You are here

Home » Former Big Bend National Park Ranger: Border Wall Would "Completely Ruin The Experience"

Former Big Bend National Park Ranger: Border Wall Would "Completely Ruin The Experience"

Share
By NPT Staff - February 14th, 2017
Winter morning in Big Bend National Park / Rebecca Latson

A proposal by the Trump administration to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border would adversely impact Big Bend National Park, according to the Greater Big Bend Coalition/Rebecca Latson

If the Trump administration moves ahead with plans to build a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, it would "completely ruin the experience" at Big Bend National Park in Texas, according to a former ranger.

The national park's boundary runs 118 miles along the border with Mexico. Building a wall along that stretch likely would jeopardize wildlife crossings and require a buffer cleared along the U.S. side of the wall to allow for maintenance and observation.

“It would completely ruin the experience of one of the most beautiful natural places left in this country,” Rick LoBello, a former Big Bend park ranger and director of conservation group the Greater Big Bend Coalition, told the Los Angeles Times last week in discussing the impact a border wall would have on the park.

In a similar story for the Dallas Morning News, Mr. Lobello said, “A big wall in Big Bend would basically destroy the wilderness quality Big Bend has protected.”

Of course, another impact of such a wall would be the likely demise, for now, of the proposal to create Big Bend Rio Bravo Binational Natural Area in the Big Bend area of Texas and northern Mexico being promoted by the coalition.

Comments

Submitted by justinh on February 15, 2017 - 1:26pm.

Thanks, Jason!


Submitted by justinh on March 16, 2017 - 2:45pm.

"Texans Receive First Notices of Land Condemnation for Trump's Border Wall"

 

https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-border-wall-mexico-condemnation-letter/


Submitted by ecbuck on March 16, 2017 - 2:54pm.

The article is a little misleading.  The land would not be "siezed".  The owner would be forced to sell at market value - which may indeed be $2,900 or something higher or lower.  I'm not a big fan of emminent domain or the wall (I believe there are cheaper and more effective ways to accomplish the goal) but nevertheless we should present the facts accurately.  


Submitted by justinh on March 16, 2017 - 3:16pm.

I suppose we'd parse the phrases "forced to sell" and "seized" differently.

(I'm not sure how the title is misleading since it doesn't say "the land would . . . be seized."  Or who is your antecedent for "we.")


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.