Obama seizes N.M. land for national monument in Bundy-like showdown

The headline was actual, not mine.

The Obama administration is once again accused of a land grab this time in New Mexico's Organ Mountains region. Coming so soon on the heels of the Bundy Ranch dispute, the purported Red River land grab in Texas as well as a general disregard for private and business use of these and private lands in general by many agencies of this government it is appearing they either have a tin ear or just don't care about public sentiment.

President Obama on Wednesday will declare a national monument in southern New Mexico, delivering a win for environmentalists but angering ranchers and local law enforcement, who say the land restrictions will end up creating a safe haven for drug cartels to operate within the U.S.

The BLM, which is part of the Interior Department, will administer the national monument.

New Mexico’s representatives in Congress have been divided over the monument. Rep. Stevan Pearce, a Republican, called for a 50,000-acre monument, one-tenth the size of the one Mr. Obama will designate.

Source

Related ATS threads,

A Straight Look At The Recent Nevada Land Dispute

My Buddy On Fox News Talking About Latest Land Grab In Texas

a reply to: Phoenix

Most people don't care, until it's their land that's being claimed for some government purpose. Then, it's too late.

The cartels in Mexico, are celebrating this one for sure. They can now build their tunnel complexes without being watched....what an idiot idea to begin with. Mexico, which won't play nice with us when it comes to adhering to trafficking laws, is applauding this one. They are doing their own land grab in the process. Just from underground....

Des

Looks to be more of an easier way to get illegals into the US, drug cartels easier access further into the state of New Mexico. just the size alone is staggering. 500,000 acres

How can the government land grab public land? It was already under the BLM's control so the land grabbing is just a lie.

originally posted by: Destinyone
a reply to: Phoenix

Most people don't care, until it's their land that's being claimed for some government purpose. Then, it's too late.

The cartels in Mexico, are celebrating this one for sure. They can now build their tunnel complexes without being watched....what an idiot idea to begin with. Mexico, which won't play nice with us when it comes to adhering to trafficking laws, is applauding this one. They are doing their own land grab in the process. Just from underground....

Des

You do realize that the largest drug between Mexico and the US was 481' long? These tunnels typically go from a structure on one side of the border to a structure on the other side. For example, the most tunnels (over 100) have been found between Nogales, Sonora and Nogales, AZ (where this tunnel was found in February).

This just isn't a reasonable argument.

EDIT:

article about that tunnel

a reply to: buster2010

Land grabber, gun grabber. The uptake of the message among ideologues is the key. It's entertainment... or propaganda or whatever.

originally posted by: Destinyone
a reply to: Phoenix

Most people don't care, until it's their land that's being claimed for some government purpose. Then, it's too late.

The cartels in Mexico, are celebrating this one for sure. They can now build their tunnel complexes without being watched....what an idiot idea to begin with. Mexico, which won't play nice with us when it comes to adhering to trafficking laws, is applauding this one. They are doing their own land grab in the process. Just from underground....

Des

So they are going to build a tunnel that is almost 50 miles long? The Organ mountains are no where near the border. Maybe the border patrol could do their job better if they actually stayed on the border.

a reply to: Destinyone

I'm kinda leaning to that opinion. Its just a guess and generalizing but I keep feeling urban and suburban dwellers will just shrug their shoulders and say "isn't that nice"

I'd like to propose that Manhattan be turned into a national historical monument site with no vehicular traffic or how about several thousand acres in Boston? Each site will require permitting and permission for any human activity including hiking, camping, bicycling or similar activity.

Life would never be same right??

Well that's how the ranchers and rural dwellers feel when this is done in their backyard.

a reply to: Phoenix

"Don" Obama rewarding Mexican drug cartels for their hefty campaign donations in August 2012.

a reply to: buster2010

Its rare I agree but border patrol on the border I do!!!

So invariably ranchers have grazing agreements in place somewhere in these 500,000 acres and when BLM comes and arbitrarily changes the rules on them - in effect putting them out of business - you going to support the government again?

originally posted by: buster2010
How can the government land grab public land? It was already under the BLM's control so the land grabbing is just a lie.

Early on it appears all motorized vehicle use will be prohibited on 250,000 acres, if BLM has land use contracts in place then I'd say ipso facto abrogation of those contracts just occurred because it will make an impact on prior use by agreement - that would be taking or grabbing in my view.

How do NM Residents (I am one) feel about it? Source

An opinion poll conducted in September 2012 by Third Eye Strategies found that New Mexico voters strongly support protection for the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks and that Doña Ana County residents show overwhelming support for such protection.
...
This support extends statewide with a 82 percent to 10 percent margin. Voters across the state, regardless of region or party affiliation, come together on this question.
...
The strongest level of support comes when voters know that the proposal protects the Organ Mountains, Butterfield Stagecoach Trail, Apollo space mission test sites, Geronimo’s Cave, and hundreds of archaeological sites, as well as the Sierra de Las Uvas, Robledo, and Potrillo Mountains.

Thank you, President Obama.

a reply to: Phoenix

Now you're just being silly. Apples and oranges. Public lands being designated a national monument is not even remotely analogous to private property taken by eminent domain.

You don't believe in national parks and monuments? I'd like to add my face to Mt. Rushmore, are you going to support that? Maybe Yellowstone would be better without all those trees? Would you fight for my right to start a logging company and deforest a few hundred square miles in Yellowstone for my personal profit? Maybe I could become a rancher and graze my herd at your local park?

The drug cartel argument is ridiculous. I've hunted the Organ Mountains numerous times growing up and while in college at NMSU... there are much, much better options for cartel trade routes than through those rocky outcroppings. The on-foot illegals and drug runners travel through open areas, not mountains. Much easier travel and harder to spot if you're traveling through a 6-7' deep dry arroyo on the desert floor or in the saddles between the mountains.

The grazing issue is very real, however. I see these BLM/federal land reclassifications as being extensions of the federal efforts to snub out family farms and ranches for their kickbacks they recieve from big agribusiness conglomerates. That effort has been building for over a decade and it is a directed assault on family food producers.

And from the OP's source:

“This designation will in no way limit our ability to perform our important border security mission, and in fact provides important flexibility as we work to meet this ongoing priority,” said spokeswoman Jenny Burke. “CBP is committed to continuing to work closely with the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service to maintain border security while ensuring the protection of the environment along the border.”

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Can anyone answer this? How does protecting this land suddenly make it a hotbed of illegal border crossing of drug cartels?

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: buster2010
How can the government land grab public land? It was already under the BLM's control so the land grabbing is just a lie.

Early on it appears all motorized vehicle use will be prohibited on 250,000 acres, if BLM has land use contracts in place then I'd say ipso facto abrogation of those contracts just occurred because it will make an impact on prior use by agreement - that would be taking or grabbing in my view.

Sorry just because they will no longer be allowed to use motorized vehicles on the land isn't land grabbing. People will still be allowed to go on the land. Did you ever stop to think one reason for this is because of idiots on atv's tearing up the land by making new trails where they shouldn't be? If the government was to take this land and then say no one is allowed on it then it would be a land grab but they aren't doing that are they?

What strikes me most about this monument designation is its poor timing. Most of the western half of this country and many in the Eastern portion are incensed at the Bundy situation and the Texas BLM brou ha ha on the Red River plus many recent and not so recent stories on landowners getting severely treated by various agencies of the federal government.

I would have thought the administration would put something like this on the back burner and let sentiment cool down - not the case though - it is much like a hot poker thrust at those who believe the government already has too much land and control in the west.

I have to believe western ranchers at this point are justified if they express a feeling that the federal government is at war with them - its a feeling I'd sympathize with.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Can anyone answer this? How does protecting this land suddenly make it a hotbed of illegal border crossing of drug cartels?

Well that's simple. Once you understand that "Emperor Obama" is deliberately destroying the country, you'll understand the need to flip out over everything no matter how innocuous.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

You don't believe in national parks and monuments? I'd like to add my face to Mt. Rushmore, are you going to support that? Maybe Yellowstone would be better without all those trees? Would you fight for my right to start a logging company and deforest a few hundred square miles in Yellowstone for my personal profit? Maybe I could become a rancher and graze my herd at your local park?

Have you been in the Organ Mountains before? There's absolutely nothing unique about them when compared to the dozens of other volcanic "spurdaps" on either side of the Rio Grande Rift. The feds could next declare Cook's Peak, the Floridas, Red Mountain, and Black Mountain in Luna County 'National Monuments' for the same rationale their using here. All of those have cattle grazing on them, too. Also, unless this has changed in the past 12 years, the state of New Mexico owns a state park in this area of the Organs. That ownership is now moot as I assume the BLM will alter their land rights, too. (I'm assuming they'll use the State Park area as the Nat. Monument headquarters as it is conveniently located and already developed at the state park.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It really depends on how questions are asked in a poll and who actually is sampled and how those results are tabulated, I usually ignore them due subject matter manipulation.

It was proposed to set aside 50,000 acres for protection of the areas you pointed out but the US Senate according to source article wanted 500,000.