How People Voted
7% For, 93% Against
157 votes cast
Take Action
 |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
 |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Organize | |
|
Start A Petition |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 1689, The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act (51 comments ↓ | 6 wiki edits)
- This item is from the 111th Congress (2010-2011) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
S. 1689 would designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Landscape Conservation System in the State of New Mexico.
()
Cost per :
Learn More
Visitor Comments
Las Crucen
August 16, 2010, 6:55pm (report abuse)This bill will may a playground for the drug cartels and create another Arizona-like situation in New Mexico. WE DO NOT WANT THIS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
Dona Ana Resident
August 16, 2010, 9:28pm (report abuse)This bill prohibits motorized access by hunters, campers and other recreationists. Most importantly, it restricts motorized access and the use of mechanical equipment by the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies. I couldn't think of a worse thing to do on our border with Mexico.
In addition, we have big problems with flood control in DA County. The restrictions on access means we can't maintain existing flood control structures, much less build new ones.
There are other ways to protect these lands without creating wilderness and all the problems it brings.
S.1689 needs to be withdrawn and rethought.
Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor
August 16, 2010, 10:49pm (report abuse)This bill was put together without input from the Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District which is mandated by New Mexico law to (among other things) work with the community to provide effective stormwater management in the lower Rio Grande Watershed. Stormwater management engineers will tell you that the most effective measures to manage stormwater begin at the higher elevations of the watershed. Measures to slow the water down and spread it out for increased recharge opportunity, greatly reduced sediment pick-up and greatly reduced stormwater volumes at the protected areas below. Senator Bingaman gave no consideration to the implications of this bill on this community's ability to address stormwater management utilizing contemporary stormwater management methods. The Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District has written at least two letters to Senator Bingaman and have had no response. This bill will only hamstring this community's efforts to manage it's stormwater.
Dona Ana County Resident
August 23, 2010, 12:22pm (report abuse)None of these areas are examples of "WILDERNESS"----Most of the land in Dona Ana County is already locked out for public use because of NMSU,Fort Bliss,and White Sands Missile Range. I don't think locking up even more land is right for the people living in the area. There are other designations that can protect land without using the Wilderness designation. This bill must be withdrawn.
Tomasco
August 23, 2010, 1:06pm (report abuse)The federal government already owns one out of every three acres in the lower 48. That is more than enough. This is a land grab, pure and simple. We do not want this.
Dona Ana Co. resident
August 23, 2010, 3:06pm (report abuse)In prohibiting acces to this area from the Border Patrol we are looking at possible border traffic in the Potrillo Mtns that will not be able to be controled. We need re-think this for our Border Security. There is a lot at stake in our current times. Protection for our nation should be a top priority. We do not need or want spill over from the Gov. controlled areas in Arizona, currently stewardship of lands does not seem to be on the Governments "to do" list.
Betty Russell
August 23, 2010, 3:35pm (report abuse)Even with the recent changes to the bill, It still restricts access for patrols by law enforcement and Border Patrol. The war in Mexico is now spilling over to the US. The residents in Dona Ana County have continually tried to communicate to our two Senators that this bill should be withdrawn. This land is protected now, there is no need for Wilderness designation.
Otero County Resident
August 23, 2010, 3:53pm (report abuse)Note from an Consituent to our representatives: If you want our support the people of New Mexico have spoken and demand you vote AGAINST this bill. Remember November and Think Pink(slip)!
R. Montes
August 23, 2010, 4:11pm (report abuse)There are other options to protect the areas. Don't let wilderness become another pathway for illegal aliens as in AZ wilderness.
Dave and Gen Mitchell
August 23, 2010, 4:30pm (report abuse)This bill should put fear into the hearts of all New Mexicans. The Violence in Mexico is getting closer and closer. If this bill passes it will give the drug dealers an open road into our county and state.
White Sands neighbor
August 23, 2010, 9:12pm (report abuse)The Bingaman mentality has become dangerous on this deal. In the end he has a fuduciary obligation to New Mexican and he cannot do it with displacing or diparaging people who have reasonable concerns.
anonymous
August 23, 2010, 9:14pm (report abuse)Passion or a request for common sense. Senator Bingaman is cramming this one down. The community wants the Organs, but the greens and the Bingaman staff have decided to get it all. They will stand with the cartels on this deal.
Lee Stephens
August 23, 2010, 9:19pm (report abuse)We ara aghast at the display of arrogance from Bingaman. Udall has no concept of border security, at least not yet. Both of these guys will have blood on their hands. I agree, it should have all stopped at the Organs, but the investment has been bought by Bingaman.
Organ Resident
August 24, 2010, 11:26am (report abuse)It seems to me to be an extremely dangerous time to limit access by the Border Patrol to the areas which would be affected by this untimely bill. Our Representatives need to take another look at this matter. More harm than good!!!
Elwood Baas
August 24, 2010, 11:56pm (report abuse)Another land grab by the Government. New Mexico can take care of what already has been set aside.
Sally Bales
August 26, 2010, 9:11am (report abuse)Not in the best interest of the population. A few vocal minority are selling it. Vote NO!
Jodi Denning
August 26, 2010, 12:02pm (report abuse)This legislation is not necessary, and could do extensive harm to our community. We can protect these areas from development using other legislative tools that do not carry the heavy restrictions of federal wilderness designation.
This community does NOT support S.1689. www.peopleforwesternheritage.com shows a coalition of over 800 businesses and organizations that support alternative protection for these areas - NOT WILDERNESS.
If this congress can't listen to the constituents, it's time for a NEW one.
Linda Fritze, Alamogordo, NM
September 15, 2010, 1:22pm (report abuse)John McCain, you just lost my support!!!! And your book is going in the trash.
F. Murphy
September 19, 2010, 4:05pm (report abuse)Recently spent Time exploring Aden Crater, Kliborne Hole, Potrillos and surrounding areas...truly beautiful country that I too want preserved. Took quite some time driving over miles of graded county roads. Did not see one bit of destruction of desert landscape or trash. Want to climb Mount Riley in the fall, I hear the view from the top is breathtaking. My question is this, setting security concerns aside, what good is the "wilderness" if you can't get there to enjoy it, after all this bill would prevent motorized access and I guarantee it is way too far to walk. Why take this away from us Senators? The ranchers have come up with good alternatives. In the least, shouldn't we the people, the citizens of the area, have some say? I have yet to find anyone who supports this bill and only a few who know about it. If this bill is slammed down our throats, I can think of several elected officials will soon be out of work... Bingaman, Udall, Teague, Steinborn to name a few. Stop SB 1689!
Hemingway in Las Cruces
September 21, 2010, 1:00pm (report abuse)This is an outstanding piece of legislation that covers border security. This is model bill for Wilderness - great job!!!!!
FMurphy
(logged-in user) September 23, 2010, 12:44am (report abuse)Can you explain Mr. Hemingway?...so far you all I see is that you stand alone in your thoughts.
86Winchester
October 3, 2010, 7:47pm (report abuse)"Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act - Designates specified wilderness areas in New Mexico...
This is just another junk yard for use by Mexican drug Cartels to bring in drugs and human trafficking.
All the other wildernesses along the Mexico border are Mexican Cartel junkyards, we the people cannot even enter these wilderness areas because of the drug smuggling activity.
I think the environmentalist are paid by the drug cartels to establish more wilderness areas so they also can be drug corridors.
NO MORE DRUG CORRIDORS!!!
Matter of fact, we need to change all the existing Wildernesses that border Mexico back to just plain ol 'Federal lands'...then the Border Patrol can kick some smugglers asses........
The designers of these wilderness corridors are dumb as dirt and the elected officials that propose these wilderness places along the Mexican border should be remembered at election time....VOTE THEM OUT!!!!!!!!!!!! I am....
Chris Allison
October 3, 2010, 8:07pm (report abuse)This bill effectively cedes hundreds of miles of our border to Mexico. We also lose our ability to manage these natural resources and we will watch gradual deterioration of these lands' ecological integrity.
Jerry Schickedanz
October 3, 2010, 8:29pm (report abuse)Iam for protecting land, but this bill is over kill on protection. It does not allow for full access for law enforcement and will play into the hands of smugglers and terrorists because of the limited access by law enforcement.
Bob Donham
October 3, 2010, 9:48pm (report abuse)Protection of the Organs could be done without the destruction of the adjoining desert peaks. The Wilderness Alliance and the Drug Cartels seek to secure a safe drug smuggling route! Bingaman and Udahl deserve a defeat next election.
Jay Platt
October 4, 2010, 5:15am (report abuse)How much land is enough? The Feds already own 1/3 of the entire US and in several western states, the amount of privately owned land is under 14%. How much wilderness is enough?--Too much already.
This is representative an an increasing move on the part of the Feds to control more facets of life.
John L. Zimmerman
October 4, 2010, 12:13pm (report abuse)This bill contains only one side of people's interests. A major concern that hasn't been adequately addressed is Public Safety. Border Protection is of course a major concern. It is important to note that all of this area is an Arroyo which feeds the Rio Grande Mesilla Valley. When ranchers are unable to maintain dirt dams on minor arroyos with mechanized equipment, they will fill with sediment and eventually overflow. These dirt dams provide water for ranch livestock and wildlife currently and help to re-charge our ground waters. When they no longer are maintained, the water will flow down arroyos to the Rio Grande and this use will be lost forever.
Conservationist
October 4, 2010, 12:23pm (report abuse)None of the designated area meet the minimum qualification to be designated as a wilderness. The BLM is charged to maintain multiple use to protect the natural resources, which this bill would not allow. I have already decided to vote against Sen Bingaman and Jeff Steinborn based on their stance on this bill.
p hay
October 4, 2010, 12:33pm (report abuse)This is not a bill that I can support and most Dona Ana county residents have voiced an loud no vote on this complete legislation.
Protect the Organs but the rest is very very out of line.
Screamingeagle
October 4, 2010, 1:36pm (report abuse)I would like to say that the ranchers now need our help, but as a sportsman I can say they do not reseprocate very well. Most ranchers will not let you cross their land to get to BLM or Forest Lands. I think they should pass a law that if a rancher closes off public land and will not let people on, then they can not lease the land and run their cattle. I think if they would help up, we would be more willing to help them.
Susan Sumrall
October 4, 2010, 2:24pm (report abuse)Why is big government so eager and gleeful to kill the food of America? This ranch land feeds our world but the politicals are wanting to use it for more drug trade? Big government is killing us off one by one.
dacoman
October 4, 2010, 3:20pm (report abuse)I have lived and enjoyed this "wilderness" area in Dona Ana for over 30 years. My children have spent countless hour searching for arrow heads and snake sheds in this desert. It should not and never be a National Park!!!!!!!!!!!
native
October 4, 2010, 3:37pm (report abuse)1st, this is wilderness. 2nd, yes, we should protect it. 3rd, there are better ways than keeping everyone out of, off of and way from this beautiful country that should be shared by all. If this bill passes, the only ones that will be on this land will be the outlaws who abuse it. There will be no one else to monitor nor protect it. Oh! Thats right just change what Wilderness is meant to be and change the rules to fit others but make sure and run the people who truly care about this land off first! What a sad day that we can't take care of the land and that the Federal government always knows what is best for us. Haven't seen a rancher yet that when asked would not let someone cross their private land. Been here all my life and I'm ashamed of the senators both state and federal.
native
October 4, 2010, 3:39pm (report abuse)Correction! This is NOT Wilderness!! Sorry for the incomplete sentence.
Peggy Bogart
October 4, 2010, 5:29pm (report abuse)This bill should not be paqssed as it will deny access to those of us that are not able to hike including our veterans. It will also limit what the ranchers can do with the land. It will also make a corridor for illegals.
NM native
October 4, 2010, 5:34pm (report abuse)With violence in Mexico getting worse each day, passing this bill will only give drug dealers, human trafficking & illegals a clear-shot open path into NM. Border Patrol and/or other law enforcement would not allowed to patrol the expansive area. This bill requires a definite vote of NO!
L Hammans from Otero County
October 4, 2010, 7:29pm (report abuse)I do NOT support SB 1689. The government continues to take away our freedoms. They are denying our access to a land that belongs to the citizens. NO NO NO
Lee S
October 4, 2010, 8:42pm (report abuse)This is not good for any part of NM. Too much of NM is already taken away from the public. Just another LAND GRAB.
John Hartley
October 5, 2010, 12:27pm (report abuse)This bill is only good for the Mexican drug cartels. Why is Senator Bingaman wanting to pull border patrol and law enforcement from our lands just a stone's throw from the most violent city in the world (Ciudad Juarez)? There are other ways to preserve the land than granting access to criminal activity.
swilmeth
October 5, 2010, 2:51pm (report abuse)The bill with the inclusion of the Potrillo Complex cannot stand. The Potrillos have all of the characteristics of the Arizona Class Smuggling Corridors. The Sinaloan Cartel will exercise their rights to the corridor as soon as the bill is passed.
Las Cruces Visitor
October 5, 2010, 10:55pm (report abuse)This will close off areas to US. We can't go into the areas of Arizona because illegals have "junked" it up so much. This will happen if this area in Dona Ana County becomes wilderness. It will become OFF LIMITS
to US---We the People, but open to the drug cartels. Don't let this happen.
Kathy Fuller
October 8, 2010, 10:08pm (report abuse)The mountains themselves are already protected, which is the main thing people talk about and how they are closely associated with our city. No one can build in/on the mountains. The rest of the land does not need to be protected. There is plenty of wilderness already available. Our beloved Organ Peaks will remain protected.
Rey Gonzales
October 9, 2010, 1:27am (report abuse)The Federal government has to much land already that it can't manage what makes us think they can manage more. This is an issue special interests has brought to our community and tried to push on us when we did not go for it they subvert us by going to the Federal government to get it done. We are not California where it has just restricted the people from their land, listen to the people.
border resident
October 9, 2010, 11:29am (report abuse)with so much turmoil in Mexico at this time, why would the US Senate make it possible for another "easy path" to lead into the United States? Protect Our Borders!!
JT Skip Prichard, DVM
October 13, 2010, 11:27am (report abuse)We hope The US Senate is listening to us - this is NOT an acceptable bill!
Sharon Smock
October 18, 2010, 3:27pm (report abuse)The Organ Mountains and surrounding desert peaks NEED protection before development sways in areas that destroyed Tucson. El Paso protected the Franklin Mountains. We can do the same. Now is the time to get this wilderness bill through while the political climate is right and the BIA is weak. I've seen it in the Far West and it is not a pretty sight when uncontrolled growth (especially in pretty view areas) takes over a city. Don't let that happen to Las Cruces. ALSO, we can benefit from being designated an environmentally friendly town and market the area for mountain bike and hiking use, and work on developing a significant Desert Museum or the likes. The economic returns will be larger in the LONG RUN for this bill.
Jon Davidson
November 10, 2010, 4:20pm (report abuse)Protection from development? I WISH there was developmental pressure because I call that JOBS.
Sharon Smock
November 15, 2010, 12:56pm (report abuse)Okay, go ahead and bring your housing developments (BIA) into the city and see how long construction jobs last while the lasting affects of the pristine Organs is lost forever. I'm commenting on a Wilderness Bill not jobs.
FMurphy
(logged-in user) November 18, 2010, 11:33pm (report abuse)This bill is BAD. I have spent time exploring some of our local natural wonders, Aden Crater, Kilbourne Hole, the Potrillos mountains and surrounding countryside, truly beautiful and interesting scenery that I too wish to preserve. It took me quite some time driving over miles of graded county roads. I would like to climb Mount Riley and Mount Cox soon, I hear the view from the top is breathtaking, problem, all of these sights and a great many more are included in the “wilderness” area. My question is this, setting the major very real issues of border security aside, this bill would prevent motorized access and I guarantee it is way too far to walk. Why do our elected officials want to take this away from us? I understand that the local ranchers among others have come up with good alternatives. In the least, shouldn't we the people, the citizens of the area, have some say in a discussion? Since this is a senate bill it will never become a ballot initiative.
FMurphy
(logged-in user) November 19, 2010, 12:48am (report abuse)To JT: I think the voters were listening. Goodbye Seinborn and Teague!
Jim Scarantino
December 3, 2010, 9:27am (report abuse)Wilderness is supposed to be something that enriches nearby communities, not jeopardizes their very lives and homes. Including the Potrillos--as Sen. Bingaman has proposed--is irresponsible and reckless. He needs to listen to Las Crusans who care more about the future of their community than scoring points for the professional wilderness activists.
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
From the Blog
WashingtonWatch.com Digest – August 16, 2010
This is the WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for the week of August 16, 2010. Subscribe here. email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | log in On the Blog: Advertising and Privacy WashingtonWatch.com supports itself with...