Hikers, Photographers, Birdwatchers but No Border Patrol Agents

...use/abuse of the land by those WHO use it for recreation. I get so pissed at myself when I misspell something or use bad grammar that I had to add a correction!

Perhaps an easy solution to this problem would be for some cooperation between the two agencies. Joint patrols sound like a viable option. The CBP officers can do their job while the Forest Service "officials" can ensure that the items left behind by illegal immigrants aren't littered about and can also use the opportunity to monitor the use/abuse of the land by those we use it for recreation. I think we can all agree that it is important to maintain the integrity of the natural landscape for future generations to enjoy, but I think we can also agree that some leeway must also be afforded in the name of national security.

And I appreciate the hard work done by the Forest Service and the Park Rangers. What I don't appreciate is the decision that a wildlife refuge that sits on the US-Mexico border should be treated exactly the same and have the same across-the-board restrictions as one on the Missouri river between Iowa and Nebraska. That is shortsighted, completely ignores the extra problems created by being next to the border and contributes to lowering the overall security of the country.

Hehe... my question in that sense was addressing the nature of the problem - is it worth the price? That is something each individual must decide for themselves. I have mixed feelings on this one, and was just attempting to provide insight into the other side's point of view rather than express my own opinion. In reading your post, it seemed like you were accusing the wildlife refuge staff of aiding and abeting criminals - I wanted to show that they weren't simply wreaking havoc on justice to be butt-heads; rather, their position is also valid and important.

Would you destroy the USA to keep it "safe" from illegal immigrants? What would be the value of such an action? I realize this is a single area, not the entire country. But in essence, this is what it comes down to for these folks. I tend to agree with you on this one, though not to such an extreme. I think it is very important to maintain what little bit of nature we have left in this world, even when it falls on the US border. It is a tragedy either way - to lose the refuge or to lose lives in an attempt to safeguard the refuge. But in the end, human lives are more important. That is my answer to the "hard" question.

Jane, I can't agree. I think the statement "Is it worth the price?" must be answered by each of us. We can't just abdicate our responsibilities because some of the questions are hard. There is rationale behind every policy. The question that must be continually addressed is always "Is it worth the price?"

Was the increased security or at least the perception of the increased security worth the price of the Japanese-American internment camps in World War II? The rationale was there but did it really justify what was done. The price here was a human life. Yes murderers will murder and criminals will continue to commit crimes, does that mean we should do nothing.

I simply think that a rationale that was developed in a time when security risks were much less cannot simply be blindly followed forever. Conditions change, the anticipated consequences change and sometimes in some cases, in my mind this is a prime example, does that rationale still hold or does it need to be adjusted to reflect changing conditions. I understand that need for wildlife and wildarea preservation but I also think we absolutely must do everything we can to preserve a human life. That after all is why we continue to try to make improvements in body and vehicle armor even though we know that people are going to die in combat.

Having grown up in a small town just north of Mexico, I can provide some insight into why the National Wildlife Refuge wouldn't want border patrol agents running amok on the refuge.

Let me paint a picture for you: imagine growing up in a little town with a lot of little hiking trails and back roads, just wide enough to ride a horse through. I can recall many a dirt bike ride up to the local stream where we would spend summer days swimming... Then the border patrol closed a major border crossing about 20 miles northwest of where we lived. Predictably, all the illegal immigrant traffic moved further southeast, into our back yard. Those serene little hiking and horseback riding trails quickly became paths traveled by border patrol vehicles and agents, littered with trash from anywhere they had picked up an immigrant and made them leave their belongings behind. In just a couple years, there were so many trails, so close together, you couldn't find a private area in a 10 mile radius. Wherever you went, you could see trash-littered hillsides for miles. The land was completely destroyed by border patrol agents constantly patrolling the area on foot and in SUVs. The only wildlife remaining was coyotes and snakes. This cannot be allowed to happen on a wildlife refuge - this is why the officials running the refuge will not allow border patrol agents to roam the property unescorted. It would completely destroy the sanctity of the land - the entire point of establishing the refuge in the first place. Is it worth the price? I can't answer that... but I did want to clarify that it's not simply a big federal "f*#@ you!" There really is some rationale behind the policy.

The death of Robert Krentz is a horrible occurrence. But somehow, I think that even if border patrol agents had been patrolling the land, the tragedy would not have been avoided. You cannot honestly think that people will not commit crimes if there are consequences - essentially what you have said above. That if the border patrol was allowed to completely secure the border, nobody else would get hurt when illegal immigrants attempted to pass into the united states? That's like saying if people got sent to prison for murder, nobody would ever be murdered again. Border "security" is more complex than putting up a wall (or a wall of agents) - people will always find a way to slip through, and murderers will always murder regardless of the consequences.

This isn't a campaign against the Border Patrol... I agree with you, Rob! I grew up in a town where I knew plenty of these fine men and women personally. The bottom line is, their presence does mar the environment. This is why their presence on the wildlife refuge would be detrimental to the very purpose the refuge serves - hence the opponents to letting the BP patrol the area unsupervised are not simply interfering with justice for the sake of interfering. My point was only (and continues to be) that they have an important message to get across. It is their job to be the advocate for the animals who live on the refuge, and this is what they are doing. I think they are standing up for something they believe in, and I can understand where they're coming from. I was trying to shed some light on that for all of us here. If we could honestly say that the presence of the BP on this land would unequivocally save lives, then I don't think there would be any argument from anyone on the refuge.

So please, don't turn this into something its not. I appreciate the hard work our Border Patrol agents put in every day.

I work for CBP. The border patrol agents are federal agents and professionals. Jane you make the border patrol agent seem like some tourist messsing up the camp grounds. Border Patrol Agents are no different than you and I. They have families, kids, and friends. They work 24 hours a day, in the rain, snow, and heat. If you only knew how many men, woman, children they save from death in a year you might give them more respect. I have see these hard working agents in action and as formal military officer I can tell you I was impressed. They deserve our graditude and praise.

Really love the post. Perhaps hiking gear could guide someone there.