Patterson Rebuffs National Park Service Interest in Christmas Mountains

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson is telling the National Park Service to "take a hike" on the acquisition of the Christmas Mountains.

Despite previous indications that acquiring the land would not be practical, the National Park Service has now asked Patterson to postpone the sale of the land, which abuts the northwest corner of Big Bend National Park, to allow it time to conduct an evaluation to consider the feasibility of purchase. Patterson's rationale for refusing to postpone the sale of the land to private interests? "No guns, no hunting, no deal."

That's right, despite the fact that the land was donated with the intent that it remain in public hands for the enjoyment of the general populace, Patterson's ever-shifting reasoning is that he

........ would not be willing to sell the Christmas Mountains to the National Park Service if it would mean that there would never be public hunting allowed on the property," Jim Suydam, Patterson's spokesman, said in a statement.

According to the Texas Observer,

Patterson, who allegedly keeps a pistol in his left boot and another in his waistband, calls the ban on packing heat in national parks "unconstitutional.”

The GLO (General Land Office,) which manages the land, is proposing to sell the land to private investors as early as its November meeting.

The GLO has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns on land it holds for the fund, and maintains that it must sell the Christmas Mountains as it is “unable to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to fence the land to protect it from poachers and to restore it to its original, native state.”

The GLO's claim that the land needs to be sold because of mismangement is disputed by many. Meanwhile, Patterson assures us that

the deed restrictions conveyed to the Land Office by the Conservation Fund will be conveyed to a private owner and will be legally enforceable. This means that they are bound by the original restrictions set forth by the Fund, yet will have greater financial means to manage the land.

That statement would be reassuring if Patterson had a history of honoring deed restrictions. But of course, if he had abided by the restriction in the original deed that said the land could not be sold without the permission of the Conservation Fund, we wouldn't be having this debate, now would we?

General Land Office Selling Land Donated by Conservation Group

The General Land Office is at it again. After the controversy over its proposed sale of land at Eagle Mountain Lake, the office agreed to the development of a park only after it became a political football in the last election. Now the office is proposing another controversial sale. It has taken bids for 9,269 acres of land in the Christmas Mountains adjacent to Big Bend National Park.

According to the Conservation Fund, who gifted the land to the state, the state was bound by deed restrictions and could not sell the land without the approval of the fund.

"It was the hope...that this land would be made available to the general public for hunting and other recreational uses," Richard Erdman, executive vice president of the Virginia-based Conservation Fund, wrote in [an] Aug. 8 letter.

Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson stated that the deed restrictions were probably unenforceable.

One of the bidders is Houston businessman John Poindexter, of J.B. Poindexter & Co. Inc. and owner of nearby Cibolo Creek Ranch Resort. Poindexter has been trying to buy land in and around the area for some time now. He previously made news when he initiated the sale of 45,000 acres in Big Bend State Park. After a public outcry, that deal fell through.

Poindexter's statements imply he is only interested in conservation of the Christmas Mountains land.

"The restrictions are so significant, that fundamentally, all you can do is look at the land."

Apparently, that's an argument we've heard before. Of the Big Bend sale, Poindexter had this to say.

The 46,000 acres that the state considered selling him wasn't being sought to expand his resort facilities, as some critics asserted, he added.

"The development potential — as was so frequently cited in the hearing — for this property is as close to zero as anything could reasonably be in the state," he said.

What he failed to mention was that an easement on the 46,000 acre sale allowed development of 4600 acres.

Regarding the Christmas Mountains land, the original donor, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, was disturbed enough about the pending sale of its land to issue this warning.

If the land sale goes through "the state of Texas (should) not look to the R.K. Mellon Foundation for any future help."

That sentiment was echoed by Carolyn Vogel of the Texas Land Trust Council.

"If the foundation intended for conservation to be the major outcome and it got developed instead, it could have an effect" on future donations to the state.

Hat tip South Texas Chisme and B & B.