Thread: Stretch of wildlife refuge closed due to border violence

Published: 10.12.2006

Stretch of wildlife refuge closed due to border violence
By Brady McCombs
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
A five-mile stretch of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge on the U.S.-Mexican border has been closed to protect visitors.

Violence from smugglers and bandits has increased recently and the area is bustling around the clock with illegal entrants trying to cross, Border Patrol agents chasing after them, and National Guard troops providing back-up for the agents, said Mitch Ellis, Refuge manager.

Refuge officials had been contemplating the decision for some time and said the cumulative effects of a decade of traffic prompted the decision rather than one incident, Ellis said.

"That's the border today," said Ellis, who has been at the refuge for more than two years. "It's a dangerous place and some places are more dangerous than others."

The number of Border Patrol agents in the Tucson Sector increased by about 300 from last year and about 1,100 National Guard troops have been in the sector supporting the Border Patrol in administrative duties and by spotting illegal crossings since June.

That contributed to a decrease in apprehensions and border deaths in the Sector in fiscal 2006 but the sector remains the busiest on the southern border with thousands crossing daily.

The National Guard erected one mile of chest-high, criss-cross welded steel vehicle barriers in the refuge that stop vehicles from crossing, but allow people and wildlife to pass. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, located west of Buenos Aires, has vehicle barriers along 30 miles of international border. The Monument has closed a third of its 331,000 acres because of public-safety concerns.

The 3,500-acre closed area, which covers from the border one mile north along a five-mile stretch east of Sasabe, accounts for 3 percent of the 118,000-acre refuge. It shouldn't effect visitors because the border area is not frequently visited, Ellis said.

The closure, which went into effect Oct. 3 and will continue indefinitely, should help agents, he said.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/150841

Published: 10.12.2006
Strip of refuge closed by border battles
Buenos Aires seeks to keep hikers from being caught in crossfire of 'criminal activity'
CLAUDINE LoMONACO
Tucson Citizen
First came the illegal immigrants. Then came the U.S. Border Patrol to chase them. Then came the National Guard to back up the Border Patrol agents who were chasing the illegal immigrants.
All of it has proved too much.
Administrators of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge have decided they need to close the heavily trafficked southern strip of the refuge to protect the public.
"You've got well-armed bad guys and well-armed good guys, and we don't want the public down there in the middle of all that," said refuge manager Mitch Ellis.
The closure will affect around 3,500 acres of semidesert grass land of rolling hills and mesquite trees that border Mexico. It is the first closure in the park's history due to illegal immigration, Ellis said.
Illegal traffic in southern Arizona has decreased for the first time since 2000 and Ellis attributed the decline to the U.S. Border Patrol and National Guard troops.
He praised their efforts, but he said he no longer felt safe letting the public in the heavily patrolled area.
"If you have a bird watcher or a hunter or somebody down there enjoying their public land and they get crossways in this border situation . . . somebody could get hurt," Ellis said.
Biologists at Organ Pipe National Monument began making similar closures three years ago. Today, about 20 percent of the 330,000-acre monument is closed to public due to illegal immigration, including the Quitobaquito Spring area, which is one of the few water sources in the monument.
Another 30 percent of Organ Pipe is closed for at least part of the year to protect pronghorns.
The phenomena is unique to the national parks along the border, said Organ Pipe Chief Ranger Fred Patton.
He said parks around the rest of the country have other concerns.
"Bears, lightning, avalanche danger," Patton said. "But I think you'd been hard-pressed to find closures anywhere else in the country because of criminal activity."
The closures at Buenos Aires went in effect Oct. 3 and will remain in place indefinitely.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/29106.php


Why the &*$# doesn't the Sierra Club speak out against illegal immigration?

Originally Posted by mapwife

Why the &*$# doesn't the Sierra Club speak out against illegal immigration?

Good question. I believe some of the environmental organizations are beginning to speak out. I don't know if the article I read included the Sierra Club or not. I think it was Nature Conservancy. Their issue was that overpopulation of the United States is the single most distressing factor on our environment...and that illegal immigration was the reason we are experiencing overpopulation threatening our environment.

This is pathetic that we have to close our national parks due to safety concerns for our Citizens visiting our park lands because of illegal banditos from South of the Border.

It's a disgrace to those who consider them "employed to provide national security".

Michael Chertoff needs to be fired. The Wackident and Vice Wackident need to be fired and the US Congress needs a big fire under their butts to put someone presumably Dennis Hastert who would according to impeachment proceedings become President of the United States and put a $%#^%#$# END TO THIS DISGUSTING REPUGNANT NIGHTMARE FROM HELL CALLED:

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

And just think....if it's not safe for two legged Americans in those parks, just think what these illegal aliens are doing to the park land itself and the wildlife trying to survive there?

They've probably already killed and eaten all the animals.

Perhaps this will give you some insight:

The Sierra Club and immigration

During the 1990s, some Sierra Club members wanted to take the Club into the contentious field of immigration to the United States. The Club's position was that overpopulation was a significant factor in the degradation of the environment. Accordingly, the Club supported stabilizing and reducing U.S. and world population. Some members argued that, as a practical matter, U.S. population could not be stabilized, let alone reduced, at the then-current levels of immigration. They urged the Club to support immigration reduction. Other Sierrans, however, thought that the immigration issue was too far from the Club's core mission, and were also concerned that involvement would impair the organization's political ability to pursue its other objectives. The Board of Directors accepted this latter view, and voted, in 1996, that the Sierra Club would be neutral on issues of immigration.

The advocates of immigration reduction sought to reverse this decision by using the referendum provision of the Bylaws of the Sierra Club. They organized themselves as "SUSPS", a name originally derived from "Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization" (although that name is no longer used since the Sierra Club objected to infringing the Club's trademark in the term "Sierrans"). SUSPS and its allies gathered the necessary signatures to place the issue on the ballot in the Club's election in the spring of 1998. The Board's decision that the Club would take no position on immigration was upheld by the membership by a three-to-two margin, although SUSPS complained that the ballot had been structured in an unfair and confusing manner.

The controversy resurfaced when a group of three immigration reduction proponents ran in the 2004 steering committee elections, hoping to move the Club's position away from a neutral stance on immigration [3]. The battle grew heated, with accusations of unethical and possibly illegal behavior floated by both sides. A lawsuit was filed by the reduction proponents, but subsequently dropped. Groups outside of the Club became involved, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and MoveOn [4]. Finally, the reduction proponents won only 3% of the vote, and the controversy subsided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club

It would seem outiside sources finally dictated the direction the Sierra Club finally decided to move in. Basically, isn't that the same thing that is happening to our U.S. Congress? Don't corporate lobbyist and other special interest groups seem to frequently dictate the direction the Congress moves in? It's all about special interest funding, campaign support, and vote pandering.

Then no wonder the Sierra Club isn't accomplishing anything to speak of if they let people like the phoney "Southern Poverty Law Center" to even enter the room of environmental protection.

You know...I always thought the Southern Poverty Law Center was about curing poverty in the south....of the United States. I realize now that it doesn't have anything to do with the United States...they're working to end poverty South of the Border through illegal immigration into the United States.

Such Tricksters these Not-For-Profits are these days, eh?