![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/07\/Guest-column.jpg\" "\\"Guest")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
This is in response to Mr. Nick Voges\u2019 assertion<\/a> that Senator Bingaman\u2019s wilderness bill \u201cwould make our borders safer\u201d and that the Border Patrol \u201cwill have complete \u2013 and enhanced \u2013 access to patrol the border within the proposed wilderness areas.\u201d<\/p>\n First, let\u2019s start with the law. The Wilderness Act<\/a> states \u201cthere shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.\u201d The language of the statute is very clear.<\/p>\n The Wilderness Act does make an exception for \u201cemergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area.\u201d This language has resulted in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Border Patrol and the land management agencies that permits the Border Patrol to use motorized vehicles while in hot pursuit of a suspect.<\/p>\n For nonemergency actions, such as routine or regular patrol of an area, the MOU says, \u201cCBP-BP agents on foot or on horseback may patrol, or pursue, or apprehend\u201d suspects \u201coff-road at any time.\u201d In other words, they are prevented from using motorized vehicles and mechanized equipment in wilderness areas for routine operations.<\/p>\n Second, let\u2019s turn to Senator Bingaman. His legislation, S.1689<\/a>, would release more than 16,000 acres of Wilderness Study Area to create a 3-mile corridor \u201cin order to facilitate Border Patrol monitoring and enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border.\u201d It would exclude 8,000 acres in the area to \u201cfacilitate enforcement\u201d and to \u201caccommodate border security infrastructure.\u201d<\/p>\n On June 9 of this year Senator Bingaman introduced revisions<\/a> to S. 1689, adding two miles of \u201cRestricted-Use Area.\u201d In announcing the revisions Senator Bingaman said, \u201cThis area would prohibit motorized access by the general public, but it will permit the Border Patrol to conduct routine patrols and construct communication and surveillance infrastructure as it would on regular multiple-use land.\u201d<\/p>\n Voges supplies a quote from Border Patrol spokesman Ramiro Cordero that \u201cWe\u2019re still allowed to patrol anywhere\u2026\u201d Now, if Senator Bingaman believed Cordero\u2019s comments were accurate, why did he create the 3-mile corridor in the bill he introduced? If Senator Bingaman felt Cordero\u2019s comments reflected current law and policy, why did he propose to revise his bill to create an additional two miles of buffer so the Border Patrol could \u201cconduct routine patrols\u201d and construct \u201cinfrastructure?\u201d<\/p>\n Senator Bingaman knows the quotes from Cordero are inaccurate and has legislated accordingly.<\/p>\n Voges states the Bingaman bill \u201cmakes the border safer.\u201d<\/p>\n The majority of the areas under consideration are currently designated wilderness study areas (WSA). In WSAs the Border Patrol can use motorized vehicles to patrol and can use mechanized equipment and develop infrastructure such as communication towers. If those areas are designated wilderness those activities will stop.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve already discussed patrolling so let\u2019s look at equipment. The Border Patrol has an MOU with the Las Cruces office of the Bureau of Land Management concerning the Big Hatchet Peak WSA that has allowed them to place a communication facility on the peak. Then the MOU goes on to state, \u201cIn the event Congress deems the Big Hatchet Wilderness Study Area (WSA) as Wilderness, the CBP-BP must remove all communication site equipment as soon as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n So if the WSAs in the Bingaman bill are designated as wilderness, the Border Patrol will no longer be able to conduct routine patrols and will be prohibited from utilizing mechanical equipment or other modern detection devices. So tell me, how does that make us safer?<\/p>\n On another issue, Voges says opponents of the bill \u201cwill never compromise.\u201d Perhaps he wasn\u2019t aware that People For Preserving Our Western Heritage<\/a> and other groups have endorsed the compromise put forward by the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce. The chamber has endorsed those provisions of the Bingaman bill that designate wilderness in the Organs, the Robledos and the Las Uvas. They request a different designation in the Potrillos because of border security issues, and a different designation for Broad Canyon because of flood control and other issues.<\/p>\n The opponents have compromised, and I haven\u2019t seen similar movement by the proponents.<\/p>\nBingaman knows\u2026<\/h3>\n
How does that make us safer?<\/h3>\n
Trying to compromise<\/h3>\n