I am not a big fan of the Border Patrol these days. In fact my cousin's husband is the guy that was found guilty of shining a light at the Border Patrol Helo.

In an effort to almost justify their existence here on the Northern Border, the BP is responding to local calls for Law Enforcement. They drive through farmland, leaving gates open, creating tire tracks and ruts potato fields and other crops, not because they have to, but because they can.

If there are issues related to the Northern Border, then thermal imaging from the air should be sufficient means to patrol wilderness areas. What are they going to do, stop every hiker in the North Cascades and ask for their papers?

I'm writing my delegation to let them know I disapprove of the proposed bill, and i urge all of you to do the same. 9/11 has been used as an excuse far too long to limit liberty, there has to be a line drawn in the sand at some point.

Border Patrol to ignore Environmental Laws

I saw a piece on the tube about a farmer that put up barricades in his orchard with signs reading
"No Government Vehicles Beyond This Point".
The BP had been running wild on his property.

Why does the border patrol have authority in Forks?

Republicans want to give all of corporate America the right to ignore environmental laws. Their first course of business if given power is to disband the EPA.

I have personally wittnessed the arrogance of the BP. Their attitude is you are a POS and we will do whatever we want.
When Groen shined his light at the helo, it was out of frustration. I'm not condoning his actions, but I don't blame him.
All the local landowners want is a little respect, not only for themselves, but for their property. Locals are the eyes & ears and the BP needs to realize that!!
Case in point, my GF lives a mile south of the border. One night, there were two "terrorist" types walking down the road @ 11:30 dressed in all black. She happened to see just the white stripes on the shoes. BP was called and long story short, they had jumped the border and were looking for the cab that they had waiting. Here's the good part. The cab they had waiting was at the border crossing and was sent away by the BP. Wouldn't you think a smart BP think that a cab waiting to pick someone up would raise a red flag ???
Just one week prior, an BP agent was parked across the road from her and kept staring in her windows. She called to complain and was basically told Too bad... so sad.

The old saying: "you can catch more flies with honey" applies!!!

Actually the Administration, according to the news story, is against this legislation. If it is piggybacked onto some large spending bill the President will end up signing it into law by default, because of the unconstitutionality of Line Item Veto.

I feel it is more about pulling down environmental laws and more of the Boogeyman scare tactics to legislate away more liberty slow and steady...pretty soon a border exclusion (no-man's land) will be established.

Having dealt with enviromental laws, this may be perfectly justified. It all depends on what is being ignored, the extent of exemptions, and the reason why. The timber companies already get a set of exemptions in forest land. I am sure the military also has a huge list of exemptions to do their training. Without them they probably would not be able to exist. I have never dealt with their exact situation, but if they are trying to anything in an area with endangered animals, the cost and time could be near impossible. Everything would usually be open to the public too. Not a good strategy if you want to patrol an area. Hopefully they will be respectful, but I can see the fear. A clear and open list of exemptions should be aired for the public to see.

Does anyone know what other agencies are exempt?

If they currently don't respect private property where people can see what they're doing...what makes anyone think that agency will respect the environment where nobody can see what they are doing?

Unless I read something wrong, the proposal is to exempt BP from a certain set of mainly environmentally based laws on federal land and it doesn't speak to private land...where they have authority to enter for the purpose of patrolling the border anyhow.

With regard to federal land, this business seems to overlook the fact that all federal lands already have an enforcement presence that is charged with upholding "all" federal laws within the area of their jurisdiction. The National Park Service for example. With very few exceptions, these agencies will know the land and the relevant issues far better than border patrol and be much better equipped to deal with what comes up therein.

I don't know the details, but I can't imagine this getting too far. Even if it does, the actual effects will likely be minimal, perhaps a few sites in the North Cascades as there are a few trails that cross the border there well off the beaten path. Don't ask me how I know.

A few North Cascades peaks I climbed in my younger days required driving into Canada and taking hiking trails from their side back to my side. Of course I didn't tell them that at the border. They wouldn't have liked it very much.

A 100 mile zone is absolfookinglutely absurd. MAYBE a mile or two.

No kidding. Makes no sense to me, especially considering that most of those guys couldn't find their butt in the dark with both hands and a flashlight.

I'm agin' it.

Sg