Gunny456 said:

---

"I feel pretty confident that some engineering is being thought out on crossings and inlet tributaries."

---

Trust me, this is my last comment on the subject, but this is where you aren't aware of what is actually happening. Every place that water would normally cross should be getting some consideration for the water. Instead, more consideration is being given to making sure an illegal can't get through. Those two things are in conflict with each other. CBP doesn't want to put an agent at every box culvert. Every low water crossing is topped with a thick bollard wall that will catch debris. The private property rights of Texans all along the river are being crapped on, and there will be inverse condemnation claims for years.

Edit to add: less effort is being spent on true engineering, and more effort is being spent on speed of delivery. Two more things that are in conflict with each other.

So if there is a wall everywhere but there where will they be most apt to cross then?
Seems common sense that would be where there is no wall?

Respect your opinion. Guess we will have to see how it plays out long term.
For me I just want to keep illegals and drugs out of our country.

I don't think the wall has ever been sold as a drug trafficking fix. Without looking it up, I imagine multitudes more drugs enter the US at ports, by plane - lots of other ways not the Tx border. Am I incorrect here?

I'm sure it comes in anyway they can.

Has anybody actually confirmed that they are still planning to build a wall there? My understanding was that they had backed away from actually building the wall and were going to use other means that would be less intrusive. I have seen pictures and video of bulldozers working but also claims that they are just building a better road to allow them to patrol along the river. Is there any thing solid beyond conjecture or hyperbole to suggest that there is actually going to be anything other than a road and perhaps some sensors/camera installed?

As for the man camp story, the Chisos basin lodge has been planned for demolition and rebuild for a while now, but they have had issues with not having anywhere close by for field crews to live while doing the work. That camp could very well be for other construction projects that have nothing to do with a wall.

I can get the technology. Seems an effective way to provide surveillance on both the border and on both US citizens and illegals moving around in the park. But the wall is a little more interesting.

Several years ago, a novice 8 year old climber was able to scale a replica (although it was shorter, only 18 feet). Dropping a ton of $$$ to build a wall and having an 8-year old easily defeat it seems like a poor use of $.

The safety part also seems a little flimsy, as neither a wall nor cameras/drones will make anything safer for runners, hikers, campers, etc.

Gunny456 said:

---

So if there is a wall everywhere but there where will they be most apt to cross then?
Seems common sense that would be where there is no wall?

---

Yep just like putting a dam across a creek. The water flow will stop for a while but eventually it will find a way around the dam......so it will be along the southern border with walls, wets and drugs.

Senator Blutarski said:

---

Most drugs come through the ports.
Most illegal immigration is people overstaying their visas.

---

Could you post data to support your statements.......especially your second one.

You said the key word "if".

Thanks for the info.

Been there many times over the years sir. Took explorer scouts there on canoe trips probably before you were born. Even then they warned us of the Mexican traffic and the dangers of staying on the Mexican side.

I have always been a private property rights advocate and have worked within the field of wildlife and conservation.
I don't want to see BBNP messed up anymore than the next guy….but i have resigned myself to the fact that if worse comes to worse I also believe the park and its fauna and wildlife will be resilient and survive a border wall being built….even though I may not like it.
Funny that some of the same people concerned about preservation of our lands are then advocates of transmission lines, wind turbines, pipe lines etc that have destroyed views and serenity of many parts of Texas and peoples lands and ranches, farms with eminent domain abuse.
I have agreed with building the wall as I have believed that it would be worth it if it saves one teenage girl from being raped, or someone being killed by an illegal immigrant. You're right I'm an old and I've watched what illegal immigration and open borders has done to this country. I'm definitely not a real smart guy but smart enough to know our country can't sustain the uncontrolled mass influx of numbers as what was happening before Trump took office.
I certainly don't advocate for ruining BBNP or any wilderness. Hell, my degree was in WFS. Perhaps the wall is indeed unwarranted in BBNP. The case for opposition to it is well founded in many ways and has been rightfully voiced on this thread.
I liked a lot of scenic parts of Texas before the skyline became full of transmission lines and wind generators also…. but we live with those now as well….and I suppose we are going live with a border wall too.
I have many memories of being with friends and family at Big Bend. I don't want to see it destroyed either. I agree with others that I would hope there would be a better solution than destroying our lands.
But, there does need to be a solution of some kind to effectively secure our borders and protect our country…I think we all can agree on that.
Hopefully someone will come up with a solution/idea that will entail saving BBNP for what it is.

I was making a point of the fact that it was perceived dangerous even that many years back then from illegal activities and bad people.

Perceived dangerous? Or actually dangerous?

I have never advocated for any of those things, but ok.

I've never been to Big Bend National Park, but my guess is that you'd tell me not to go because of the danger. Is that safe to assume?

The park rangers told us to not camp on the Mexican side and to be aware of the possibility of bad folks along the river and suggested safe overnight campsites. I guess they thought there was danger? Regardless we did as they said.

On the Mexican side at night, camping with kids? No I would not feel comfortable. The same as staying at night on the Mexican side on parts of Amistad or Falcon.

Didn't name you as one that had either.

I think you may have me confused for another poster. I wasn't planning to cross the border to go camping.

My question was in reference to running an ultra distance trail race in the park (which I've since found out is in the State Park Ranch not National Park) and whether it's safe to visit/participate.

My reference to it being dangerous was a reply to Winky when he asked if I've ever been to BB…and I told him I use to be with explorer scout groups on canoe camping trips there way back…..and the rangers warned us to not camp on the Mexican side overnight because it was dangerous.
My point was that was decades ago and it was dangerous then according to the park rangers.
I have not been there in about 6 years and have no idea how it would be for you running there.

Oh gotcha, thanks that makes sense.

Yes sir. Just maybe if we quit giving them everything for free and coddling them and actually made them do what immigrants used to have to do and actually " earn" becoming a U.S. citizen….and do it right…we wouldn't need walls. Just enforce the immigration laws that are in place.

Senator Blutarski said:

---

You bet:
Visa Overstays vs Crossings

Open Immigration Overstays

The Center for Migration Studies found 62% of the newly undocumented were visa overstays from 2007-2019.

When Biden opened up the floodgates for his four years in office, it flipped, in 2023 it was roughly 860K crossers vs. 510K overstays, so about 60/40 the other way. Since the end of the Biden administration, it appears to have flipped back - record low crossings by all accounts. But I'm not sure if new numbers are out yet.

For drugs:
Fiscal 2025 Drug Seizures at the U.S.-Mexico Border
[url=https://www.wola.org/2025/11/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-drug-seizure-data-pope-leo-voices-concern-updates-from-the-americas/][/url]
USA Facts: Fentanyl Seizures at the Border

"As in prior years, CBP seizes more than 85 percent of drugs at the U.S.-Mexico border's ports of entry: the official border crossings, where people, vehicles, and cargo undergo inspection. The only exception is marijuana, which is seized chiefly in the areas between ports of entry, where Border Patrol operates."

So, now let me ask, if these facts are accurate, is an absurdly expensive and poorly designed and executed wall still the best solution . . . or is it political theatre?

---

If 62% are visa overstays from 07 to 19 they are already here and are not crossing the border to get here therefore that figure is a mute point when it comes to those that are attempting to cross the border for entry at the present time and in the future..

OK, let's look at current crossings, which are more impacted by enforcing current laws than building a wall:

Pew Research: Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border are at their lowest level in more than 50 years

This f****** sucks