Big Bend National Park: The Border Wall Debate with Bob Krumenaker

Bob Krumenaker, a seasoned conservationist (over 41 years with the NPS) and former superintendent of Big Bend National Park, discusses the ecological, cultural, and political stakes involved with the proposed border wall construction in the remote, environmentally rich area of Big Bend National Park. Learn about why Big Bend is a sanctuary worth protecting and how local communities and conservation advocates are turning the tide against intrusive border infrastructure.

In this episode:

• Bob shares his extensive career in the National Park Service and his deep connection to desert ecosystems.
• The unique geological and biological highlights that make Big Bend nationally significant.
• How border security policies threaten biodiversity, night skies, water resources, and local communities.
• The current status of border wall proposals and the bipartisan opposition rallying to preserve Big Bend's wild character.
• The legal and political efforts underway, including wilderness designation, to secure long-term protection.
• Practical ways for the public to get involved and support conservation efforts in their areas.
• Lessons from Big Bend about community cooperation and environmental advocacy.

Resources & Links:

• Keep Big Bend Wild
• Big Bend National Park Official Site
• Wilderness Act of 1964
• Border Wall Map & Updates

Note: This interview sheds light on critical environmental and political issues facing public lands today. Your voice and involvement matter—learn more and take action through the links provided.

Creators and Guests

Host

Joey Liberatore

What is Safe Travels?

Safe Travels explores National Parks and wild places through in-depth conversations with the people who know them best - park rangers, scientists, biologists, geologists, archaeologists, and conservationists.

Each episode goes beyond travel tips to uncover the science, history, wildlife, and conservation stories that bring these landscapes to life.

Hosted by Joey Liberatore, Safe Travels Pod turns expert insight into engaging, accessible conversations - helping listeners experience public lands with deeper understanding and appreciation.

Speaker 1: 00:01

The word existential threat is a bit overused these days, but there's really no greater threat to the wild character of Big Bend National Park than a border wall.

Speaker 2: 00:15

Hi, everyone. Thanks for checking out the Safe Travels Podcast. My name is Joey. Today, we have a very important episode as we're joined by Bob Krumenaker to talk about the current situation regarding a proposed border wall that could cut through the heart of Big Bend National Park. Bob is the former superintendent at Big Bend and has more than forty one years of service with the MPS.

Speaker 2: 00:37

In our conversation together, we address the irreparable harm a border wall could cause through one of the most wild and scenic landscapes in The United States. Bob, thanks so much for joining me today. I'm really excited to talk to you.

Speaker 1: 00:55

Joey, I really appreciate you're doing this. Thank you for featuring this story. It's really important and timely.

Speaker 2: 01:01

As you just alluded to, we're gonna be talking about a really important story involving potential border wall, whether it's a physical barrier or smart wall technology potentially being implemented into Big Bend National Park. That's gonna be the primary subject today but before we get into that, I do wanna talk about you and your incredible career throughout the National Park Service over forty one years of public service in the National Park Service. You have a master's in biology and have done incredible work in the land of conservation. So I wanna start with just the broad question of how you got into conservation and why you wanted to be a scientist growing up.

Speaker 1: 01:34

Well, thanks Joey. I don't feel old enough to have had that many years in service but it went by fast. But my beginning with the National Park Service was really one of those just good luck random things. I was a student of engineering and political science back in the East Coast and had this weird thing going on where I was getting good grades but really hating the engineering stuff and figured I need to clear my head, figure out what it is I'm gonna do. Actually I was very interested in politics and policy even then and tried to get a job on Capitol Hill but I quickly found out that when you're 19 years old, you really aren't gonna get one of those.

Speaker 1: 02:13

And went back with my tail between my legs to college in the last week of the first semester and a friend I was eating lunch with said, hey, why don't you go volunteer in a national park in Utah? I did that before my freshman year and I really enjoyed it. And it sounded like the craziest idea possible because I had never been West Of Ohio at that point. I knew very little about national parks but it was odd and different and it would definitely be a new experience and so I did that. And that was at Canyonlands National Park.

Speaker 1: 02:42

I had my twentieth birthday there and fell in love with the place, with the people that were doing the work, with the mission. And it wasn't a direct link from there to a career but it was the beginning of my realizing that places like this are incredibly important and emotionally resonating for me. And so I kept coming back. I volunteered. I was a young adult conservation corps member.

Speaker 1: 03:09

I was a seasonal park ranger, generalist, interpreter. And finally because I was still I was finally going back to school, getting my bachelor's and master's in natural resources. And my last season was as a biotech at Dinosaur National Monument. So I did Canyonlands, Grand Canyon, Zion, Natural Bridges and Dinosaur all on the Colorado Plateau before I ever got a permanent job. And then got the permanent job in Washington DC.

Speaker 1: 03:39

I bought a tie and a briefcase and was commuting into the national office. This was not the mall. It was a desk job. But that was a way to get in and less than a year later I went to Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas. And this was the early nineteen eighties and I had about two computer classes in my resume and that made me what today we would call an IT expert.

Speaker 1: 04:03

We didn't even know those terms back in those days. But I was doing GIS work before it was fashionable and I was managing computer systems and teaching everybody how to word process and I was even wiring the building. All sorts of things that I knew very little about and I was about five minutes ahead of everybody else. But in my spare time, they let me help the natural resource management staff and so I was doing water quality work and little bit of fire management things and and that's really what I was trained to do and wanted to do. After two years of Big Thicket, was fortunate enough to get a job as the natural resource specialist at Isle Royall National Park up on Lake Superior.

Speaker 1: 04:42

It's going from one extreme environment to the other from the extreme South to the extreme North of the Lower 48. And that was a great experience. Worked for some really good people. Managed the what is now the world famous wolf moose program during the period of wolf decline. Got some terrific experience and after that, not necessarily in order but I was also the chief of natural and cultural resources at Shenandoah National Park and I was the chief of natural resource management in two different NPS regions.

Speaker 1: 05:15

And so, you know, it became fairly obvious early in my career that superintendents were the ones who had the most influence on conservation and public policy. And so, you know, I tried to become a student of how do you succeed in that world. I studied science and most scientists are not good communicators and I fit that bill. So I got slapped down a few times and realized I need to learn a little bit better about communicating. And anyway, skipping a few steps, I ended up as the deputy superintendent at Valley Forge and then the superintendent at Apostle Islands back on Lake Superior.

Speaker 1: 05:55

And between Isle Royale and Apostle Islands, I spent twenty two years on Lake Superior which is just a fantastic ecosystem and did some really interesting work up there. But it's cold and it's snowy and it's dark and when I was looking to do one more thing in my career, I wanted something that was a little bit warmer and frankly a little bit tougher and more gnarly. And and I ended up at Big Bend and Rio Grande Wilde and Scenic River which gets forgotten a lot. But spent the last five years of my career as the superintendent of those two parks in Texas. So total of about 15 different NPS areas in almost as many states.

Speaker 1: 06:35

Didn't hit every ecosystem in The United States but I sure hit a lot them.

Speaker 2: 06:40

It sounds like you have a soft spot for desert ecosystems. Did Big Ben feel like kind of the cherry on top for you as you rounded out your career in the NPS to finish in such a spectacular desert ecosystem?

Speaker 1: 06:53

In a lot of ways it did and you know it was a very intentional return to the desert even though I had not worked at Big Bend. I had visited several times. And the beginnings of my career in the high desert of Southern Utah is in many ways very similar to West Texas. And so Big Bend's a tough place to live. It's a tough place to recruit families to.

Speaker 1: 07:16

And so, you know, when I went there it was a very deliberate choice which surprised almost everyone that knew me because very few people knew me long enough to know that desert history many many years before.

Speaker 2: 07:28

We're gonna dive a little bit more into the beauty of Big Bend and why it's protected. But first, it's you have this common theme in your life of being a mover and a shaker even after your career in the NPS, you know, you're still fighting for public lands and are still actively involved in conservation. Did you miss the science side of it as a superintendent? Obviously you're being informed from the scientists on your staff of different management decisions that you have to be that you have to make. But did you miss being actively involved in that science or were you happy to be the one making those decisions?

Speaker 1: 08:02

It's probably a little bit of both of those. I certainly appreciated the science side of it. I valued that tremendously. But actually in some ways I was probably tougher on the resource staff than they expected. They thought that oh I'm one of them therefore I will be sympathetic to everything they want to do.

Speaker 1: 08:20

And I said well I'm sympathetic to what you're trying to do but I know your job as well as you do so let's up the standard if we need to. So they weren't always as thrilled having a natural resource manager as as their boss. But you know it's it's absolutely critical to understand how these ecosystems work and and how the pieces fit together and how the park landscape fits in with something wider than that. But you can't do that well just being a scientist and you can't do that well just being a manager, I think. So you know as it turned out the masters I got at the Yale School of Forestry which was an environmental science degree but with a heavy element of policy, know, it it turned out to actually be pretty good training.

Speaker 2: 09:03

Did your ideology on policy and land management change when you did get into the leadership role? Were you staunchly one direction when you're primarily focused on sciences? And then did your worldview change when you were the one now actively involved in those policies?

Speaker 1: 09:17

That's a great question. You know, I think like a lot of young resource managers and scientists, you know, I was absolutely committed to preserving every possible thing. Probably well beyond what the law actually requires in the National Park Service and certainly beyond what is sometimes practical, feasible or financially possible. But it wasn't probably until I was a deputy superintendent and suddenly responsible for all the other programs in a national park that even though I had read the Organic Act and understood it and was kind of a wank on policy, For the first time I realized I have as much responsibility for the maintenance side of this park and for the visitor services side of this park as I do for the natural and cultural resources. And so, you know, a lot of people talk about the park services having a dual mission and a sense of balance and and I actually reject that model and so do the courts frankly.

Speaker 1: 10:16

So they came first and I followed. The courts have repeatedly said the Park Service has a single mission. It has two components. Conserving unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. And they've said, you know, your job is to do both of those things but they also have said the sequence of the words is there for reason and conservation comes first if you have to choose.

Speaker 1: 10:40

And so I think as I moved up the ladder and worked in a lot of different parks and worked for good managers and a few bad ones, you know, I realized that you have to integrate these things and you have to figure out how can we do the best job for conservation. But if we ignore the public side of it, if we ignore the visitor side of it, if we ignore the political side of it, we're not gonna get to do very much conservation because the Park Service, even though it thinks of itself and it wants to be above politics, it is a federal agency in a political world. And so as a manager, I learned that I had to be good at that. I had to understand what people wanted when it wasn't necessarily what I thought was the best. And I had to listen and factor their concerns in and where possible, if they were legal and appropriate find a way to you know at least accommodate some of what they wanted while still doing the resource management thing.

Speaker 1: 11:39

So I think it was a good background but again science without a policy understanding is not enough to be successful in an organization like the National Park Service.

Speaker 2: 11:50

This question might be better served later in the podcast but I I can't help myself because your answer is so perfectly lends itself to this question is, you know, I am somebody who absolutely adores the national parks and care about them deeply and you've talked about how these places emotionally resonate with millions of people across the country and the world that come here to see these beautiful places. I think it's easy to forget when you're in these magical places, the national parks are political and the things happen in these parks and if you enjoy them you have to stand up for them. So what would you say to somebody that were to say that national parks aren't political and it's just nature and we just get to go out and enjoy it?

Speaker 1: 12:30

I'd say that's nice. Who's who's paying for it? And and who makes the decision on on what the budgets are? Who makes the decision as to which areas are protected? And who makes the decision as when you have to wrestle with conflict?

Speaker 1: 12:47

You know, Big Bend is fairly lucky in that it doesn't have much conflict with other landowners or sometimes other federal agencies as many other Western parks have. You know, we'll talk about Mexico. That's a whole different issue. But we don't have a conflict in Big Bend with Mexico. We have a conflict with policy The United States has towards Mexico.

Speaker 1: 13:07

But you know it's a myth that we exist about politics. And so you know if people love national parks, they need to tell their congresspeople that they support them and why. And you know one of the other things that I think a lot of people think with all the best of intentions but it's just not something that they're exposed to is that these places manage themselves and nature takes care of itself. But you know, who's cleaning the bathroom? Who's paving the road?

Speaker 1: 13:38

Who's fixing the roof? And so you know the good news is that most people have these great experiences in national parks and that is in part because these are wonderful places that do largely speak for themselves. But there's also some really talented staff behind the scenes that are doing the work to put them in as good condition as we can afford to put them in. So I often say to people I'm really glad you're having a great experience while you're here in the park and we hope that you'll give us some thought the fifty one weeks of the year that you're not here and recognize some of the work that happens behind the scenes so that the park is in as good condition as you found it when you came.

Speaker 2: 14:15

Thank you for that. And I I hope that resonates with people. You know, we get to enjoy these places year round because of park rangers and staff. And Right. You know, I think when we have the opportunity to stand up for something as powerful as national parks, I look at it as a great opportunity to be able to take part in something that is larger than myself to protect these beautiful places.

Speaker 1: 14:35

And and you know parks are political but I try not to be terribly partisan and keep Big Ben Wild which we'll talk about later, is definitely a nonpartisan organization. But at the same time I have to acknowledge that the current administration is really very very hard on public servants and national parks. I don't think it's aimed at national parks. We're just caught up in in ideological way of doing business right now. But park staff have been cut by more than 25% since the Trump administration has taken over.

Speaker 1: 15:05

And there's a real big push to move as many positions as possible to the front side so the visitors see them. And all that behind the scenes stuff is is in big trouble right now. And so at Big Bend we have geologists and biologists who are working the visitor center for example. And they're paid a lot more than the park rangers that normally work visitor centers but there aren't enough of them right now. And so it's facade management and it's just not sustainable.

Speaker 1: 15:34

And you know one of these months or years something really tragic is going to happen in the national parks. And let's hope that it's not blamed on the National Park Service who no longer has the capacity to prevent that.

Speaker 2: 15:47

Absolutely. I mentioned earlier our conversation is gonna be based around the current administration's plans to enact a border wall whether it be physical or a smart wall through the heart of Big Bend National Park. Before we get into that though, I would love for you to lay the groundwork for why Big Bend National Park is special, why it's protected, and then of course we'll get into how a border wall could undo that.

Speaker 1: 16:11

Well, first of all, Big Bend National Park is big. It's 800,000 acres and that is the size of a state, albeit a small state. But when you think of the budget of Rhode Island versus the budget of Big Bend National Park and the number of employees the state of Rhode Island has versus what Big Bend National Park has, you're talking different universes. It is very remote. Probably the hardest park to get to in the Lower 48.

Speaker 1: 16:37

It does have two paved roads that go into it but from park headquarters and the main visitor center, it's a 100 miles to the nearest full size grocery store and that's even a stretch of a term. And it's 200 miles to a Starbucks. It's 200 miles to an airport. You can only get there by road in one direction and that's from the North because again you have Mexico and the Rio Grande on the South. But it wasn't established as a national park because it's remote.

Speaker 1: 17:03

It was established as a national park because it's got this amazing geology, biology and scenery. And just think of the map of The United States. Almost everyone has just this vague idea of this southern boundary which flows along the Rio Grande which makes a big s curve. That first s is the Big Bend Of The Rio Grande and that nestles Big Bend National Park in it and so in a lot of ways the park is identifiable from space unlike most other national parks because you can see the Rio Grande. 118 miles of the lifeblood of the park is the Rio and granted it's not the river it once was because so much of it is dammed and so much of the water is taken out by irrigators upstream.

Speaker 1: 17:49

But nonetheless, it is a hugely important water source for plants and wildlife. And everything flows downhill of course to the river and that will that's a seed planted for the border wall discussion and why logistically, you know, aside from all the other issues, logistically a border wall is really a tough thing. But you've got the lowest elevation where the Rio Grande leaves Big Bend National Park at about 1,800 feet above sea level and the highest elevation is about 6,000 feet higher at the peaks of the Chisos Mountains. And so the center of the park is this volcanic mountain range known as the Chisos and it is the only mountain range that is fully enclosed in any national park in The United States. It's a sky island so because it's so much higher you have you have a different climate.

Speaker 1: 18:41

You have much more moisture. You have different plants. You have different animals. And then you've got the desert in between. So Big Bend National Park has, depending on whose data you count, either the highest or amongst the highest biodiversity of any national park in the country.

Speaker 1: 18:58

More nesting bird species than any other national park. It has incredible geologic record, over five hundred million years of exposed rocks of every different kind. And having started my career in Utah where the rocks are generally flat lying and really easy to understand, Big Bend has some of the most complicated geology. You know, I would stare at things and say, is that basalt? Is that limestone?

Speaker 1: 19:24

I don't get it. Know? And as long as I was there, I still don't get it. Which is why Big Bend National Park needs a geologist to help keep the superintendent straight. Just a spectacular place and, you know, very, very hard to get to, not on the way to anywhere.

Speaker 1: 19:40

It's also an online national park. It was established by congress in 1935 and Texans were jealous of of the national parks in the West and they wanted one of their own. And they looked for where in the state do we have really unique scenery and geography and plants and animals and they identified this place. And it took nine years for the land to be purchased because the the bill was passed during the depression and the terms were by congress, sure, we'll have a national park but Texas, you have to buy the land and donate it to the federal government. Something that would never happen today.

Speaker 1: 20:18

But it's referred to by many people as Texas's gift to the nation. So it's it's a spectacular place and you know, it's it's probably the one of the least visited traditional national parks in The US because of its remoteness. And that's also one of the reasons why when you get there it remains almost a place out of time.

Speaker 2: 20:41

Well, explained the uniqueness and and why Big Bend National Park is protected. So now if we can take a couple of steps further and now give a more broad and general overview of maybe in chronological order of current administration's plans, how they've developed, and where we currently stand today in terms of the border wall.

Speaker 1: 21:00

Well, let's step back a little bit. The the border with Mexico, know, runs from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf Of Mexico. And you know, a very large chunk of that, I'm not sure what percentage, but probably 60 or 70% of it is the Rio Grande from El Paso all the way to the mouth in the Gulf. And you know, this administration starting well, in the first Trump administration really was very concerned about securing that border. And so putting up a border wall has been a high priority for them.

Speaker 1: 21:35

I will say having been responsible for a 118 miles of land along the border in the National Park And then with the Rio Grande Guadalcanic River, a total of 245 miles of border. I am very sensitive to and appreciative of the need for border security. And so the discussion we're gonna have about a wall being the wrong answer is not the same as saying there should be an open border that is not secure. So I just wanna make that clear. But you know where there are land borders and public land, means mostly New Mexico, Arizona and California.

Speaker 1: 22:13

The administration has bought has built border walls or barriers on almost all of that land. Some of which crosses other national parks and protected areas. And you know, whether you like that strategy or not, know, it is highly disruptive to the environment and any wildlife and water courses and things of that nature. So those physical issues, again independent of whether you think this is necessary for border security, those physical issues are even bigger when you're looking at building a wall along a river. All water as I said earlier flows downhill And in a desert environment, you're looking at many dry water courses that flood in, you know, summer thunderstorms every three years or you know, on irregular basis.

Speaker 1: 23:03

And and things that are dry 99.9% of the time become raging torrents at other times. And so a wall is also a dam and it will block everything that is that is going to be there. So anyway, Big Bend National Park had been discussed periodically since the beginning of a border wall discussion for a potential barrier of some sort. And the first time it really became a serious issue was before I arrived. It was around 2016 or 2017.

Speaker 1: 23:37

And at that time, Texas governor Greg Abbott, who was still the governor, was on record saying he did not think a border wall was necessary or appropriate in Big Bend National Park. And I didn't follow that issue very closely at the time because it didn't occur to me that in a few years I would be responsible for that place. But that issue went away and so when I got to the park, I always knew that the border issue was sensitive and I got there in 2018 during the Biden administration and I was there through the beginnings of the second Trump administration. And though their policies were, you know, 180 degrees different, Mexico was highly sensitive issue regardless. And you know, the park does have some illegal activity crossing.

Speaker 1: 24:25

There's no question about it. The border is divided by the border patrol into nine sectors or segments along the border. The biggest of those is called the Big Bend Sector. That's 517 miles of the 1,200 some odd mile border. It's kind of a little bit difficult for us in that it's got the name of the park because it's way bigger than the park.

Speaker 1: 24:51

But nonetheless, the Big Bend Sector covers most of West Texas and it is the quietest sector of the entire border and it always has been since they've been counting numbers. And that's not because you have this big national park and the biggest state park in Texas just upstream. It's because it's the most remote and difficult area to reach in Texas and it has terrain which is just as wild on the south side of the river as it does on the north. So if you are an individual or a family unit or you are a coyote that is carrying people for for money to illegally cross the border, there are just way easier places to cross than in in the Big Bend sector. And then in the Big Bend National Park which is the wildest part of that, the most remote, the most difficult terrain and across the Rio from the most difficult terrain in Texas, the park is by far the quietest section of the border by far.

Speaker 1: 25:50

And so any argument that any administration makes that there is a border crossing emergency in this area, the data just don't support that. But nonetheless, you know, ideologues in this administration want to finish what they started in the first Trump administration and wall off the entire border. So it's really an issue that has risen to national attention. Today is April 7. It was the February.

Speaker 1: 26:23

So we're locking less than two months that this has been an issue. But Customs and Border Protection, which is the parent agency of the US Border Patrol, they have a website. It's the smart wall map. Quote unquote smart wall. And it's color coded and they have every segment of the border marked by color.

Speaker 1: 26:44

Either the wall exists, one is planned or they'll be technology only. And for as long as I have been aware of that website, the area through Big Bend National Park, the Rio Grande Wilde Messinaire River downstream, Big Bend's Ranch State Park upstream and even the private lands for dozens of miles upstream of the state park were all marked as detection only. And so that was the status quo and you know we were going along working closely with the Border Patrol. I will also add that the border patrol has a substation inside Big Bend National Park. When they're at full staff, they have eight agents there.

Speaker 1: 27:22

They live and work amongst the National Park Rangers. They live in the communities we live in. We know them as neighbors and friends. And we get along with them really well. And it's such a remote assignment in the border patrol that has traditionally been a very desirable job for those who want to get away from everything else.

Speaker 1: 27:40

And so whether it's they want less activity or they wanna be in the real wilderness, For whatever reason, the values of many of the border patrol agents are very consistent with the values of National Park Rangers. And so, know, border patrol gets a really bad name in a lot of places but we had very good relationships and a lot of respect for them there. And never in my five years did I ever hear anyone in the border patrol at the local level or up at the sector level which managed the entire 500 some odd miles ever say that they needed a border wall. And in fact, the informal conversation amongst them and pretty much everybody I ever talked to whether they were ranchers or elected officials or sheriffs, republicans, democrats, conservatives, progressives, just about everybody thought a wall is the wrong answer in this place. So that was the status quo going into mid February.

Speaker 1: 28:36

And then with no public announcement, no explanation, one day that map changed. And suddenly it went to the color indicating that they were intending a full border wall and while they didn't ever publish what the design would be, if you read the explanations of what a full order barrier in the smart wall includes. It could include, doesn't necessarily would include, but it could include a 30 foot tall steel bollard barrier, steel filled with concrete, razor wire, a road on either side, towers every so often and and lights. And then if you think about what does it take to build that and then maintain that, You're talking about additional roads because most of this area is roadless. You're probably talking power lines.

Speaker 1: 29:29

You may be talking buried cables and you're certainly talking about a level of activity and lighting that would destroy any sense of wildness. Therefore, the people as well as the wildlife. So in early February, a lot of people noticed just about at the same time. But I have to give a lot of tremendous credit to the Big Band Sentinel, a small newspaper out of Marfa, Texas that has done some fantastic reporting on this. And if I knew how to nominate them for a Pulitzer Prize, I probably would or should.

Speaker 1: 30:04

But in any case, it was very quick that people saw that and said, oh my god. This is not only a bad idea but we have to do something about it. And people started spontaneously speaking out and organizing and what's remarkable is some of the loudest and most effective and credible voices were local sheriffs. And these are not exactly what you'd call card carrying liberal people. You know, one of them, Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland of Terrell County, Texas which is just downstream of Big Bend National Park.

Speaker 1: 30:41

A man that I never met in five years as superintendent. But he has a hat this big, a belt buckle almost as big and speaks with a thick Texas accent. And he speaks West Texas in a way that I never will. He's also got tremendous credibility because he spent something like twenty five years with the border patrol before becoming a local sheriff. And ironically enough, I met him about a year ago when we both were asked to testify before congress on a bill relating to border security but not a wall.

Speaker 1: 31:12

We sat next to each other in the hearing room in the House of Representatives and we were testifying on opposite sides of the bill. He was for it. I was against it. And yet we both realized that if we were listening to what the other said, probably agreed upon about 80%. And we talked for a few minutes.

Speaker 1: 31:30

We exchanged business cards and I thought, know, I like this guy. You know, we probably don't agree on a lot of things but we both love this land. And Sheriff Cleveland was one of the first people who publicly came out against the wall and he said, I absolutely believe in border security. And if you look at his social media feeder, it's very credible. He is a strong border security advocate.

Speaker 1: 31:52

Yet he has made it very clear that this is the wrong answer for this place. And so that business card that I'd been having on my desk for a year, I finally called the number and talked with him and thanked him for speaking out and said, you know, we were on we were playing for opposite teams a year ago but we're on the same side right now. And right now, I wouldn't say we're BFFs but we are texting and emailing frequently and trading information and strategy. And and and so the sheriff Sheriff Cleveland organized the four other sheriffs in the Big Bend area counties, more republicans than democrats. And they have jointly written a letter to the governor and to anyone else who will read it, you know, saying this is the wrong answer for this place.

Speaker 1: 32:43

They're very in favor of technology and with some caveats, I am too. Provided that the technology can be as unobtrusive as what's there now. There are hundreds of of high-tech instruments. I will not talk about exactly what they are. And they may have changed in the almost three years since I retired.

Speaker 1: 33:03

But there's a lot of technology already in the national parking surrounding areas and it is done jointly by the border patrol, the National Park Service, and the sheriffs. And it works. And so yes, there are people who cross the border but those numbers are actually extremely low and again regardless of what one thinks of the Trump administration's policies and the way it is implemented and they have very effectively closed the border, which is another argument for you don't need to spend billions of dollars to build a wall here. And if it's if it's advantageous to augment the technology provided it can be done in concert with the people who know the land the best and they can continue to try to make it as unobtrusive as possible, I don't think anyone's gonna have any real issue with that. But based on the pushback and the five elected senior officials in each county have also come out against the wall.

Speaker 1: 33:57

47, I think it is, state legislators in Texas, mostly Democrats, but a few Republicans have come out against the wall. Interestingly, governor Abbott has been fairly silent. He's been quoted by some media as saying he would prefer a non physical wall solution but he hasn't said that in so many words to the best of my knowledge. And I don't know there are very many other senior elected Republicans who said anything. So saying nothing to me also says a lot.

Speaker 1: 34:32

Know, I think that you know, they are very concerned about their relationships with the current administration. And but you know, if they really thought a wall was the right answer, I suspect they would be speaking out on that as well. So possibly as a result of public pressure or probably even more so things that happened behind the scenes that my group and many others have been working to try to influence big donors to the Republican Party and people in Congress who speak to the people who are making the decision. And we've been talking to Democrats and Republicans and and getting a good audience from all. Anyway, they have changed that map again equally quietly and without any announcement or explanation.

Speaker 1: 35:19

So no longer does the National Park or the Wild And Scenic River show a border wall that it shows technology only as part of the quote unquote smart wall. The pushback and concern continued on the state park and then about a week or so ago, they actually backed off there as well. So if you believe the current map and you believe that it will never change again, it would appear that the state and national parks and the Wild And Scenic River will be faced with technology only. But the problem is frankly because there's been no transparency and no credible public statements from senior officials and the fact that some of these changes coincided with the firing of Homeland Security secretary Christy Noem, it suggests to a lot of us that there are some good people in high levels of border patrol and customs and border protection behind the scenes who are trying to do the right thing. But it's not really clear that they have or they can't say whether or not they have the support of the political leadership above them.

Speaker 1: 36:24

So the fight continues and there's a lot of private land just upstream of the national park and in between the state and national parks that is still vulnerable to a wall. And while it may not be federal or state protected land, it's still a major impact on those lands and on the livelihoods and on the economy and potentially downstream as well. So our current status is we don't actually know what they're planning. And we hope that the map remains the current map. But until a public statement by someone credible enough to make that public statement is made, we're going to continue pressuring as much as we can.

Speaker 1: 37:08

And we think think we'll defeat the wall at least in the protected lands. We are hopeful but not quite as optimistic on the private lands.

Speaker 2: 37:18

Thank you first for this terrific overview of this. And I think as you outlined, this is bipartisan support for not having the wall or any intrusive measures within this area. Also adding some color to this article from the Texas Tribune states that this area that we're talking about accounts for less than one and a half of a percent of total border crossings from Mexico into The United States. Because we don't know, I guess, the end result of this is going to be, what would be the effects of a physical barrier or even smart smart wall technology being implemented into Big Bend National Park and the surrounding communities, What are we looking at in terms of the ramifications for these ecosystems?

Speaker 1: 38:02

I'm gonna back up a second, Joey, and actually say that the numbers are published at the sector level. That's that 500 some some odd miles thing. And and your quote of percentage is correct for the sector. But the border patrol has traditionally shared the numbers of of apprehensions inside the actual 118 mile national park, and those are even smaller. So you're looking at less than zero point o 5% of all the traffic across the border in Big Bend National Park.

Speaker 1: 38:32

I don't have data for the state park but it's probably fairly similar. So to your question, what would the impact be? Well, let's talk about the natural resources first and then talk about the human impact because they're both significant. You are looking at a wall that if it's big enough to stop people, then it's big enough to stop any large wild wildlife. And one of the great conservation success stories of the Big Bend area and all of Texas is the return of the Mexican black bear to Big Bend National Park and and the surrounding area.

Speaker 1: 39:06

In fact, bears are now numerous enough in the gateway community around the National Park that they have called on Texas Parks and Wildlife and the Park Service to help them come up with bear proof trash strategies like we have inside the national and state parks. Fortunately, didn't blame it on us. They generally think it's pretty cool except when it's in their dumpster, guess. And so that continuity between Mexican protected lands and we haven't talked about it but when Franklin D Roosevelt dedicated the park in 1944, he said this project will only be complete when Mexico protects its lands on the southern side of the border. And that was a dream for decades and Mexico has done that to some extent.

Speaker 1: 39:52

There's actually more than a million acres of protected lands on the South Side Of The Rio Grande and more miles of the Rio Grande itself are in their equivalent of a national monument than we have in our wild city group. The problem though in Mexico is that the federal government owns none of the land and has virtually no legal or regulatory authority. And so they are protected but not nearly as well as as the American lands are. But there's nonetheless a very small underfunded science and conservation staff that work for the Mexican government that we work with as closely as we could considering the politics of the border. But there is continuity of ecosystems for sure.

Speaker 1: 40:36

And so you have big mammals like bears and mountain lions, but also bobcats and and other cats and maybe even jaguarundis coming across. While the birds are not gonna be stopped by a barrier, many of the birds like the yellow billed cuckoo are very, sensitive to noise and human activity. And so the construction activity of a border wall, would probably drive those endangered species away, perhaps never to return. You're also looking at, lighting along the entire, boundary or entire border wall. And these are the darkest night skies in North America, in in the Big Bend area.

Speaker 1: 41:17

In fact, the American lands in the national park, the state Park, and many of the counties surrounding voluntarily being being part of it and the Mexican protected lands are all part of the world's largest international dark sky reserve. And so, you know, if you're standing in the middle of the park 20 miles from the border and looking in the other direction, you won't see the wall. But you probably will see the light from the wall at night. And, you know, the darker the sky, the more sensitive it is to light. Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine that customs and border protection is going to be night sky sensitive in this lighting.

Speaker 1: 41:53

It's not impossible, but you know, that's not part of the discussion right now. Hydrologically, you are looking, as I said earlier, at blocking hundreds of small stream courses. And you know, these riparian areas are vital water sources for wildlife. They are corridors that plants you know, colonize and go upstream and rely on groundwater. You are looking at the walls being flood barriers and in theory, they'll have gates, but, you know, those are known not to work very well.

Speaker 1: 42:31

From a human side, in addition to just the perceptions of the night sky, you are looking at a lot of people who come to this area for the wild character of the park and there's a whole economy that is based on tourism and two of its main elements are what they call astrotourism. People are coming for the night sky and the other one being the river. There are a lot of outfitters in Terlingua and other areas in in Southwest Texas that do canoe trips and raft trips and kayak trips and day trips and week long trips and you know, at least one border patrol official has said, well, each outfitter would have a gate and a code they could use. Nobody really thinks that that's credible. But even if it were true, it would impede the being able to get off the river in case of emergencies where there isn't a gate.

Speaker 1: 43:26

And it's gonna pretty much destroy the sense of wildness in the view. Looking at Mexico ironically would look wilder than looking at the the wall on river left in The United States. And so, you know, there's an expectation that would have a massive negative impact on tourism and the economy. Big Bend National Park alone contributes over $60,000,000 to the West Texas economy. It contributes between five hundred and seven hundred jobs a year.

Speaker 1: 43:53

You know, and that's in the tourism industry that supports all these people. And there is no oil and gas or mineral development in this part of Texas. And so this is the main part of the economy. And so, you know, you're also looking at these little tiny really remote towns that people go to because they are really tiny and remote. And, you know, I think sometimes of Terlingua as being a little bit like an Alaskan town transported to the desert.

Speaker 1: 44:22

You've got people who are very libertarian in their views in the sense of they don't want anybody telling them what to do but they love the land. And and, you know, their sense of freedom is is at huge risk. You're looking at archaeological sites all along the river. The river, you know, rivers everywhere are the center of commerce and the center of human activity. And, you know, we draw political lines between states and countries along the middle of the river.

Speaker 1: 44:52

But the river unites people. It doesn't actually divide people historically. And so you have archaeological sites, many of which are unknown but assumed to be there based on things we found elsewhere, all up and down that river corridor. You've got family and historical cemeteries right in the river corridor. And we know at least two of those that have been threatened with eminent domain for construction right through their family cemeteries.

Speaker 1: 45:20

You're looking at these little towns that don't have any significant amount of extra drinking water and maybe don't even have enough of what they've got, the people that are currently there. You're looking at not enough power and power that fails regularly. You're looking at not enough landfill space. 80 miles to a tiny little hospital. And and so the ability of these communities forgetting the impact of the border wall itself to support a construction camp of 300 to 500 people for up to two years, It would destroy these communities.

Speaker 1: 45:52

Homeland Security thinks that you can solve any problem with enough money and they have all the money you'd ever want. But some environmental issues you cannot solve with money. And so you're looking at a complete destruction of a way of life and a sense of place in addition to all the environmental and cultural impacts. So you know, there's nothing more destructive that anybody can think of in this area than a full fledged border wall.

Speaker 2: 46:20

There's also a counterargument that building a wall, whether it be a physical barrier or smart technology, would infuse the local economy with jobs and money. How is that perceived by you and and what's the actual reality of that?

Speaker 1: 46:36

I I think there is truth in the short run to that. But it's you're talking about a complete exchange of what kind of economy you're talking about. But you know, if you have a several 100 person construction camp, you will have some spending money. Know, certainly there will be landlords that will make some money from from rental of their places. But you're also looking as I said at 80 miles to a grocery store.

Speaker 1: 47:03

And so with all the money that Homeland Security has, how much of that money is actually gonna stay in the community? Odds are they're gonna have to bring in people and bring in food and bring in water. And, you know, these are all folks that are living away from their families and so a lot of the money will also be exported elsewhere. So yes, there will be a lot of transactional economic activity in the short run. But here's another interesting thing.

Speaker 1: 47:30

The border patrol itself has said that they don't have enough staff and they simply can't hire enough people regardless of how much money they have to actually effectively patrol a border wall. And and so, know, yes, there'll be some economic activity but you're destroying one economy in place of another and nobody wants it local.

Speaker 2: 47:53

Yeah. And and I guess I would ask the question, you take the the the money out of it and and you see, like, the exchange between creating local jobs for a short period of time versus disrupting the wild and scenic landscape of Big Bend National Park in the area. For you, I would imagine obviously that trade off is not of equal value.

Speaker 1: 48:15

Yeah. You're talking about just different scales. And you know, if if actually there was a crisis of uncontrolled migrant activity that was destroying other things that were of value, at least that would be an argument you'd have to give attention to and weigh the cost versus the benefits of that. But one of the other things, and I'm no border wall expert, but everything I have read suggests that people are really smart and capable and creative and they have found ways of getting under or over border walls. And and so, you know, here's the irony.

Speaker 1: 48:54

The Rio Grande is the easiest part of the journey into The United States. It's the dozens or hundreds of miles on the south side of the river and then it's the similar terrain on the north side that's much tougher. And so one of the things that the border patrol shared with me on a regular basis and we met with them regularly inside Big Bend National Park is anybody that does cross the river in this area, eventually one of two things happens. Either they give themselves up willingly, sometimes because they want to apply for asylum in the American system and other times because they are at risk of losing their lives because of lack of food, water, medical care or shelter. And then those who are able to survive the environment and are trying to escape into The United States, almost all of them, well all of them aim for a paved road at some point.

Speaker 1: 49:45

And if they escape the paved roads in the park, there are border patrol checkpoints everywhere north of the border and almost everyone the border patrol says is caught. If not in the park, they're caught outside the park. And so the need to block them right at the river, if if that even works, just it doesn't hold up. And none of the border security professionals in West Texas think that that's an appropriate response.

Speaker 2: 50:12

Big Bend National Park does not have any federally designated wilderness with inside the national park boundaries. There's many parks across The United States that have that designation. There was an attempt to give that designation to Big Bend in the seventies. Can you explain what it means to have federally designated wilderness and what's been the ongoing battle to get wilderness designation in Big Bend?

Speaker 1: 50:35

Well, let's start with the 1964 Wilderness Act, Joey. That was a law that was passed by the congress overwhelmingly, very bipartisan margins. And its purpose was essentially to create this enduring resource of wild places for the future American people so that everything didn't get paved and developed. You're looking at the post World War II generation and you know cities being leveled with urban renewal and highways being built everywhere. And there were some forward thinking people in the congress who recognized that you know, we have to do something to stop that.

Speaker 1: 51:13

And so wilderness is a hot button word. It's frequently misunderstood. But basically a wilderness designation can only happen on lands that are already federally owned and managed and it is basically an overlay on top of a national park, national forest, national wildlife refuge, BLM land, etcetera. So you're not looking at any land acquisition and in a place that's a national park which has been managed largely to protect the wild country, it's a little bit of a harder sell. In fact in the sixties, the park service itself said, hey, we're the good guys.

Speaker 1: 51:50

We don't need wilderness. But then you look at places like Yosemite Valley in the South Rim Of The Grand Canyon and you realize that the park service itself has sometimes been the major offender of wild places. And so I can say that a little bit more comfortably not being with the park service anymore. But Big Bend National Park was studied as most of probably all of the large natural areas that the National Park Service had in the nineteen seventies. And they actually did it twice.

Speaker 1: 52:18

I never have quite figured out why they did it twice. But once in the Nixon administration and once in the Carter administration. And in both cases going through a major public planning process, a lot of public input, environmental impact statement, and ultimately a proposal that about four fifths of the land of the park as it stood at that time, and it's grown a little bit since then, should be permanently designated by congress as wilderness, would have two major impacts. One is it would, based on where the boundaries were recommended, it would preserve all the existing developments. There's there's almost 200 miles of dirt roads and there's over a 100 miles of paved roads.

Speaker 1: 53:05

There are five visitor centers. There's three major drive in campgrounds. It's a fairly high developed park And all those would be outside the wilderness and would not be impacted by wilderness designation. But the wilderness itself, depending on exactly where you drew the boundary, would be between the roads essentially. And how close it came to the roads, you know, that's negotiable.

Speaker 1: 53:26

But basically the second thing it would do is prevent those roadless areas from ever becoming roaded areas and would prevent people who sat in the chair that I used to sit in of dreaming about building a new lodge or a new drive in campground. We'd still be able to build additional trails if we thought that was appropriate. And all the places that actually all the uses that people currently can do legally in the park would continue unabated. But the biggest argument against it was hey, the park's the good guys. It's already well managed.

Speaker 1: 53:56

You don't really need this. It's really hard to get a law in congress. I don't feel the sense of urgency. But the biggest reason to do it is before us right now because there's no better moment than realize what we take for granted that the park service is able to protect by a policy, not by a law, can be threatened in an instant by things that not just the park service but bigger forces than us can do. And so it did come up for congressional hearings in 1978.

Speaker 1: 54:27

But the year was an interesting one in that the Rio Grande Wilde and Scenic River was also being considered that year. And I think there was a general consensus from the Park Service, the congressional advocates and the environmental community that getting both of those through the congress in the same year was probably not going to happen. And there was a consensus that the river was more at risk. And, you know, I wasn't there at the time but I think in retrospect that probably was a good decision. And so they were able to pass the Rio Grande Wilde and the Scenic River Act and that's been very very successful.

Speaker 1: 55:04

But unfortunately, the the wilderness initiative kind of faded away. The park service has been on record ever since the nineteen seventies seeking an actual congressional act to protect these areas as wilderness. And it's really interesting. As a federal manager, I was strictly prohibited from lobbying for congressional laws with the exception of when those agency was already on the record and we had never backed off of that record. So I could say since the nineteen seventies, the Park Service has been in favor of a law but I couldn't say mister or miss congressman, would you pass a law to do this?

Speaker 1: 55:42

But you figure out what words you can use and get away with it. And so the park service since the seventies has actually had a very good policy but policies are not law. Policies can and are modified by not necessarily every administration but any administration can change them. But that policy says that where lands have been identified for wilderness designation, they should be protected so that congress can preserve that prerogative of doing it later. So don't do anything that would violate, at least on a permanent basis, the wilderness terms.

Speaker 1: 56:17

So again, we've done a pretty good job of protecting these places. So prior to the wall issue, it was a little bit difficult sometimes getting people to think this is really worth fighting for. You know, of all the major environmental issues, this one might be at less risk if we don't do it. But again, that has just totally changed of of of in recent times. And so in 2021, a group of citizens largely from Texas, people who knew the park and loved it well, approached me as the superintendent and said, we would like to work with you to resurrect the wilderness recommendations from the nineteen seventies.

Speaker 1: 56:55

And they did not know that I had a really strong wilderness background. I had overseen a wilderness study all the way through legislation at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore And Parks that I had worked in previous to Big Bend, Three of them had won the National Wilderness Awards based on work that my team and I had done. So they were talking to the right guy. But they had tried this about a decade earlier with one of my predecessors and they had said to him and they also said to me, but we don't really like the boundaries that you have drawn back in the nineteen seventies. We think there should be more lands within wilderness.

Speaker 1: 57:34

And my predecessor and I had the same response which was, we don't disagree with you but we're not going to reopen or redo a wilderness study. It's a tremendously expensive time consuming effort and the politics of Texas have changed. And the odds of getting even the same number of acres in a new wilderness study past the public and the elected officials might be difficult. There may be more more to lose than to win. And ultimately Congress decides the boundaries.

Speaker 1: 58:03

So the agreement we made was that nobody would quibble over the boundaries publicly. What we would do is work together to try to figure out what boundaries might be acceptable to the Park Service even though I couldn't advocate for boundaries different than the official ones. And then we also did a study on my watch of lands at the very north end of the park that had been added since those nineteen seventies studies. And so we determined that most of those lands were eligible for wilderness. And so out of this effort came the group called Keep Big Bend Wild and it's a partnership between the Park Service and interested citizens.

Speaker 1: 58:43

And in fact, Keep Big Bend Wild won the fourth National Wilderness Award of my career in 2023 just before I retired because we were taking an approach that was unique in the park service. There's there's a whole lot of parks that are in the same situation Big Bend is of old wilderness studies that are going nowhere. These lands are eligible but there's no advocacy for them. And we our major issue with Keep Big Bend Wild was let's not lobby until we build public support. And and so Keep Big Bend Wild has been all about building public support for this.

Speaker 1: 59:20

And as I said, there were a few factors that were making that a slow process, although it was a positive one. So I retired in 2023 and to my delight the group said, hey, now that you're not a park superintendent anymore, would you join our side? And I was glad to do that. I'm not a very good retiree just, you know, doing my hobbies and watching television. And then about a year ago, they actually asked me would I lead the group.

Speaker 1: 59:47

So I am now officially the chairman of the Keep Big Bend Wild group. And so we were doing a few events a year. We have a website, keepbigbenwild.org, and a minor amount of fundraising. We are not our own five zero one c three, but we're financially sponsored by the El Paso Community Foundation. So they take care of all that legal paperwork for us and that saves us a bunch.

Speaker 1: 01:00:11

All volunteer group. Nobody's paid. And so we were slowly making progress and we've been talking to the legislators in Congress for Texas and I think they were listening but they were not convinced this was a priority. So you know the mandate they gave us was build enough public support so that we hear from enough of our constituents that this will be an easy yes for us because the overwhelming majority would want it. And then came the wall issue.

Speaker 1: 01:00:40

And and so, you know, there is the word existential threat is a bit overused these days, but there's really no greater threat to the wild character of Big Bend National Park than a border wall. And that was an easy sell within the group. We were a bit nervous about how much did we get involved in what would ultimately be a very highly political issue when we pride ourselves on being nonpartisan. But we're still nonpartisan. And so as it turns out is this issue for the most part.

Speaker 1: 01:01:12

We didn't know that when we decided to dive in. But the consensus from the public is not only do we need to stop the wall, but we need to protect the park from things that we never dreamed about. So I must say though, wilderness, had it already existed, would not necessarily have prevented the wall from being planned. Homeland Security does have the authority under other federal laws to waive every environmental law that exists. And so if wilderness was already there and if the wilderness would be impacted by the wall, well, it would create that much more objection but it wouldn't legally stop it.

Speaker 1: 01:01:53

On the other hand, one of the things that we've come to realize is the momentum that we hope continues against the wall and in favor of protecting the park leads us to be cautiously optimistic. There may be a good chance of getting a wilderness bill through congress in the next congress. And if congress does pass a bill in 2027 or 2028 to protect Big Bend for wilderness, they're gonna be making a very big statement that will be very current should a future administration decide it wants to do a wall or anything like it. There's also some growing discussion about if we can get a wilderness bill, maybe we can also get terms in it that would prevent homeland security from overriding the laws and prevent them from building a wall inside the national park. And that may be a little bit overly optimistic.

Speaker 1: 01:02:42

Clearly border security will always be an issue down here. But I think there are ways of saying border security is important and we will continue to work with the border patrol and it can be done. And in fact, when I testified before congress as I mentioned, my purpose of being there was to say border security already works. Conservation and border security are not incompatible in this area. You just have to make sure that that the agencies follow the requirements they already have for consultation and coordination.

Speaker 1: 01:03:14

So wilderness right now is is admittedly secondary to fighting the wall. But you know part of our message is twofold. One, we're going to defeat the wall in the national park and hopefully the state park, the Wild And Scenic River, and the private lands as well. But we're not done when we defeat the wall. We have to understand that these areas are far more vulnerable than we ever dreamed.

Speaker 1: 01:03:39

And let's seize the momentum. Let's let's take advantage of, you know, the bipartisan strong opinion, the absolute love that people in Texas and around the country have shown for protecting these areas. And let's get what we have needed ever since the nineteen seventies to protect these lands at the highest level that any federal lands can possibly be protecting.

Speaker 2: 01:04:02

Following on the last comment that you had made, how proud of you are you to see Texans and local communities and conservation leaders and sheriffs and people in Congress rally together to to fight for a common cause regardless of whichever side they lean politically in other areas but to recognize the beauty and the specialness of Big Bend and and fight for the same thing on this issue?

Speaker 1: 01:04:25

I'm not sure I can say it as well as you just did, Joey. I have in my long career in conservation in a lot of different places, I have never seen such overwhelming and practically unanimous support for common ground values of why we love and need public lands protected. And it really has transcended almost every divide that you can think of, whether it's political or ethnic or age, rural and urban. And you know West Texans for the most part are fairly laconic people. They don't go around bragging about how great Texas is because I think they say look if you look around and you can't figure that out yourself, there's probably no point in my trying to tell you that.

Speaker 1: 01:05:14

But now they're trying to tell everybody that because a lot of people, you know, I mean the great thing about Big Bend is people don't know it exists. The bad thing about Big Bend is that people don't know it exists. I think that's obviously changing. And here's paradox is that, you know, post COVID and with social media and the Internet, the park has gotten a lot more visitors than it ever had before. And you know, one of the consequences of this fight is a lot of people are learning about Big Bend and what we want them to know and enjoy and love it.

Speaker 1: 01:05:47

Overcrowding could be an issue in the future. But that's an easier issue to deal with than a wall, which is a permanent damage that you can't really manage for. So I am very proud of the people of not just West Texas but all of Texas and all of The United States. I mean, you know, this administration has has assaulted public lands every opportunity it gets. And most of those fights, I'd say the good guys are losing.

Speaker 1: 01:06:14

And it's way too early to declare victory here. But the signs are positive that we may very well win this fight, and perhaps this is a harbinger of things to come that, you know, the low point has been reached and we may be successful at fighting back to protect America's public lands, which is in my view, that's what makes America great.

Speaker 2: 01:06:35

There's nothing more American than fighting for our public lands and conservation and our beautiful landscapes throughout the country. And that was gonna be where I wanted to lead you next is say you don't have an attachment and you're listening to this to Big Bend National Park or West Texas. The reality is there's likely a fight going on in public lands in your area. And if you care about public lands, how would you encourage them to get to know their public lands on a a deeper level to the point where they feel empowered to go out and fight for the areas that are local to them?

Speaker 1: 01:07:06

Well, the first thing is please don't take them for granted. They're not there by accident. They're not there by themselves. They take management. So when you visit thank a ranger.

Speaker 1: 01:07:17

That's the first thing they're under. It's a real tough thing to do these days. But secondly, ask questions. And and frankly, the Park Service people and the Forest Service folks, they they're kind of hamstrung right now. They can't talk a lot.

Speaker 1: 01:07:29

But there's a lot of people in the media, people like you Joey, that are telling the stories behind the scenes. There's a lot of really good blogs and substacks and media out there. And so learn what the issues are about these places and there are still some opportunities for public input. We hope that it's more than lip service by the federal agencies when they seek public input. But make your voice heard.

Speaker 1: 01:07:53

And one of the things that Big Bend, the Key Big Bend has been doing is saying to folks, even if you are not local, but if you care about public lands, then make your voice heard. And while we have offered them talking points, and I'm sure we'll put that in your show notes, speak from your heart. Tell people why this is important to you. And, you know, I also think one of the challenges of the twenty first century is there's so much noise out there. There's so much media.

Speaker 1: 01:08:23

There's so much, you know, distrust of organizations and institutions these days that people don't feel like their voice matters anymore. And so we're also offering a few tips on how to make your voice matter. And I'd also in that long career did a fellowship on Capitol Hill. And I will tell you that phone calls to the National Office of Congressmen, they make a difference. Especially if you're a constituent.

Speaker 1: 01:08:48

They'll immediately ask you what your zip code is. And if you're one of their constituents, you go in one column. If you're another constituent, you go in another column and they may never read the other one. But if enough people call, no matter what the position of that office is, if enough people call, they notice it and they start paying attention. And you know, that is the first thing that you have to do in order to get them to change their minds.

Speaker 1: 01:09:13

So the other thing that's happening right now is the budgets are being just decimated. The Trump administration's proposed f y two thousand twenty seven budget would destroy the National Park Service. And yet they also are proposing a $10,000,000,000 fund to beautify Washington DC. That's three times the annual budget of the entire agency for the entire country. And and congress is not going to pass that, but that shows you where their values are right now.

Speaker 1: 01:09:41

So, you know, let your congressman know what's important and then vote frankly and vote for people who support the things that you believe in. And you know, every person counts and it's tough to fight the machine but the only way the machine ever gets defeated is if enough people fight it.

Speaker 2: 01:09:58

For people who are feeling defeated by news coming out every day, and it's hard for them to look at the news because they ex I've come to expect something that's hard for them to read, especially when it comes to conservation and public lands. Would you encourage them to reframe the mindset of trying to be optimistic that they're in a moment of time where they can really make a difference for the long term, and they can really make a difference for the future of public lands by defeating some of these ideas that are thrown out there and by supporting park rangers and national parks?

Speaker 1: 01:10:30

Optimistic may be a bit optimistic. But I'd say recognize that if we don't fight back, then the other side will definitely win. But I would also say, you know, the beauty of the public lands is that they are open to all of us and not everyone is fortunate enough to live near public lands. But if you have the opportunity to get outside and see some of these beautiful places and you know, muck around in a stream or put a fishing rod in or bird watch or if you're a hunter, you know, use the lands that you have been bequeathed by previous generations. And I think time spent in nature is healing and centering.

Speaker 1: 01:11:15

And you know, for me that's really really important. You know, I used to walk to work in Big Bend National Park and it was a short trip from my home to my office. But every single day I would look around me and say, I'm so lucky to be here and to be able to do this. And and most people don't have that good fortune of walking to work through a national park. But, you know, there are local parks.

Speaker 1: 01:11:38

There are local protected lands. There are riparian corridors. So, you know, I'd say try to center yourself with some reality of these places are good and then that can energize you to fight for them. And choose your battles carefully. You can't fight every battle at the same time.

Speaker 1: 01:11:53

You know, find the places that you care about that are threatened and and invest your energy in those.

Speaker 2: 01:11:58

When Big Bend National Park and the people that care about the park defeat the border wall, do you hope that folks look at Big Bend as an example of what can happen when people from all different sides band together and fight for the fight for the same thing?

Speaker 1: 01:12:13

Well, it would be great. You know, we're not doing it for that reason. But you know, if this is a case study that people write about and write songs about in the future, that would be pretty cool. I will say Keep Big Bend Wild is hardly the only group that's involved. And I have to give credit to the many local people and organizations that have existed and have sprung up spontaneously.

Speaker 1: 01:12:37

So I mean one of the amazing things about this effort is it's not organized. Nobody's in charge. But yet there's this confluence of people and opinion that are all pointed in the same direction, which is probably gonna be a great case study someday. So, know, I think this is potentially a turning point. And yes, I hope it's a great case study for the future.

Speaker 2: 01:13:01

Bob, this has been an incredible conversation. You are an incredible figure in the land of conservation and national parks and it's an honor to get to talk with you. But I do want to give you the floor if there's anything else you want to say whether that's encouragement for people to go outside or ways that folks can get involved today with Keep Big Wild or their local communities.

Speaker 1: 01:13:22

Well, Joey, you're very generous. As I said, this is not just me and it's not just Keep Big Men Wild. But I have given my life to this and you know, I could be doing a lot of other things from retirement, but this is the most important thing that I could be doing right now. I would say if people want to support the things that we've talked about today, keepbigbenwild.org is our website. You can can sign up to support us.

Speaker 1: 01:13:48

There's a support us button. It costs nothing. As I said earlier, we are associated with a five zero one c three, so if people are inclined to support us financially, we are very grateful for that. But their names are more important than their dollars are, to be perfectly honest. And one of the things that I think is also important for people to realize is that you know many of us are parts of organizations.

Speaker 1: 01:14:10

Some of us own businesses or are leaders of nonprofit groups. And I would say that businesses and organizations are really really important. So if you are able to sign up say for Keep Big Ben Wild or frankly for any other organization and say, you know, my company which does house painting in Lubbock, Texas supports this. I think that that carries a lot of weight, maybe even a little bit more weight than I am citizen of Lubbock, Texas. And I say that because, you know, we are represented in this state and many parts of the country by people who are very focused on businesses.

Speaker 1: 01:14:49

And I think it's important for people to understand businesses care about these things as well. So, you know, I could continue talking forever about this but we've probably gone long enough. Joey, thank you for the coverage. This is a critically important issue and maybe we can check back in a few months and figure out where we are. I mean one of the real challenges here is we don't know if we're gonna know when we win.

Speaker 1: 01:15:16

And I say when we win because I think we will win. But unless Homeland Security actually makes a statement that says this is what we're gonna do and we swear we're never gonna change it, which nobody thinks will actually happen, we may win without even knowing it and that's gonna be the, you know I mean, it's it's not a bad problem to have but it will be challenging to figure out, okay, when do we shift over? But I will say we're talking to congress already about wilderness and protecting this park. And the other last thing I guess I'd say is if you love a Big Western National Park somewhere, find out if it does have designated wilderness. Odds are if there's big natural areas, it either has it or it has eligible lands that are sitting waiting for people like you to advocate for them.

Speaker 1: 01:16:04

And you know what we're doing at Big Bend, wall or no Wall, can be done in other places and that's how we're gonna protect these lands the best for our grandchildren and theirs.

Speaker 2: 01:16:14

Well Bob, I'm always up for a conversation with you and joining the podcast and I hope that one day down the line you and I can just sit and talk about our our love for national parks without any concerns in the world and and and get to learn about your experiences that you've had throughout your career in the Park Service and now today obviously as a staunch conservationist. So thank you for everything and thank you again for for joining and and giving people an update on what's currently going on in West Texas.

Speaker 1: 01:16:39

Well, thank you for covering it, Joey. I really appreciate it and I appreciate the work that you're doing so keep that up as well. And that meeting we're gonna have, no technology. Sitting on a rock somewhere.

Speaker 2: 01:16:49

Yeah. Absolutely. Thanks so much for checking out this edition of the Safe Travels Podcast. I really hope you found it to be informational, and I hope it encourages you to stand up for public lands in your area. So if you like this type of content, it mean a whole lot to me if you followed or subscribed on whichever platform you're watching or listening on as it really does help out our podcast.

Speaker 2: 01:17:09

And until next time, safe travels.