I hope you have a great trip and thanks for not including me
Been there. You might or might not see any activity but I'm certain it will be happening around you. People trying to get away aren't likely to seek out people on their way.

Headed to Lajitas next week. I'll check the local pulse, but the wall certainly isn't favorable based on the comments on the various Facebook groups from the Lajitas/Terlingua Metroplex.

Gigem314 said:

---

Ag CPA said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Explain how putting a wall here would be useful. Juan isn't jumping across that river.

---

Feel free to side with Mother Jones and AOC on the issue based on a headline.

I'll stick with the Trump admin until further notice.

---

Typical MAGA that will do whatever Trump tells him.

---

Says the side that think a "welcome mat" at the border will solve the problems.

---

Finish the quote, homie.

army01 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Ag CPA said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Explain how putting a wall here would be useful. Juan isn't jumping across that river.

---

Feel free to side with Mother Jones and AOC on the issue based on a headline.

I'll stick with the Trump admin until further notice.

---

Typical MAGA that will do whatever Trump tells him.

---

Says the side that think a "welcome mat" at the border will solve the problems.

---

Finish the quote, homie.

---

No, homie.

Got it. I looked up some stats, just to see how historically dangerous the Big Bend National Park is. 6 murders since 1944, none since 2000.

Seems like it's safer to spend time in Big Bend National Park than almost any city in Texas. Which makes me wonder why the major funding for this area (rather than areas with more foot traffic and higher crime.

Not taking issue with border security, just more so from an opportunity cost standpoint and ROI on spending here versus elsewhere.

Gigem314 said:

---

army01 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Ag CPA said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Explain how putting a wall here would be useful. Juan isn't jumping across that river.

---

Feel free to side with Mother Jones and AOC on the issue based on a headline.

I'll stick with the Trump admin until further notice.

---

Typical MAGA that will do whatever Trump tells him.

---

Says the side that think a "welcome mat" at the border will solve the problems.

---

Finish the quote, homie.

---

No, homie.

---

"homie"

Are you two in a barrio?

IIIHorn said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

army01 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Ag CPA said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Explain how putting a wall here would be useful. Juan isn't jumping across that river.

---

Feel free to side with Mother Jones and AOC on the issue based on a headline.

I'll stick with the Trump admin until further notice.

---

Typical MAGA that will do whatever Trump tells him.

---

Says the side that think a "welcome mat" at the border will solve the problems.

---

Finish the quote, homie.

---

No, homie.

---

"homie"

Are you two in a barrio?

---

Maybe ask him since he led with it.

Sweep4-2 said:

---

Got it. I looked up some stats, just to see how historically dangerous the Big Bend National Park is. 6 murders since 1944, none since 2000.

Seems like it's safer to spend time in Big Bend National Park than almost any city in Texas. Which makes me wonder why the major funding for this area (rather than areas with more foot traffic and higher crime.

Not taking issue with border security, just more so from an opportunity cost standpoint and ROI on spending here versus elsewhere.

---

Because it's in the national park, it's an easy place to build. There is less red tape or legal challenges as opposed to private land.

Makes it even easier when you remove any laws that would hinder the project.

In June 2026 the the DHS waived dozens of environmental laws, including the National Park Service Organic Act, Endangered Species Act and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, to authorize construction of border barriers, roads and lighting through Big Bend National Park. It was the first time in U.S. history that the federal government had waived such a broad set of environmental protections for construction inside a national park.

army01 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Ag CPA said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Explain how putting a wall here would be useful. Juan isn't jumping across that river.

---

Feel free to side with Mother Jones and AOC on the issue based on a headline.

I'll stick with the Trump admin until further notice.

---

Typical MAGA that will do whatever Trump tells him.

---

Says the side that think a "welcome mat" at the border will solve the problems.

---

Finish the quote, homie.

---

And a giant lock on the door.



But, WTF good is that lock when your side doesn't just leave it unlocked, but you open the door and have someone waiting there with goodie bags for everyone that wants to walk through...

Sweep4-2 said:

---

Got it. I looked up some stats, just to see how historically dangerous the Big Bend National Park is. 6 murders since 1944, none since 2000.

Seems like it's safer to spend time in Big Bend National Park than almost any city in Texas. Which makes me wonder why the major funding for this area (rather than areas with more foot traffic and higher crime.

Not taking issue with border security, just more so from an opportunity cost standpoint and ROI on spending here versus elsewhere.

---

Well, who TF would they murder?

You could have 100K come through the border, and it's not like they'd run into anyone on their way out of BBNP...

IIIHorn said:

---

Denying Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

Besides, with today's technology, walls are unnecessary.

---

Sure, let's pretend there are not democrats like Biden and Mayorkas who would happily shut all that technology down.

Everyone here remembers Biden's term*. Why post something so blatantly false when dems have power?

TexAgs91 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Denying Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

Besides, with today's technology, walls are unnecessary.

---

Sure, let's pretend there are not democrats like Biden and Mayorkas who would happily shut all that technology down.

Everyone here remembers Biden's term*. Why post something so blatantly false when dems have power?

---

Your concern about funding is a valid one.

I still maintain that denying/inhibiting Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

samurai_science said:

---

nai06 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

nai06 said:

---

This is so unnecessary. That area has never been a hotspot for illegal border crossings (unless you count the random cows and horses that wander back and forth).

---

I grew up north of Big Bend and don't agree. I thought seeing Border Patrol helicopters and trucks chasing people was just normal life.

---

Specifically within the park its pretty minimal. Within the entire Big Bend sector there were about 3100 apprehensions in 2025 (down 74% since 2023).


And keep in mind the Big Bend Sector is massive. It covers 165K square miles including all of Oklahoma


Even if they stick to their "Smart Wall" idea, bulldozing new roads all across the park just isn't necessary.

---

Until Democrats Marxists enforce the border, its necessary.

---

FIFY

I'd definitely rather be there than a lot of Houston for sure. Having grown up out there I've seen and heard things the statistics don't reflect.

IIIHorn said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Denying Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

Besides, with today's technology, walls are unnecessary.

---

Sure, let's pretend there are not democrats like Biden and Mayorkas who would happily shut all that technology down.

Everyone here remembers Biden's term*. Why post something so blatantly false when dems have power?

---

Your concern about funding is a valid one.

I still maintain that denying/inhibiting Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bed idea.

---

It's almost like foolishly electing people who spent 4 years providing an app to help illegal crossovers and the cartels, plus encouraging caravans to come and claim asylum has consequences of the pendulum swinging the other way.

Gigem314 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Denying Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

Besides, with today's technology, walls are unnecessary.

---

Sure, let's pretend there are not democrats like Biden and Mayorkas who would happily shut all that technology down.

Everyone here remembers Biden's term*. Why post something so blatantly false when dems have power?

---

Your concern about funding is a valid one.

I still maintain that denying/inhibiting Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

---

It's almost like foolishly electing people who spent 4 years providing an app to help illegal crossovers and the cartels, plus encouraging caravans to come and claim asylum has consequences of the pendulum swinging the other way.

---

I do not agree with those people.

IIIHorn said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Denying Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

Besides, with today's technology, walls are unnecessary.

---

Sure, let's pretend there are not democrats like Biden and Mayorkas who would happily shut all that technology down.

Everyone here remembers Biden's term*. Why post something so blatantly false when dems have power?

---

Your concern about funding is a valid one.

I still maintain that denying/inhibiting Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

---

It's almost like foolishly electing people who spent 4 years providing an app to help illegal crossovers and the cartels, plus encouraging caravans to come and claim asylum has consequences of the pendulum swinging the other way.

---

I do not agree with those people.

---

Whether you do or not, we're seeing the consequences of policies that encouraged border crossings. Worse ideas have led to sweeping changes. It didn't have to be this way, but here we are.

Gigem314 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Denying Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

Besides, with today's technology, walls are unnecessary.

---

Sure, let's pretend there are not democrats like Biden and Mayorkas who would happily shut all that technology down.

Everyone here remembers Biden's term*. Why post something so blatantly false when dems have power?

---

Your concern about funding is a valid one.

I still maintain that denying/inhibiting Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

---

It's almost like foolishly electing people who spent 4 years providing an app to help illegal crossovers and the cartels, plus encouraging caravans to come and claim asylum has consequences of the pendulum swinging the other way.

---

I do not agree with those people.

---

Whether you do or not, we're seeing the consequences of policies that encouraged border crossings. Worse ideas have led to sweeping changes. It didn't have to be this way, but here we are.

---

None of my statements indicated I support policies that encouraged border crossings.

Do you support the politicians that support it? Or at a minimum do nothing about it?

IIIHorn said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Denying Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

Besides, with today's technology, walls are unnecessary.

---

Sure, let's pretend there are not democrats like Biden and Mayorkas who would happily shut all that technology down.

Everyone here remembers Biden's term*. Why post something so blatantly false when dems have power?

---

Your concern about funding is a valid one.

I still maintain that denying/inhibiting Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

---

It's almost like foolishly electing people who spent 4 years providing an app to help illegal crossovers and the cartels, plus encouraging caravans to come and claim asylum has consequences of the pendulum swinging the other way.

---

I do not agree with those people.

---

Whether you do or not, we're seeing the consequences of policies that encouraged border crossings. Worse ideas have led to sweeping changes. It didn't have to be this way, but here we are.

---

None of my statements indicated I support policies that encouraged border crossings.

---

What does that have to do with what I said?

1939 said:

---

Are any or you doing any homework on the plans? There is no plan for a wall in the park, there are a few very short distances with vehicle barriers which are essentially just a 4 foot fence without wire. The area starting a little east of BBNP to Lake Amistad is also a vehicle barrier. This whole thing is so overblown because of a lack of understanding of the plans.

---

Wouldn't surprise me if this is the case. It wouldn't be the first time people on here overreacted based on something they saw on social media.

1939 said:

---

Are any or you doing any homework on the plans? There is no plan for a wall in the park, there are a few very short distances with vehicle barriers which are essentially just a 4 foot fence without wire. The area starting a little east of BBNP to Lake Amistad is also a vehicle barrier. This whole thing is so overblown because of a lack of understanding of the plans.

---

Have you done any homework? How wide of an area are they plowing through the park for a new road? Are they lining the border of the park with lights and cameras? What habitat and archeological sites are going to be destroyed? Have you actually looked at their map? It shows a road going over a mountain that will have to be dynamited to build into. There may not be an actual wall going in the park, but the damage will be the same minus the steel. Part of the problem is the absolute lack of transparency and information from the feds. They are ramming this through with zero information being put out.
I ABSOLUTELY love Big Bend and have property west of Del Rio that will be affected by this project. I 100% support securing the border and blame Biden for creating this mess. But this is a massive waste of tax payer money to "fix" a non-existent problem.

Updated map from DHS website as of this morning. The entire project in the park will be a 24 foot wide road, with clearings up to 160 feet wide around it. Maybe if there was any transparency from the DHS or CBP regarding there actual plans, people would have a better idea of what is going on.



I'm all for the use of drone tech, cameras spread out (with no lights because why? we have night vision and heat mapping), satellite imagery, and other "non-invasive" border protection measures, but clearing this region for a huge road when less than 1% of all border crossings occur in the region (of which the park is only a small portion of) is asinine. The only good thing is now that there is largely bipartisan opposition at the state level, Trump's ego may make him back down from the proposed project and use the tech we have instead of needing a physical barrier of any sort in the park itself.

Gigem314 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Denying Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

Besides, with today's technology, walls are unnecessary.

---

Sure, let's pretend there are not democrats like Biden and Mayorkas who would happily shut all that technology down.

Everyone here remembers Biden's term*. Why post something so blatantly false when dems have power?

---

Your concern about funding is a valid one.

I still maintain that denying/inhibiting Texans access to the Rio Grande is a bad idea.

---

It's almost like foolishly electing people who spent 4 years providing an app to help illegal crossovers and the cartels, plus encouraging caravans to come and claim asylum has consequences of the pendulum swinging the other way.

---

I do not agree with those people.

---

Whether you do or not, we're seeing the consequences of policies that encouraged border crossings.Worse ideas have led to sweeping changes. It didn't have to be this way, but here we are.

---

None of my statements indicated I support policies that encouraged border crossings.

---

What does that have to do with what I said?

---

1939 said:

---

Are any or you doing any homework on the plans? There is no plan for a wall in the park, there are a few very short distances with vehicle barriers which are essentially just a 4 foot fence without wire. The area starting a little east of BBNP to Lake Amistad is also a vehicle barrier. This whole thing is so overblown because of a lack of understanding of the plans.

---

This.

It's been shown multiple times in this thread, but people are still mad about a physical wall that's not going up.

The "Technology Wall" makes total sense especially now with the drone tech that has exploded in the last couple of years. Zero reason to have a physical wall there.

Curious why there needs to be vehicle barriers int he park at those two locations. Are mexicans driving cars across the rio grande /border into the US?

I dont have the details about those...but I'm guessing they're just barriers for existing paths/roads.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I dont have the details about those...but I'm guessing they're just barriers for existing paths/roads.

---

Guess what? They aren't. You can literally watch videos filmed within the past week of them cutting new roads.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I dont have the details about those...but I'm guessing they're just barriers for existing paths/roads.

---

Illegal pathologists?