Contact
Subscribe
Funder of pro-wilderness media blitz remains anonymous
The Organ Mountains (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
The Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces is currently spending a great deal of money on TV ads and printed material promoting a bill that would designate hundreds of thousands of acres as wilderness in Dona Ana County – but it isn’t saying who provided the cash for the media blitz.
“Like other nonprofits, our grantors oftentimes wish to remain anonymous. Working in a competitive funding environment and with a growing membership, we respect donors’ wishes…” a news release from the group states.
That’s according to an article published today in the Las Cruces Sun-News, which, citing the chamber’s news release, reported that the group “applied for money in the form of a competitive grant to ‘help educate and inform the general public about local conservation efforts.’”
Nothing requires the group to disclose the identity of the donor. Even the attorney general’s fight with two nonprofits in Albuquerque is an attempt to force nonprofits to disclose funding information if the AG thinks they are involved in campaigning for the election or defeat of candidates. The chamber’s work is issue advocacy, plain and simple.
Still, the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce – which, unlike the Hispano chamber, does not support the pending legislation in Washington in its current form – wants to know who paid for the media blitz. In a news release, the Greater Las Cruces chamber stated that it was “deeply troubled by one local organization’s apparent acceptance of significant funds from special interests groups to promote their position, without full disclosure of doing so to its members.”
The Greater Las Cruces chamber’s chairman, Kiel Hoffman, confirmed for the Sun-News that the statement is about the Hispano chamber.
The legislation, called the Organ Mountains – Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, was introduced in October. The bill would designate almost 250,000 acres as wilderness and 100,000 acres as national conservation areas. In addition to the Organ Mountains, land on and around the Potrillo, Robledo and Doña Ana mountains would be protected.
There’s expected to be a push to get the legislation passed by Congress before the end of the year, because there’s a chance the area’s congressman, U.S. Rep. Harry Teague, D-N.M., could be replaced in November by former U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, a Republican who opposes the wilderness designation altogether.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
8 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sorry but former Congressman Pearce’s bill (HR 6300) was an abomination . It clearly could end all wilderness areas. It even allows the Secretary of Interior to get rid of land the size of present Las Cruces without any public input (Sec. 401). There would no federal funding to protect the Organ Mountains. This barbaric bill was an insult to all the residents of Dona Ana County not just conservationists.
TITLE IV–DISPOSAL OF FEDERAL LAND FOR COMMUNITY GROWTH
SEC. 401. DISPOSAL.
(a) In General- The Secretary, in consultation with the City and the County, shall conduct a sale of Federal land described in subsection (b) to qualified bidders.
(b) Description of Land- The land referred to in subsection (a) consists of the Federal land in the County that is–
(1) identified for disposal through the resource management planning process of the Bureau of Land Management as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) not segregated or withdrawn from the lands so identified by Congress or by the Secretary on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Hemingway,
REALLY? REALLY?
Your attack against Pearce for his 2006 HR 6298 is laughable.
Let’s take a look at HR 6298 from 2006 shall we.
First, HR 6298 of 2006 was a bill having to do with right-of-ways for highways across public lands not reserved for public use.
The bill in question, HR 6298 of 2006, was introduced by then Congressman Pearce to simply allow discussion. The bill was intended to start discussion. If you actually read the bill you see that it does NOT establish any new claims or methods for anybody or entity to build new roads or even improve on old roads not valid under FLPMA (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976).
Some background: Right-of-ways originated with the 1866 Mining Law. In 1976, Congress passed FLPMA which repealed the old right-of-way protections of the 1866 Mining Law, HOWEVER, it did grandfather existing claims.
What HR 6298 of 2006 does do is reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of state and local governments as far as the right-of-ways that Congress, via FLPMA, intended them to maintain.
Bottom Line: Pearce’s HR 6298 reaffirms that under previous law state and local governments have to maintain right-of-ways to these highways regardless of public use or not. Therefore, state and local governments do not have to seek permission from the federal oversight agencies to do just routine maintenance and repair on right-of-ways for these highways. Pearce’s bill DID say that state and local governments must consult with the appropriate federal agencies before performing road improvement projects though.
What is wrong with this?! Like I said earlier….REALLY?!
You can check out Pearce’s HR 6298 of 2006 yourself by going to thomas.loc.gov and checking out the bill summary in the archives.
As far as allowing mining, road improvements and etc….what’s wrong with that? What is wrong with having a balance in which we get to have our wilderness AND not hurt small businesses, farmers, ranchers, federal law enforcement agencies and jobs? Why can’t we seek compromise and find a balance? Pearce’s wilderness bill was such a balance. It’s because radicals don’t want to seek compromise. Those radicals are those who refuse to allow any industry or farmer/rancher development at all.
Next time do us all a favor and actually research a bill before you decide to use it as a weapon to attack Pearce.
Having traversed the WEST POTRILLO MTNS over most of the 75 or so miles of road contained within the current Wilderness Study Area (WSA). I am at a complete loss as to the significance and recreational value of this area.
I wonder how many of the supporters of making this area wilderness have ever actually visited it and spent any time there. They might also get a copy of the BLM “Grey Book” on WSAs and read the assessment.
Why not leave it a WSA?
This is an easy guess. An individual (or group of individuals) currently or originally from outside the state (probably California), that have a huge carbon footprint to go along with a house size and property size well above that of average New Mexicans and that do not rely on private business growth in Dona Ana County for their income or the employment of their children.
Anyone who really want to understand the drug business should read this important U.S. Department of Justice – National Drug Intelligence Center’s National Drug Assessment 2010. The drug cartels typically use commercial trucks and private and rental vehicles to smuggle cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin – not non- productive mules through wilderness areas.
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/movement.htm#Overland
The Drug cartel is probably laughing at us for blaming the drug trade on undocumented immigrants and on wilderness.
Hemingway. Can’t wait to see your comments after the first Tuesday in November. Please give a rational explanation why it is crazy for anyone to expect zero conditions placed on the US Border Patrol, US Military and any other respected law enforcement agency to conduct any type of routine surveilance in designated Wilderness lands in border states?
And don’t tell us that they can because the fact still remains that there are conditions still placed in the most current SB 1689. And also, do not claim that the problem does not exist. Humor us for just this time and assume that drug cartels really do exist, are truly brutal and really do want to infiltrate our country at any cost.
Former Congressman Pearce left a sorry record in Congress with his anti-Wilderness stands. He pushed legislation in 2006 that would pave the way for increased use of Jet Skis, snowmobiles and off-road vehicles in National parks and wilderness areas. Commercial activities like mining and construction of cell phone towers, which would have been easier under his sponsored legislation.
Also in 2006 he sponsored legislation (H. R. 6298) for an unprecedented public lands giveaway. It sought to put thousands of new yet unnecessary, roads in pristine, undeveloped areas so that they would be disqualified for future protection under the Wilderness Act. The bill would waive environmental review and public input -what a dismal record!
Now this Bushite wants to come back to Congress disguised as a Tea party lover.
I wish the funder had demanded a better commercial, less fades over stills, a less sonorous voice-over.