Christmas Mountains.

Fact No. 1: The Christmas Mountains tract was never meant to be and never will be a public park. It is surrounded by privately owned land and the only access is via privately owned roads. Both the National Park Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department declined to accept title to the Christmas Mountains.

Moreover, the Conservation Fund never intended the mountains to be a park. The Fund's deed restrictions clearly intend this remote property to be held as a preservation area that would never be fragmented or developed. This remains the goal of the School Land Board and will be legally enforceable on any successful bidder. This is not a "parks" issue.

Fact No. 2: Transferring Christmas Mountains from government to private hands will best achieve the goals of both the Conservation Fund and the School Land Board and ensure the conservation of this land for future generations.

Brinkley should re-read his Reagan Diaries. More than any other American, Reagan understood that government is not the solution to the problem — in many cases, it is the problem. The Christmas Mountains are no exception.

The Land Office has neither the authority nor the funding to restore the land to its natural state.

Consider the mule deer. Despite Brinkley's mellifluous prose, there are no "herds of deer grazing the high chaparral" on the Christmas Mountains. State law prohibits the School Land Board from spending money unless it will result in a return to the Permanent School Fund. Therefore we are largely prohibited from doing large-scale land and wildlife management. When we attempted small improvements, like restoring water wells, conducting brush management and improving access roads, we were blocked by the Conservation Fund.

Unless something is done to improve water resources, manage the invasive plant species and stop poachers, the Christmas Mountain mule deer population will not recover. A private interest will have the financial ability to act.

Private stewardship can be as good or better than public stewardship. If this is not true, then Texas is in trouble since 95 percent of Texas is privately owned.

Of course, Brinkley cannot be bothered with facts. Before his editorial rant, he refused documentation from the Land Office about this issue, and refused to speak with me personally.

As I would have informed Brinkley had he agreed to speak with me, the deed restrictions conveyed to the Land Office by the Conservation Fund will be conveyed to a private owner and will be legally enforceable. This means that they are bound by the original restrictions set forth by the fund, yet will have greater financial means to manage the land.

Also, any bid the board selects under my chairmanship will include an enforceable management plan that will allow for appropriate public access like hunting, backpacking and other low-impact uses — as long as that can be done without negatively affecting the primary objective of preserving the property in its natural state.

Perhaps Brinkley could learn another lesson from history — that unreasonable, misinformed people rarely accomplish positive change. Apart from doing the bidding of the Mellon Foundation, Brinkley's knee-jerk, hysterical tirade added nothing of value to the debate and served only to remove himself as a credible participant in that discussion.

Consider just a few of the lies Brinkley offered up:

Brinkley rants about Land Office attempts to sell off state parkland at Eagle Mountain Lake in Tarrant County, a total fabrication. Eagle Mountain Lake was never owned by the Land Office and was never a park! As a matter of fact, the money Texas Parks and Wildlife Department received from that deal will be used to buy an even larger tract for an actual park.

The confused professor also writes that somewhere I "blamed" former Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro for the Christmas Mountains issue. I've actually called Mauro myself to compliment him for acquiring and protecting this land from being divided and developed. Looks like Brinkley also failed to talk to Mauro.

Brinkley's column is pure tabloid trash — using terms like "hellbent," "cronyism," "cash grab," "hubristic gall," "garage-sale stunt," and "cheapjack ploy." He calls me an "untrustworthy double-dealer" and suggests I be "hung up on the wrong side of a noose."

And this guy calls himself a professional?

Contrast this with the calm, reasoned public hearing held by the School Land Board — a meeting Brinkley urged his readers to attend yet neglected to attend himself.

The board heard from about 17 concerned Texans, most of whom have legitimate issues, which we discussed at length. I learned something, and I hope they learned something. That is the purpose of a public hearing.

Yet, in his absence, Brinkley did have an impact. One attendee was so motivated by his column that he drove three hours from Houston to Austin to express his opinion in person. He supported the sale of the Christmas Mountains.

At the meeting, opponents of the sale handed out stickers with the words "Save The Christmas Mountains."

That is my objective. I want to do what is right for these 9,000 acres so that 100 years in the future this property will be in better condition than it is now, and the habitat and the wildlife will be restored.

Given the information before me, I have determined that selling this property to a conservation-minded private entity accomplishes this goal. There may be another answer — I'm open to legitimate alternative solutions.

As for Brinkley, his useless column only makes me more determined to act. He is proof of the saying "there are those who do and those who become college professors."

We will save the Christmas Mountains. Whether it is through private or public means, this piece of Texas will be restored for future generations.

To read historian Douglas Brinkley's column on the sale of the Christmas Mountains, visit statesman.com/opinion.

Quote by URL kluged by Moderator.

[okiehiker]

I have made questionable out of the park hikes in the Christmas Mtns. several times.  It is a wonderful area and I recommend it highly.  The area for sale may not be contiguous to the national park, but there are many parks that have discontinuities in ownership as well as in-holdings. 

TPWD and the federal govt. may or may not be the best stewards of the land in question.  The state and NPS do not have enough money... but if the state and federal govt would use dedicated funds for their intended purpose, there would in fact be plenty. 

The state land office indeed must support the schools.... BUT... where in his discussion is the intent of the original donor?  If it were the donor's intent that the land be sold to a nice, benevolent private part... wouldn't they have just sold to them in the first place!  Why make the state of Texas the middle man in this transaction? 

If there is no suitable public repository for ownership and management of this property then the state of Texas should give it back. 

Supposing that the sale is an irrevocable step, where is the Nature Conservancy in Texas?  Half a million dollars is a pittance in the economy of large-scale conservation efforts.  But, will even a sale to the Nature Conservancy undermine future philanthropy to the state?  Is it worth the cost to net an increase in the fund of .002%? 

Attached is a scanned 1991 pic of my son and daughter (now 22 and 25 years old) at the entrance to one of the mines on the property in question.

[SHANEA]

Interesting fact buried in here, good Trivia Question... and it's from the NY Times, so it must be true...

Does Texas really want this type of negative publicity?  Certainly would keep some deep pocket folks from wanting to leave or give any land to the State of Texas...

David Kaczynski, the brother of the Unabomber, Theodore J. Kaczynski, lived for a time in the 1980s as a recluse in the Christmas Mountains while Theodore was hiding in Montana.

September 19, 2007
Sale of a Texas Wilderness Area Is Put Off
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL

HOUSTON, Sept. 18 — A mountain wilderness given to Texas in 1991 and now put up for sale to a chorus of boos by conservationists was taken off the auction block on Tuesday in Austin, Tex., because of what the Texas General Land Office said was a mistake in the property map.

But officials were quick to say that the tract, 9,270 acres of the Christmas Mountains Ranch bordering Big Bend National Park and deeded as forever wild, would be up for sale again at the next meeting of the School Land Board in November.

The board administers the state’s public land and mineral wealth, which is owned by the land office on behalf of the state education endowment, now about $25 billion.

“This is a fortunate mistake,” said the land commissioner, Jerry Patterson, “because it will give Texans an opportunity to become more informed about why this land should be conveyed to a good steward.”

Mr. Patterson, who leads a three-member land board, has pushed for a sale, arguing that his office has been unable to invest the money needed to replenish the wildlife that has been depleted by poachers or to build a fence to secure the property.

Opponents hailed the glitch as a sign that the sale might still be halted. “I think it’s great news because it brings us two more months to rally public support,” said Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas, an advocacy group.

The congressman representing the Big Bend area, Representative Ciro D. Rodriguez, a Democrat, wrote Mr. Patterson last week, saying that the proposed sale “potentially jeopardizes the conservation and well-being of the area” and strongly urging that it be put off.

David Kaczynski, the brother of the Unabomber, Theodore J. Kaczynski, lived for a time in the 1980s as a recluse in the Christmas Mountains while Theodore was hiding in Montana.

The Richard King Mellon Foundation put up the money so the Washington-based Conservation Fund could buy the property and then convey it to Texas in December 1991.

The fund said through a spokeswoman last week that it would have no comment on the proposed sale. Mellon Foundation officers did not return calls.

But The Austin American-Statesman reported last month that the fund had written the land office opposing any sale, and that a trustee of the Mellon Foundation, Mike Watson, had warned conservationists that if the sale went through, Texas should not look to the foundation “for any future help.”

In the 1991 gift deed, Texas agreed never to transfer the land to any party other than Texas Parks and Wildlife or the National Parks Service without the permission of the Conservation Fund. But Jim Suydam, spokesman for Mr. Patterson, called the provision unenforceable.

The high bidder of six on Tuesday was Louis A. Waters, retired founding chairman of Browning-Ferris Industries, who offered $652,000, or about $70 an acre.

He pledged to keep the property wild for study and research, and added in his proposal: “Under no circumstances would we open the Christmas Mountains to the public.”

[SHANEA]

Something for Viper to interpret for me...

The Christmas Mountains caldera complex, Trans-Pecos Texas

Publisher   Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN   0258-8900 (Print) 1432-0819 (Online)
Issue   Volume 52, Number 2 / December, 1989
DOI   10.1007/BF00301549
Pages   97-112
Subject Collection   Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date   Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Christopher D Henry1   Contact Information and Jonathan G Price1
(1)    Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, 78713 Austin, TX, USA

Accepted: 16 May 1989 
Abstract  The Christmas Mountains caldera complex developed approximately 42 Ma ago over an elliptical (8Ч5 km) laccolithic dome that formed during emplacement of the caldera magma body. Rocks of the caldera complex consist of tuffs, lavas, and volcaniclastic deposits, divided into five sequences. Three of the sequences contain major ash-flow tuffs whose eruption led to collapse of four calderas, all 1–1.5 km in diameter, over the dome. The oldest caldera-related rocks are sparsely porphyritic, rhyolitic, air-fall and ash-flow tuffs that record formation and collapse of a Plinian-type eruption column. Eruption of these tuffs induced collapse of a wedge along the western margin of the dome. A second, more abundantly porphyritic tuff led to collapse of a second caldera that partly overlapped the first. The last major eruptions were abundantly porphyritic, peralkaline quartz-trachyte ash-flow tuffs that ponded within two calderas over the crest of the dome. The tuffs are interbedded with coarse breccias that resulted from failure of the caldera walls. The Christmas Mountains caldera complex and two similar structures in Trans-Pecos Texas constitute a newly recognized caldera type, here termed a laccocaldera. They differ from more conventional calderas by having developed over thin laccolithic magma chambers rather than more deep-seated bodies, by their extreme precaldera doming and by their small size. However, they are similar to other calderas in having initial Plinian-type air-fall eruption followed by column collapse and ash-flow generation, multiple cycles of eruption, contemporaneous eruption and collapse, apparent pistonlike subsidence of the calderas, and compositional zoning within the magma chamber. Laccocalderas could occur else-where, particularly in alkalic magma belts in areas of undeformed sedimentary rocks.

[SHANEA]

MS PowerPoint with pics of mine closures/enclosures in Big Bend and the Christmas Mountains...

[SHANEA]

Good Editorial...

Sept. 17, 2007, 6:48PM
State's fire sale threatens Christmas Mountains gift

By DOUGLAS BRINKLEY
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Anybody who thinks being an American historian is dull and musty work has never written about Theodore Roosevelt and U.S. conservation. Instead of sitting quietly in a stuffy library, much of my recent research on our 26th president has been done visiting all 58 of America's national parks. Ranking the magnificence of these "national heirlooms," as Roosevelt called them, is certainly a fool's errand. But I can say, with complete confidence, that Texas' own Big Bend National Park is a very top-tier site along with Yellowstone and Yosemite.

Equally as spectacular, located just northwest of Big Bend's border, are the ethereal Christmas Mountains, a scrubby wildlife paradise replete with herds of deer grazing in the high chaparral. The incalculable groves of mesquite and cacti which grow unfettered in this rugged terrain, in fact, constitute some of the most timeless acreage in the Southwest. Over the years I've asked Big Bend rangers about the future of the Christmas Mountains. They've repeatedly assured me that it would someday become a national monument or state park or an adjunct northern unit to the national park. The land was too extraordinary not to be. Texas, I was told, had been gifted nearly 10,000 acres of the Christmas Mountains by the Mellon Foundation in 1991, one of the top philanthropic outfits in America. What a wonderful story, I remember thinking. East Coast philanthropy aimed at saving the last vestiges of Wild Texas.

So you can imagine my deep chagrin when I learned last week that Commissioner Jerry Patterson of Texas' General Land Office s hellbent on selling this stunning natural heirloom to the highest bidder in an eBay-like fashion. Actually, it's more elitist than that. Patterson has decided to screen various deep-pocketed bidders to determine which multimillionaire best meets the "fiduciary and conservation goals" of the School Land Board, which oversees the Christmas Mountains under his aegis. You don't have to be a muckraker to smell the stench of Texas-style cronyism in Patterson's bald land auction. It's called a GLO cash grab. Nowhere else in America would a state commissioner have the hubristic gall to even try such a garage-sale stunt with public lands donated by a powerful foundation whose mission is land preservation.

Selling our Christmas Mountains (and reneging on Texas' promise to the Mellon Foundation) is scandalous, something akin to chiseling the Alamo or the San Jacinto Monument for profit. Essentially, Patterson has told Texas hunters and bird-watchers and heritage lovers to buzz off. If he goes through with the brazen act, using legal loopholes as his fig leaf, he will forever be remembered in the annals of land management as an untrustworthy double dealer. It is hard to believe that the great Col. James Earl Rudder, leader of the U.S. Army 2nd Ranger Battalion on D-Day, an all-seasons hero who understood the value of a handshake deal, has a successor at GLO who would try such a cheapjack ploy.

Here are the facts. The Mellon Foundation (through the Conservation Fund of Arlington, Va.) had given the Christmas Mountains, named to celebrate both Jesus' life and our annual December holiday of his birth, to Texas as a flat-out gift back in 1991. It was pure Mellon Foundation as Santa Claus, an incredibly noble gesture. Because only about 5 percent of Texas land is publicly owned, nearly the least in the entire United States, a fact which has long frustrated state hunters and bird-watchers, the Mellon Foundation, one of the largest funders of open space preservation, had only one string attached to their beneficence: that the state take care of the land wisely. Under Patterson's tenure Texas has not done that.

Today in Austin, as the hour-glass sands have started running out on George W. Bush's White House years, Patterson, who took over the GLO in 2002, has decided to quickly sell the Christmas Mountains because the state, he says, needs cold cash. In other words, Patterson is poor-mouthing Texas all over America, portraying us as down-on-our-luck rubes, unable to run public parks or ward off poachers from state lands. Essentially, he blames his 1991 predecessor, Garry Mauro, for accepting the Mellon gift in the first place. In a Louis L'Amour novel such blatant passing-of-the-buck usually got a man hung up on the wrong side of a noose.

The Mellon Foundation has screamed foul at Patterson and has demanded the land be either maintained by the state (as promised) or returned. One-hundred percent opposed to the Patterson sale, the foundation is determined not to be swindled. Pathetically, Patterson's bad faith response to the Mellon Foundation has been akin to "sorry boys," next time "read the fine print." Stubbornly, he clings to his absurd rationale that he must sell the Christmas Mountains to protect the land against poachers. Talk about capitulating to the bad guys. That's like Houston Police Chief Harold L. Hurtt saying we're selling off the Galleria because the handbag muggers are relentless.

The No. 1 enemy of true hunters, of which I am one, is poachers. We want them all arrested, fined and, in repeat cases, put in jail. Texas is supposed to be a law-and-order state. Unfortunately, Patterson has buckled under to the poachers' wanton disregard for the law. Instead of stopping them like you'd think an ex-Marine would do, he's simply throwing his hands up in frustration and selling off the pristine land as if he's cable-host of QVC. His other chronic whine is that invasive plant species are taking over the Christmas Mountains and a multimillionaire can find better ways to get rid of the unwelcomed vegetation. All U.S. national and state parks are grappling with this same invasive species problem. All are solving the dilemma by creative biology —not Lincoln Day Sales.

Over and over again Patterson has tried to scrap Wild Texas for cash. In 2006, for example, when he sought to sell Eagle Mountain State Park in Fort Worth to developers to build condos, it was shot down by angry citizens (many of them Republicans) who thought they had bought homes next to the state park only to have Patterson try selling it right out from under their noses.

Such governmental blindsiding of citizens is now known in Fort Worth as "Pulling-A-Patterson." Meanwhile, the Mellon Foundation is threatening to never interact with Texas state officials again if the GLO Christmas Mountains sale becomes a fait accompli.

Don't get me wrong. Conservation means development as much as it does preservation. Developers, in fact, have made Texas a great state. Our cities hum with innovation and prosperity because of them. But once in a while developers need to stand up to defend patches of untrampled wilderness.

Christmas Mountains is one of those special Lone Star places worth fighting for. President Roosevelt didn't set aside U.S. parklands for the rich and mighty (as Patterson seems to think). They are saved for the people's use.

Texas citizens have a right to enjoy the Christmas Mountains for recreational purposes, ranging from back-packing to bow-hunting to studying the 42-million-year-old volcanic ash for geological purposes. Carve up the rest of Texas, but leave the state parks and Conservation Fund-gifted lands alone.

Anybody who believes in Texas hunting and heritage needs to pick up a telephone and tell Patterson that what he needs most is to take a hike, preferably up the 5,728-foot tallest peak in the Christmas Mountains where he can see the utter magnificence of the land for mile upon mile. Or come to the public hearing in Austin today at 10 a.m. (Stephen F. Austin Building in Room 170) and urge Patterson to do the right thing and leave God's unmarred beauty alone.

For as President Roosevelt warned us 100 years ago, "There has been in the past in this country too much of that gross materialism which, in the end, eats like an acid into all the finer qualities of our souls."

Brinkley is professor of history and fellow at the Baker Institute at Rice University. His most recent book is the best-selling "The Reagan Diaries."

[rgibson]

Okiehiker, btw, the Christmas Mountain Tract joins the Big Bend National Park completely on the Christmas Mountains  East and South boundaries.

It could be an integral part of the Big Bend National Park.

[okiehiker]

I thought that was the case...  but why then did Patterson say,

"It is surrounded by privately owned land and the only access is via privately owned roads."

He also has a clear inability to distinguish between fact and opinion...

One is free to agree or disagree with his assertions but,

"Transferring Christmas Mountains from government to private hands will best achieve the goals of both the Conservation Fund and the School Land Board and ensure the conservation of this land for future generations." is his apparently rather ill-informed opinion, not by any stretch of the imagination a statement of fact. 

While private parties can be excellent stewards of property, it also should be noted that it was private parties that created the need to "restore" the Christmas Mountains environment in the first place.  Neither public nor private ownership in and of iteself creates a better situation. 

This much seems clear to me.  The donors don't want it sold.  Transfer it to parks or give it back.

[Al]

One would think there has to be prescriptive rights of access to the property that may not equate to public access. Prescriptive rights can be messed with by the land owner whose property must be crossed, such as moving the "road", at least from what little I know.  If I were trying to borrow money on a property that didn't touch a public road or have a dedicated easement, in my limited experience, I would be unsuccessful using the property as collateral.  . . . OR is it simply a funding question? If they wanted it bad enough; it IS good to be the government.

My initial reaction was Nature Conservancy.  But if Patterson is right, the property needs active real-time management. How do we know the purchaser will provide this?   

What are the facts?

Al

[SHANEA]

What are the facts?

Al

I'd say, the State of Texas should give it back to the Mellon Foundation and let them do with it as they please.  That is if the State of Texas doesn't want it and the National Park Service doesn't want it.  Of course, it's probably not a question of "not wanting it" - it's probably a question of "not being able to afford it".  Then, a question that comes to mind is, if the tract was donated to the state "free and clear" for free, then should the state be making money on it?  Yes, the GLO, etc. have the fund for schools, but why not transfer it to TPWD or NPS for $1.00 or even $1.00 an acre.  "Just a token".  Why should another state agency, TPWD, have to pay for it?  It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Ok, throw in maybe Sul Ross EDU?  Could they use an outdoor area for research, etc.?  Sul Ross is part of the Texas State System. 

The university also has a 468-acre working ranch that serves its animal science programs.
 
I'd think the tract would be an ideal WMA for TPWD. 

One has to wonder what other large tracts of land that the GLO has that they are going to have a fire sale on? 

Of course, if it has to be sold and fall into private hands, then I'd prefer Mr. John Poindexter to get it more than anyone else.  As far as I can tell, he's been a good steward of the land at Cibolo, has setup a long range plan for the land after he leaves this earth, and is a man of character.

[SHANEA]

Here is a good link, but might be somewhat outdated as it is fifteen years old, on land locked land and the law in Texas.  I don't know what, if anything, has changed since then.  In quickly looking at land locked land and "easements" on the Wild West Web, I don't see anything off hand that has changed.

From the Real Estate Center @ TAMU.

[SHANEA]

I don't place a lot of "faith" in online messages to "powers that be", but what the heck.

SEE:  Don't let Texas sell off the Christmas Mountains