A Christmas Mountains surprise

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson made a surprising announcement this week about the Christmas Mountains.

Speaking to a Fort Worth Republican club on Friday, Patterson suggested that officials at Big Bend National Park do not want to add the pristine mountains to the park’s inventory.

“Big Bend National Park doesn’t want it,” Patterson told the Republican Forum at the Petroleum Club in downtown Fort Worth.

What’s perhaps most surprising about the comment is that it’s not true. The National Park Service has proposed — in writing — to add the property to Big Bend. The proposal has been acknowledged previously by Patterson and the General Land Office. The top official at Big Bend and a spokesman for the National Park Service both agreed Friday that the proposal stands.

“As far as we’re concerned, it’s an open-ended offer,” said Big Bend Superintendent William Wellman.
Patterson has been at the center of a very public controversy after pushing to sell the state-owned property to private interests. The 9,269-acre range was donated to the state in 1991 by conservationists with the general agreement that it would remain in public hands. The School Land Board — over which Patterson also presides — rejected two private bids for the mountains after months of outcry.

In his comments on Friday, Patterson also bashed the Star-Telegram for its coverage of the issue and pointed out that he had letters from National Park Service officials indicating they were not interested in the Christmas Mountains. “They’ve turned it down three times. I’ve got letters from them. They don’t want it. Why? Nobody can get there. It’s surrounded by private property. There is no access,” said the Republican land commissioner.

While acknowledging that the National Park Service rejected the acquisition in the past, Wellman said that position changed after it appeared the mountains would get sold to private interests. The Big Bend superintendent also said there would be public access to the Christmas Mountains, although it would require a tough hike.

“We think it would be an appropriate addition to the park,” he said.

Comments

[panhandle]

Can nothing be done about this clown Patterson? He would be a joke except that he is in a position to be so destructive. His bizarre brand of fundamental zeal and personal agenda are what turn so many people in our state off of politics. Those lovely, stark mountains obviously belong with Big Bend National Park.

[Douglas Wright]

Does anyone know if there is a provision for recalling or otherwise removing a land commissioner? Can the governor do it, or the legislature? Given the overall political realities in Texas, I can't imagine that a recall petition would go anywhere.

[Gary Shannon]

What's the matter with that man?
Is he just crazy?

[Steven Morrell]

Patterson's antics have just gotten more and more bizarre. We really need to find out more about recall or impeachment or whatever the process is. I'm just afraid we'll wake up one morining and find out that he has somehow consummated the sale of the Christmas Mountains to some private sector crony and we'll have no recourse.

The Christmas Mountains need to be transfered to the control of the National Park Service just as soon as possible.

Post back if anyone finds out more information on this issue.

[David Hooper]

The Christmas Mountains may be a surprise but for those who have worked and observed Patterson's recent history - this is no surprise at all. If this individual continues to hold office, I'm sure there will be many "surprises" in the future. This is not good government.

[Jerry Patterson]

I have 2 letters from officials at the Big Bend National Park responding to my offer to convey the Christmas Mountains to them. Then superintendent John King stated, "In our recently completed General Management Plan...it was determined that there was no need to acquire this property because the deed restrictions placed on the property by the Conservation Fund...would provide sufficient protection to the property and to the parks view shed."

In a recent off the record conversation with a local reporter, it was stated by a park official that the Christmas Mountains tract was not wanted by BBNP.

Has the General Management Plan changed? Has BBNP requested aditional funding to acquire or manage the tract? Has BBNP found a solution to the access problem? Is there a newly developing threat to the view shed or to preservation of the tract? The answer to all these questions is no.

The very recent interest expressed by BBNP in acquiring this parcel is due to pressure from members of congress resulting from the clueless comments made in the press. This "reporting" has led many to believe that the property is going into private hands so it can be developed, despoiled or restricted to the public. The conservation easements prohibit that, and our bid specification require public access in perpetuity.

This property should be in the hands of an entity, public or private, that can provide the best stewardship and the best public access. At the present time, unless significant steps are taken to address questions of funding, access and hunting, that entity is not the National Park Service.

Jerry Patterson

[Shane Allen - shanea@sfajacks.com]

Good morning, I myself would like to see all of the information regarding the Christmas Mountains - the letters, field notes, meeting notes, etc. - if necessary under the Texas Open Records act. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/index.shtml