Note that a wall in Big Bend, even with gates, would probably isolate the
relatively new population of black bears in the park. This recovering
population drifter up from Mexico a not terribly long ago, and would probably
become extinct again without continued input from the south.
Dan Smith
dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
512-451-2632
http://www.wordsmithofaustin.com ;<http://www.wordsmithofaustin.com/>
"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so
strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.â Thomas
Jefferson, 1814.
On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Ross Silcock <silcock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sounds like the ultimate Big Sit to me!
Ross
Ross Silcock
Tabor, IA and Houston, TX
-----Original Message-----
From: texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of jkestner@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 9:06 AM
To: texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; alamoinn@xxxxxxx; timothy.brush@xxxxxxxxx;
madi.s44@xxxxxxx
Subject: [texbirds] Re: Santa Ana NWR and the wall
Good grief - our border with Mexico is about 1,950 miles long. At $7 million
per mile that comes to $13,650,000,000, not including gates. I also imagine
that putting a wall up in areas like Big Bend would cost much more than $7
million per mile.
Why don't we just hire 182,000 agents at $75,000 per year to stand with
binoculars every one-tenth of a mile? That makes just as much sense.
Thirteen billion dollars -- imagine what our country could do with that....
Judy Kestner
Corpus Christi
---- Timothy Brush <timothy.brush@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
============> Madeleine et al.,
Yes, if the wall happens, it will be absolutely crucial to put pressure on to
1) have the gate open during daylight hours, when the refuge is open, and 2)
allow USFWS access as needed before and after, so that they can have access
as needed. I personally do not want a border wall and think the last place it
should go in is at the refuge, not the first. But in my opinion, it would be
better to have it on the levee, which is already cleared/disturbed, than
clearing land to make a wall elsewhere.
Best regards,
Tim Brush
Edinburg, TX
-----Original Message-----
From: texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Madeleine Sandefur
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:54 AM
To: alamoinn@xxxxxxx; texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [texbirds] Re: Santa Ana NWR and the wall
With all due respect to Keith, I would like to amplify a bit on his comments
of yesterday with information I have solicited from a McAllen resident who
has been intimately involved with the Border Wall issue for many years, going
back to the first round of wall construction during the Bush administration.
He advises that in fact, border walls erected on levees are not more
economical than regular border walls. The bollard-style border walls that
were built in Cameron County averaged $7 million per mile, while the
levee-border walls built in Hidalgo County averaged $12 million per mile.
Also, whereas the existing levee-border walls were sold as repairing the IBWC
levees, the levees that were not converted into border walls were repaired
using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds, so taxpayers would be
spending millions of dollars to tear open and convert levees that we spent
millions of dollars to repair just a few years ago.
Regarding gates, about half of the gate-sized gaps in RGV border walls have
had gates installed. There is one between the Old Hidalgo Pumphouse World
Birding Center and the adjacent LRGV National Wildlife Refuge tract for
example. He says he has gone there many, many times over the years, and it
is never open, despite the fact that the "pedestrian walking trail" sign
still points at it. Gates average $240,000 a piece, on top of the cost of
the wall that they are in. The FY 2017 budget supplemental for DHS included
funds to build gates in the remaining 35 gaps, and CBP officials have
testified before congress that they plan to build 35 gates in the RGV. One
of the remaining 35 gate-sized gaps in the border wall is the entrance to the
Sabal Palms Audubon Sanctuary.
As for clearing, CBP has said that they now want to create a 150 foot wide
"enforcement zone" cleared of all vegetation on the south side of the border
walls that currently cut through the LRGV NWR and, when they build it, Santa
Ana's levee-border wall. Levee-border walls are even worse than regular
bollard walls as far as terrestrial species such as ocelot are concerned. In
addition to fragmenting habitat, they trap species when a given Refuge tract
floods, as happened in 2010. But border walls are exempted from all state
and federal laws, including the endangered species act, the migratory bird
treaty act, etc.
This issue has, in fact, garnered national attention, as there was an article
in yesterdayâs Los Angeles TIMES (see
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnation%2Fla-na-texas-border-wall-20170717-story.html&data%7C01%7Ctimothy.brush%40utrgv.edu%7C9b2bb34f14814640eaf208d4ceb61e51%7C990436a687df491c91249afa91f88827%7C0%7C0%7C636360728971936403&sdata=3IOjphgcxB7grjJxfw%2BYJZ6RVUv4FYY06qisHMHZ%2FNE%3D&reserved=0).
The last paragraph mentions the expected negative economic impact: âThe
Santa Ana refuge is home to 165,000 visitors a year, many birders from across
the world. A 2011 study by Texas A&M University found that nature tourism in
the Rio Grande Valley brought in $463 million a year. The biggest portion of
that is from birding.â
There are other means to control the border, which would be much less
damaging and would keep these spots open to the public. As a birder friend
of mine said, âthe money required could be much more effectively spent on
electronic surveillance systems and personnel on the ground. There is also a
program of border patrol agents on horseback that is awesome in its
effectiveness that needs to be expanded. Santa Ana has struggled to come
back from the damage it sustained in the 2010 flood and must not be subjected
to habitat destruction again for an unjustifiable reason, which I believe
this proposed wall to be.â
For my part, I will do my best to fight the closing off of three of our most
treasured birding spots in the RGV: Santa Ana, Sabal Palm, and Bentsen.
Madeleine Sandefur
Laguna Vista
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Keith Hackland Innkeeper, Alamo Inn B&B alamoinn@xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:18 AM
To: texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [texbirds] Santa Ana NWR and the wall
I am writing in support of Michael Marsden who provided very useful comments
yesterday. This wall is a situation where cool heads will prevail and facts
on the ground count. Politics at times obscures the facts on the ground.
Since it started I have been a keen observer of the wall and its effects in
the LRGV.
There is an old levy probably completed in the 1950s or earlier, with a canal
next to it, that run outside along the northern boundary of Santa Ana NWR,
and between the visitor center area and the refuge proper. The road and
walking path into Santa Ana NWR lead accross the levy.The agencies that
maintain the levy do periodic maintenance on it, meaning that they clear it
of trees and maintain grass on its sides. This serves sparrows and other seed
eaters well. Several years ago the levy height was increased by four feet.
This same levy runs on the northern boundary of Bentsen RGV State Park
between it and the visitor center, and on the northern boundary of Sabal Palm
Sanctuary between it and the visitor center.
Where the wall has previously been built in the LRGV it has exclusively been
built on the levy, for economic reasons (less costly), and due to very
effective negotiation by the LRGV authorities to use the wall to strengthen
the levy for flood control. Due to this fact very minimal vegetation has ever
been removed in the wall sections built to date. The key is to keep it on the
levy.
The wall sections that exist are designed to push people crossing the river
in desired directions, for example away from urban areas. There are openings
for gates, but I am not aware of any gates that have been erected or are in
use. Currently there is and always has been free movement through and around
current wall sections. The wall does impact terrestrial wildlife and direct
access to private land lying behind it. It has also reduced Border Patrol
traffic on some of the lands along the river.
This is a very emotional and political issue, and no more so than in the
Valley amongst me and my neighbors here. I fully understand that. This is
another fact in the situation that we respect.
Keith Hackland
Alamo, TX
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freelists.org%2Flist%2Ftexbirds&data%7C01%7Ctimothy.brush%40utrgv.edu%7C9b2bb34f14814640eaf208d4ceb61e51%7C990436a687df491c91249afa91f88827%7C0%7C0%7C636360728971946408&sdata=meddLp9QiqcsAxODSYw8WgJ7FJRaIcqyqBZo2MnT5wQ%3D&reserved=0
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freelists.org%2Flist%2Ftexbirds&data%7C01%7Ctimothy.brush%40utrgv.edu%7C9b2bb34f14814640eaf208d4ceb61e51%7C990436a687df491c91249afa91f88827%7C0%7C0%7C636360728971946408&sdata=meddLp9QiqcsAxODSYw8WgJ7FJRaIcqyqBZo2MnT5wQ%3D&reserved=0
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
//www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
//www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
//www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
