HikeArizona.COM

The Arizona Trail Would End at Trump's Border Wall Under a New CBP Plan

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/ar ... n-11469652

"The association's alternative proposals for CBP are simple: 1. Don't put a wall on that 2-mile stretch, but use less intrusive detection means. 2. Build just the wall and restore the landscape around it — so, no road, lights, or other visible infrastructure besides the wall. Or 3. Put $40 million in the Arizona State Trail Fund, to be administered by Arizona State Parks for use on Arizona Trail projects."

:Nothing about border patrols on e-bikes?

Two semi-trucks wide, so maybe 25' or so? Is there a reason not to place the obelisque NORTH of this road? (Yes... I get the fact that the trail distance would be short by 25'). I also get that $40M would go quite a ways to improving miles-and-miles of trail vs. 25' of trail; may be a wise trade if that #3 deal is a bona-fide offer. I would doubt hikers would feel comfortable with who-knows-who being funneled (by the fence-break) directly onto the AzT. (Option 1)
I have backpacked these beginning sections 2x, and it gets a TON of illegal traffic. One of my buddies had his gear stolen one night while asleep nearby.

hikeaz wrote:Is there a reason not to place the obelisque NORTH of this road?

Well, the obelisk is an actual border mark, are you proposing moving the border 25' north? There are many others along the border too, one I've seen by the northern terminus of the PCT.

rcorfman wrote: ↑May 13 2020 9:47 pm

hikeaz wrote:Is there a reason not to place the obelisque NORTH of this road?

Well, the obelisk is an actual border mark, are you proposing moving the border 25' north? There are many others along the border too, one I've seen by the northern terminus of the PCT.

Serenity....
Obviously (and addressed in my earlier post) the "border" cannot be moved. The border itself marks the possessions of our sovereign nation. But this is a hiking trail and if the obligatory 'photo' or 'views' is the issue, merely move the marker. If folks want the marker to be 'ON' the border...well there is going to be a wall there (photoshop?).
Please re-read my post above, and note the question mark... ....I asked a question...not to be confused with a proposition.
To me, unless one wants to get hung up on minutia (and there are plenty of those, God knows) , 25' is not a hill worth dying on. YRMV.
If a bona-fide, funded option, I would take the $40M and improve hundreds of miles of the Arizona Trail vs 25'. Other folks may opt to spend ($?) fighting the 25'; and if they feel strongly about it they should fight that fight. https://aztrail.org/get-involved/donate/ (Presuming the AzT Assoc. wants to spend the funds in that way).
This exchange of ideas and debate, discussed openly is one reason why there are so many folks clamoring to become part of our great country, any way they can,

While the reporter who wrote this article is based in Phoenix, it's still always interesting to me to read news stories about local issues that are told for a national audience. The perspectives can be jarringly different.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump ... 533957d958

Pretty sure the ~2000 square miles (and growing) of Sonoran Desert that has been paved over to create the greater Phoenix metro area "forever reshaped the landscape". There's a few small mines and some dams in AZ that have altered things a bit too. Humans do things to their environment, we just disagree on which alterations are "acceptable".

toddak wrote:Humans do things to their environment, we just disagree on which alterations are "acceptable"

I would personally draw the line somewhere well before "symbolic gesture".

ShatteredArm wrote: "symbolic gesture"

Curious whose quote this is and when it was said. I could not find it in the OP's link.

I'm not sure of where this thread is going, but I have been heavily criticized for even asking if people were interested in a political topic. Funny, I thought there were other boards for politics?

One thing is certain: of all the real and potential effects of constructing a wall, the most serious offense will the AZT no longer ends right on the border and is now 50 feet or so away. Clearly, no greater effect. None. Not a single one. The trail. It's all there is.

Any interstate through any metropolis is just fine, but a wall is not at half the footprint?

And this is just fine?: "...a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials. Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car “consumes” five pounds of earth."

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/min ... lity-check

@LosDosSloFolks
I wasn't quoting anybody - I was simply calling the wall a "symbolic gesture".

@Mountain_Rat
I'm not sure what your point is here. That there are other enterprises that do more environmental harm than the wall?

Environmental harm is only half the equation. The other side is utility. It may be that mining materials for things like solar panels and electric car batteries causes some level of environmental harm, but you are getting materials out of it, some of which may mitigate the environmental harm in other ways. A metropolis causes environmental harm, but in exchange for that, you are getting a place for people to live.

But what utility does a wall have? Takes away the least preferred route for people to cross the border? Enriches government contractors? The difference between a wall and mines and cities is that mines' and cities' benefits are tangible and measurable, while the wall's benefits only exist in people's imaginations.

@Jim_H

Jim_H wrote:One thing is certain: of all the real and potential effects of constructing a wall, the most serious offense will the AZT no longer ends right on the border and is now 50 feet or so away. Clearly, no greater effect. None. Not a single one. The trail. It's all there is.

I think the land mammals whose populations span both sides of the border would disagree with you on this.

@ShatteredArm
Please adjust your sarcasm detector.

@Jim_H
Any time I fail to detect sarcasm on the internet, I have to point out Poe's Law. At this point, it's unethical to use sarcasm in print without an indicator.

@ShatteredArm
Sorry, I figured I over did it.

Now, let's stop this fighting and concentrate on cookies.

Proof that the wall doesn't impede the life style of mammals on either side.
[ youtube video ]



BTW, This is truly inspirational......A bolt of lightning is five times hotter than the surface of the sun and is more enjoyable than watching a tree hugger dance with a spazzed out ranter. @HAZ_Hikebot

It seems to me the main point of the article Chums posted, is that installation of the new wall in environmentally protected areas (the place it was generally able to be built without dealing with local land ownership issues - since the government owns that land), has done more to harm the animals and environment than it will help, and complains this is opposite to the actual idea of protecting the place.

I don't interpret the article as making wide-sweeping judgement about the border wall in general, or disturbance of the desert environment in non-protected areas (such as expanding the borders of metropolitan zones) but others may have their own interpretation.