Scientists say Trump's border wall would devastate wildlife habitat

[Elderberry]

The Texas Tribune by Kiah Collier and Neena Satija March 3, 2017

HIDALGO, Texas — Muddy handprints cover the rusty, iron posts on this section of border fence in far South Texas. The 18-foot-tall barrier, which runs between a national wildlife refuge and a local nature center, ends abruptly less than a mile down the road. Still, somebody clearly thought it was best to cross here.

“This is probably one of the most visible places they could have climbed,” Scott Nicol, co-chair of the Sierra Club’s Borderlands Campaign, said before snapping photos of the handprints. “I don't know if they got caught or not, but they made it up and over for sure.”

There’s been a lot of debate about how effective the Bush-era barrier has been at keeping out illegal crossers and drug smugglers. Some data indicates the barriers have encouraged people to cross in places where there isn’t one. But the handprints show that a determined person can still easily scale it.

What the border fence has kept out instead, according to environmentalists, scientists and local officials, is wildlife. And the people who have spent decades acquiring and restoring border habitat say that if President Donald Trump makes good on his promise to turn the border fence into a continuous, 40-foot concrete wall, the situation for wildlife along the border — one of the most biodiverse areas in North America — will only get worse.

Right now, a mix of vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing covers only about one-third of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. Even with all those gaps, experts say the barriers have made it harder for animals to find food, water and mates. Many of them, like jaguars, gray wolves and ocelots, are already endangered.

Aaron Flesch, a biologist at the University of Arizona, said most border animals are already squeezed into small, fragmented patches of habitat.

“If you just go and you cut movements off,” he said, “you can potentially destabilize these entire networks of population.”

Still, the impacts of the border fence on wildlife aren’t totally understood. That’s in large part because Congress let the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ignore all the environmental laws that would’ve required the agency to fully study how the barrier would affect wildlife.

[Excerpted] https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/03/environmental-impacts-border-wall/

[Smokin Joe]

Between ranchers wanting continued access to water and the environmentalists (esp. biologists) there is going to be resistance. Some of us saw this coming, not to mention the engineering challenges of building in widely varied terrain and with widely varied geological substrates.
I'm not saying it can't be done, anything can if the pockets are deep enough. But I recall the flack the trans Alaska pipeline caught, what with caribou crossings, and moose crossings and places for the bears to get to the other side....mostly bogus, critters will go where they want by the best available route, but still it all added tremendous expense.

[DB]

Scientist say whatever the grant seeks for them to say...

[Smokin Joe]

Scientist say whatever the grant seeks for them to say...

No, but charlatans do. Scientists will examine the evidence and let the chips fall where they may.

[Frank Cannon]

Well as long as it devastates this wildlife's habitat, I won't lose any sleep.

[Smokin Joe]

Well as long as it devastates this wildlife's habitat, I won't lose any sleep.

They should be relatively easy to track because of the vast amount of trash they leave behind. That might be a gain for the critters, well, except for a few scavengers (Birds gotta eat too, same as worms..)

[DB]

No, but charlatans do. Scientists will examine the evidence and let the chips fall where they may.

Not where government grants are involved. They provide what the paymasters ask for with the illusion of scientific authority. It provides cover for what government is seeking.

[Frank Cannon]

They should be relatively easy to track because of the vast amount of trash they leave behind.

So these people were also protesting the Dakota Access pipeline?

[Smokin Joe]

So these people were also protesting the Dakota Access pipeline?

Unfortunately, they do make it this far north. I think they have been elsewhere protesting the proposed shutting down of the illegal immigrant pipeline, though.

[Smokin Joe]

Not where government grants are involved. They provide what the paymasters ask for with the illusion of scientific authority. It provides cover for what government is seeking.

If all they are providing is the illusion of scientific authority, they are charlatans.

[Hondo69]

Between ranchers wanting continued access to water and the environmentalists (esp. biologists) there is going to be resistance. Some of us saw this coming, not to mention the engineering challenges of building in widely varied terrain and with widely varied geological substrates.
I'm not saying it can't be done, anything can if the pockets are deep enough. But I recall the flack the trans Alaska pipeline caught, what with caribou crossings, and moose crossings and places for the bears to get to the other side....mostly bogus, critters will go where they want by the best available route, but still it all added tremendous expense.

This debate has been going on for a long, long time.

The ranchers in South Texas being closest to the situation have some good points to make.  For one, they want a wall, virtual or tangible.  They don't like being shot at or having to shoot someone else either.  But from a wildlife standpoint they say a continuous solid wall is just not feasible.  Animals of all types need to move and if you pen them in there will be consequences - and not good ones.

Considering the dramatic changes in terrain there are some areas where a solid wall makes no sense at all.  Other areas, yes, but not all.  It all boils down to a combination of both virtual and solid walls.  It can work and has been working.  The ranchers know best and I'd take their advice simply because it includes a big dose of common sense. 

Another point, one rarely discussed, is that the border changes.  Rivers have a funny habit of changing over time and the same is true of the Rio Grande.  It doesn't fluctuate as wildly as the Red River, for example, but it does change over time.  That high dollar wall is going to look pretty funny if it's located a half mile from the river.

[Norm Lenhart]

They'll manage. I'd note that animals survived the great wall of China. Mt. St. Helens and the NOLA flood without widespread extinction.

[goatprairie]

Not being a scientist or wildlife "expert" I can only offer a few observations:  aren't we supposed to already being seeing a massive die-off of many species due to global warming?
How about past walls and barriers (some previous poster mentioned the GWOC).  Did all sorts of animals and species die off because of that?  Anybody who has visited the southwest knows there are vast stretches of seemingly nothing but scrub brush and sand.  It's actually a lot more than that in many areas.... the wife and I love to visit the southwest.  It's huge.   That a wall, no matter the size, could destroy many of the plant and wildlife species of the southwest seems ridiculous to me.
These "experts" have been making claims about disasters happening for many decades now.  Twenty-thirty years ago they were claiming we were running out of forests and wood.  Again, anybody flying over the the U.S. would see that claim as preposterous.
But in the end I'll state,  if that's what it takes to keep the illegals out, BUILD THE DAMN WALL!!!

[catfish1957]

Leftist garbage under the label of a false enviro-hysteria.

These pukes are pulling out all the stops.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If that is their concern, why not save the birds that get fried in the solar spreads or chopped up by the windmills?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The wall will force this trash to be on Mexico's side

[skeeter]

If that is their concern, why not save the birds that get fried in the solar spreads or chopped up by the windmills?

You and I both know they care about as much about the border wall's effect on the environment as Washington state cares about muslim refugees' effect on their local economy.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You and I both know they care about as much about the border wall's effect on the environment as Washington state cares about muslim refugees' effect on their local economy.

Yes, but that hypocrisy can be exposed by framing it that way to the public.

[Smokin Joe]

The wall will force this trash to be on Mexico's side

Oh lookit!  A backpack mine!

[catfish1957]

Oh lookit!  A backpack mine!

Wonder how many messes (dumps) there are along the border?  Hope DJT tells them the price of the wall just went up.

[Smokin Joe]

You and I both know they care about as much about the border wall's effect on the environment as Washington state cares about muslim refugees' effect on their local economy.

You left out the "water protectors'... (Apparently the air and the soil aren't so sacred.)

[goatprairie]

If that is their concern, why not save the birds that get fried in the solar spreads or chopped up by the windmills?

Excellent points, but I've never heard one enviro-nut talk about that subject.  I don't know....maybe they've got their fingers stuck in their ears when people start questioning the worth of wind turbines.

[Smokin Joe]

Excellent points, but I've never heard one enviro-nut talk about that subject.  I don't know....maybe they've got their fingers stuck in their ears when people start questioning the worth of wind turbines.

There can be no downside to their chosen remedy for the boogeyman of global warming. Despite the waivers given for endangered species killed by the windmills and who knows what roasted in the air...

[Fishrrman]

Hondo wrote:
"That high dollar wall is going to look pretty funny if it's located a half mile from the river."

Quite frankly, it matters not if it's "a half mile from the river", right next to the river, or two miles away from it.

That makes no practical difference at all.

What DOES matter is that the wall will exist and serve its function, which is to keep people on the south side (be that "next to" the river or not) from getting to the north side.

Kinda like this one does:


The ranchers will learn to live with that.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Hondo wrote:
"That high dollar wall is going to look pretty funny if it's located a half mile from the river."

Quite frankly, it matters not if it's "a half mile from the river", right next to the river, or two miles away from it.

That makes no practical difference at all.

What DOES matter is that the wall will exist and serve its function, which is to keep people on the south side (be that "next to" the river or not) from getting to the north side.

Kinda like this one does:


The ranchers will learn to live with that.

Actually, I do not care if it is a virtual wall, just as long as it is maintained by effective bullets to bar entry.

Maybe like this which Bruce Dern learned.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiFLTtjeuDc