Park Service: Illegals destroying federal lands, unsafe for camping

[rangerrebew]

Park Service: Illegals destroying federal lands, unsafe for camping

    By PAUL BEDARD • 4/11/17 10:45 AM

    Illegal immigration and drug running have destroyed border parklands, further threatened two species on the endangered list and led federal officials to bar visitors and campers in areas considered too dangerous to visit, according to newly released reports.

    In studies of two parks that make up less than 90 miles of the Arizona-Mexico border, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service said that the areas have been ripped up with thousands of miles of unauthorized roads from vehicles that have crushed plants and animal habitat.

 

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pa...rticle/2619949

[skeeter]

Thank our elected officials, army of bureaucRats and assorted unscrupulous employers.

Who cares about anyone else, as long as they get their votes and $$$.

[GtHawk]

Hey, they're just destroying the land that Americans aren't allowed to destroy.........................or use.

[Fishrrman]

From the article:
" Illegal immigration and drug running have destroyed border parklands, further threatened two species on the endangered list and led federal officials to bar visitors and campers in areas considered too dangerous to visit, according to newly released reports."

Well, well, well.

Put up a 30-foot-high WALL on those "border parklands", and I sense that camping and hiking in those areas will become much safer (and cleaner) once again...

[Smokin Joe]

From the article:
" Illegal immigration and drug running have destroyed border parklands, further threatened two species on the endangered list and led federal officials to bar visitors and campers in areas considered too dangerous to visit, according to newly released reports."

Well, well, well.

Put up a 30-foot-high WALL on those "border parklands", and I sense that camping and hiking in those areas will become much safer (and cleaner) once again...

Sounds like one of those high priority areas that should be some of the first on the list.
Reality is that some areas will present engineering problems that will be tougher to solve, and some will be relatively easy. With all Federal Parkland, it should be easy enough to obtain the right of way, and that's often a major hurdle. From there it is a matter of getting the site (substrate) studies done and the wall built. The investment would pay dividends well into the future, even if we have to pay for it. It's a pittance compared to the cost of not doing so.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sounds like one of those high priority areas that should be some of the first on the list.
Reality is that some areas will present engineering problems that will be tougher to solve, and some will be relatively easy. With all Federal Parkland, it should be easy enough to obtain the right of way, and that's often a major hurdle. From there it is a matter of getting the site (substrate) studies done and the wall built. The investment would pay dividends well into the future, even if we have to pay for it. It's a pittance compared to the cost of not doing so.

those with engineering problems could be where sharpshooters are stationed.

Think that will have the right effect?

[Smokin Joe]

those with engineering problems could be where sharpshooters are stationed.

Think that will have the right effect?

Those with engineering problems are going to have terrain or substrate issues and may include riverbeds and flash flood areas, just to pull a couple of things out of the hat.

These areas could also provide alternate incursion corridors, and with the proper staffing and a little infrastructure could be 'roundup' corrals or choke points by which those who do cross would be easier to track and interdict.

(Make no mistake, there will be opportunities for those guarding those vulnerable areas to make a lot of money looking the other way. Redundancy will be needed.)

There will be tunnels in the places the wall can be dug under, likely from a building on one side to buildings on the other. The profit motive exists for the smuggling of drugs.

There are sensors and the capability to detect such diggings and movement independent of solely manned operations, and this could prove to be a good training ground/opportunity for those who may use these capabilities for military purposes elsewhere. The really determined will find a way, but the average person will not.
At that point, because of the general nature of the most determined, (usually felonious), the methodology may dictate more harsh methods and capabilities compared to those used for more ordinary incursions today.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Those with engineering problems are going to have terrain or substrate issues and may include riverbeds and flash flood areas, just to pull a couple of things out of the hat.

These areas could also provide alternate incursion corridors, and with the proper staffing and a little infrastructure could be 'roundup' corrals or choke points by which those who do cross would be easier to track and interdict.

(Make no mistake, there will be opportunities for those guarding those vulnerable areas to make a lot of money looking the other way. Redundancy will be needed.)

There will be tunnels in the places the wall can be dug under, likely from a building on one side to buildings on the other. The profit motive exists for the smuggling of drugs.

There are sensors and the capability to detect such diggings and movement independent of solely manned operations, and this could prove to be a good training ground/opportunity for those who may use these capabilities for military purposes elsewhere. The really determined will find a way, but the average person will not.
At that point, because of the general nature of the most determined, (usually felonious), the methodology may dictate more harsh methods and capabilities compared to those used for more ordinary incursions today.

It is my wish that those 'determined enough' are aware they may meet a hail of bullets, no different than intruders breaking into my own house.

[Smokin Joe]

It is my wish that those 'determined enough' are aware they may meet a hail of bullets, no different than intruders breaking into my own house.

I'd settle for herding them into areas where, if the terrain doesn't kill them, they will be easy to round up and send back, at least until the barrier can be completed.

in the meantime, because 500 miles of 1954 are "too hard", that's no reason to not get going on the ones which are not. The reason to use Federal Parkland for an incursion route is: Limited involvement by property owners. People who own property will defend it. But they aren't supposed to be on National Park land with weapons. That means just the Park Rangers and whoever they invite into their fiefdom to cover the terrain. LEOs won't get called--again, no private property. Therefore, incursion area, trails, water, camping areas all established, and free maps courtesy of the National Park Service. The rules make it an easy path to invade along. Block those first, with extensions along the border to make an end run more difficult. Every step should make it harder to get in, and easier to get caught. We are not yet at the point where we just shoot people for walking in, unless they are in a lethal force authorized area of a military base, and I am not aware of any of those right on the border.