posted
Well, this would have gone well in the other thread, but I really do try to keep from derailing threads, particularly ones as charged with passion as the gorilla attack one.
Anyways, back on this topic. I wanted to ask (challenge, debate) about the value of the US - Mexico Border. The idea was mentioned concerning the possible merit of turning it into a game preserve for endangered species or something along similar lines. The exact post in particular (I hope it isn't too out of context) was:
quote: Ever been to the border? It's just land that nobody cares about. And we could do some pretty cool things there.
Whether it would actually curb illegal immigration to the US, I don't know. But if the region became a place that people cared about, maybe we could create jobs there for both country's citizens.
Please take no offense to this, but as one veteran to a true founding member of this community (even if not by number), I think this might be the most blanket statement I've ever read from you. I'd like to answer that implied challenge I suppose. Yes I have been to the border. I've spent just less than a month in Marfa, which is about 60 miles from the Texas - Mexico border (just north of the Big Bend). I'll discuss that area first. I personally love the area, desolation and all. I find it share a personal attribute with the Rockies: I think they are two of the most magical places left on the Planet, and their desolation or isolation is the sole cause of this. The rolling grasslands near Marfa, the rocky desert in the west towards El Paso, and the rolling shrub covered hills to the east all have their appeal. And having spent a month in a small town of less that 2,000 people, I did get to know them enough that they DO value not only their personal land in and around the towns, but also that of the surrounding countryside. There are few places left in this country where this very real privacy and equally real sense of community still exist. I personally would find it a tragedy if this type of life were eliminated: a level of tragedy equal to that of how I would feel if a major species is eliminated through human actions (yes, only major species. I simply not able to comprehend the number of species that go extinct each day). Threatening or eliminating the existing culture is too heavy a price to pay (again in my opinion).
Anything I said above about the Texas - Mexico border applied double for areas of the Arizona Mexico border (which I've lived about 30 miles from, and now live about 130 miles from). The ecosystem here is just as diverse, and even now, just as threatened as nearly any other in the world (I'd guess the exception is the corral reef). There are a huge number of species of flora and fauna in the Sonoran Desert alone. While the wildlife in the area is very resilient to the drought and heat, climate changes cause incredible damage. Phoenix, where I live now, is a good example. While Saguaro (large cacti, look like field goal posts) are natural to the area, within the city you can find the most sickly looking specimens anywhere in the region. And why is this? Not because of pollution (well partly this, but not primarily). The reason in these cases is often because a neighbor has planted a grass lawn, and irrigates it enough to maintain a generally green shade. Even the amount of saturation from a neighbor's meager lawn is enough to rot the roots, and kill, some types of desert plants. And of course, being the issue at hand here, as the plants and habitats go, so go the species of animals. I'm in Phoenix now because the Sonoran Desert, a stretch of land about 250 miles long and 50 miles wide, holds a strong sway over me. Here, and only here, is a type of habitat that really is truly unique to such a small area of land. Incidentally, the Sonoran Desert, extends about 100 miles into Mexico, and actually does constitute part of the border. Again, I cannot even fathom destroying this habitat to attempt to transform and relocate another type.
Even if the costs were weighed, and it was decided that some other habitat was deemed of higher importance, the feasibility is a long long shot. The reason the region has been, and continues to be, so desolate is the aridness. Water really does hold just as much importance and value as the oil that's pumped out of the ground along the Texas and New Mexico - Mexico Borders. Converting the region to a grazeable grassland has been a challenge. Changing it into any climate fit for supporting, oh say gorillas or pandas would require an undertaking so enormous and damaging, it'd likely affect thousands of square miles for each dozen in which that major a change was attempted (my reasoning here is that water would have to be imported, likely from New Mexico of Colorado. The Rio Grande is less grande than in the past, and runs dry along some of its length these days). The region in question, really is lucky to receive 15 inches of rain in a year (Yuma is about 7 or so inches a year I believe, another border town).
Now, alternative solutions... Believe it or not, there are successful examples of preservation type ventures, that are in existence more for the propagation of the species than as a zoo-type attraction. One successful one even exists in Texas (I know, that really is a shock to some). It's called Fossil Rim, and if find yourself just south of Fort Worth, I would highly recommend visiting (it's in a town called Glen Rose, yes the dinosaur footprint place). The name really is apt. The original mission of the place was to create large enclosures, which mimic the natural habitats of endangered species as much as possible. The venture has been a struggle from the beginning, and while it has changed hands a few times, it continues to have success in breeding rare species in captivity (Red Wolf, Black Rhino, etc.). The challenge of changing maintaining the habitats has been considerable. And the majority of the species they've successfully kept, have been African in origin (Giraffes, Zebras, Rhinos, gazelle-type creatures-who’s'-name-escapes-me, and others). To take creatures from an arid climate and raise them, took a fairly damp climate just to accommodate them. This makes some sense to me, in that creating and maintaining a not entirely natural habitat will be a resourcefully wasteful venture. Fossil Rim is only several hundred acres. I think the better (and possibly more feasible) idea would be to create such havens of habitats in areas that share some characteristics. I don't have a problem with small clusters of land, particularly that near cities which is already somewhat damaged (modified, altered, whatever phrase you like) being converted to habitats for species. But back to the original issue, the arid areas along the US - Mexico border would not support a large percentage of the Earth's species without great resistance.
Wow, that was a long prelude to a question. Well, here it is. Do you honestly think that section of the country could support a venture you mentioned above? Do you honestly think it should? Was it just a jest of sorts? I'm actually fairly curious about this, and since I don't suspect many other's would jump at the chance to defend the area, I will pick up the gauntlet if it has been laid down. Needless to say, at the very least I challenge the assumption that the border is an area that no one cares about.
Feyd Baron, DoC
PS: All suggestions and assertions in this post have been pulled... well, off the top of my head. I do have some experience with the areas, so take them at face value. If this does become a debate, I will support my statements with actual findings. in the mean time, I reiterate my suggestion to visit Fossil Rim or the Sonoran Desert. Both will give you good examples of rare habitats; one natural, one artificial. Besides, you can feed Ostriches at both.
EDIT: Because marinating land is not just impossible, it's silly.
Actually, the border preserve idea is from a story I wrote, in which the government actually did decide to set up a game preserve there in order to stop illegal immigration. And there's poaching to deal with...
But more to the point, your questions were excellent:
1) Could it be done? Yes! absolutely. Israel has turned a desert to rich farmland. It would easily be possible to do it along the area proposed.
2) Should it be done? Hell no! At least not there. Frankly, every time humans introduce species in a new environment, they risk the butterfly effect all but guaranteed by chaos theory. We have a horrible record with transplanting species, intentionally and unintentionally. Famous example is the near decimation of Hawaiian ground nesting birds by rats that were introduced from ships. And then, the near completion of the job by the mongoose which was introduced to kill the rats, but turned out to be better satisfied by eating the eggs of ground nesting birds. Finally, feral cats (another introduced species) have finished the job and now the only examples of native Hawaiian ground nesting birds are in dioramas at the Natural History museum, or in protected areas.
The point is we shouldn't do this kind of thing anywhere, but certainly not smack dab in the middle of a sensitive ecosystem.
Finally, let me say that it was a pleasure seeing the border region(s) through your eyes. I think most people don't care about it because it is desolate and you can't really drive through it and see pleasant scenery. THANKS!!!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Baron- Your thoughts reminded me of "Dune". I've always equated the desert and the ocean; breathtaking and mysterious in their vast size and seeming simplicity.
Last year, my family drove from LA to the Grand Canyon. There was something so hopeless and forelorn in the little one-gas pump towns. The boarded-up businesses that had so little appeal, the graffiti artists hadn't even bothered to use them as a canvas. I would hate to see some kind of program/preserve started that might be just as quickly abandoned.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
)
