U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., led a somewhat contentious discussion today on a proposal to create 300,000 acres of permanent wilderness in
A divided audience of about 200 people listened as officials and others talked about the proposal. Panel members often disagreed and at times took shots at each other.
The meeting was preceded by concern that Pearce stacked the panel with anti-wilderness members. Pearce admitted at the beginning that the put a number of people who had concerns about the proposal on the panel because he had already been visited in
Pearce also plans a future meeting in Anthony he said would include local government officials Butler and Las Cruces City Manager Terrence Moore.
Absent from the panel was an invited
Steinborn works for the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, which is leading a campaign to create the wilderness areas in the county and has garnered a great deal of community support. Steinborn was the only member of the panel arguing for the wilderness plan at today’s meeting. While there were some members adamantly opposed to the wilderness designations being proposed, several took more moderate stances and a couple spent more time listening than sharing opinions.
But Fred Huff, an off-road advocate, accused Steinborn’s group of lying during a presentation in which he argued that much of the land in the wilderness group’s proposal isn’t eligible for the wilderness designation. Steinborn disputed that, but the Bureau of Land Management has agreed in some instances.
Steinborn pointed out, however, that the federal government agrees with giving a wilderness designation to 220,000 of the 300,000 acres proposed by his group.
Pearce said the discussion was productive.
“I think we all come at this from different points of view, but we all want to get to the same place,” he said.
It was apparent that most agree with protecting land around the
The lack of love between Pearce and Steinborn, who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic Party’s nomination to battle the congressman in 2004, was apparent. Pearce started the meeting by talking about his own accomplishments and showing a meth-awareness video before getting to the wilderness proposal. Meth has been a big focus of Pearce’s efforts and Steinborn, when he got the chance to give an introductory statement, said he was glad to hear that Pearce was open to a real discussion about the wilderness proposal, but added, “If I hear today that wilderness creates a meth problem, then I’m going to be a little skeptical.”
Farm Bureau representative Erik Ness said ranchers and farmers “want to preserve the land just as much as anybody else does,” but said there are ways to do it “without them being abandoned behind locked gates.” Frank DuBois, a former state agriculture secretary, said wilderness areas hurt ranching and also make it hard for those in wheelchairs – like him – to access public land.
The most combative panel member was Duff, who several times accused Steinborn’s group of lying and trying to take land used by off-roaders.
At the end of it all, Pearce said it was possible to “disagree without being disagreeable,” and said he felt most panelists were doing just that. Though the discussion was contentious, it was one of the more civil meetings of people who are divided on this topic.
There wasn’t a lot of new ground covered. Pearce did reveal – to the surprise of no one – that he leans toward siding with those who oppose the wilderness designations, but he also said he wants to protect the
There’s no timeline for a decision on the proposal. Much of the land has been designated as wilderness study areas for 20 years. Only Congress can decide when to make a study area a full wilderness area or release it for other use.