that once again makes no sense at all. i don t know why we want to tie our hands against bad guys coming into the country on public property when we don t have the same restrictions on the private property. jon: you mentioned the lead-in, the antelope which is center of controversy here. if you want to build a watchtower you can t build it if there are antelope nearby. the rural they have to encounter encounter prong horns. have to back up and can t go back 25 miles an hour doing it until the animal voluntarily left the area, which is i m sorry, a silly rule. jon: even if you re chasing a drug suspect and antelope comes between you and the suspect you have to give way to the antelope? actually that is a gray area. if you re in hot pursuit you might be able to do it. however if you have too many bad marks against you by the land manager who protests what the border patrol does you endanger your career. a lot of border patrol will take the safer route which
property which is now on the southern border, basically ceded to drug cartels. we have an amissing opportunity for the bad guys to come into this country and we have also the opportunity for terrorists to come into this country because we limit what the border patrol can do. we don t need more boarder patrol agents. we need to give them access to do their routine patrolling. the only place we stop that is on public property. i want to give them the same rights on public property they already have on priority property. jon: you say they are limited n what way? what do you mean? it simply means if you come to an area considered wilderness category or endangered species or conservation habitat the border patrol must stop and do anything else on patrol basis on foot. if they re in hot pursuit they might be able to have a decent land manager working with them to continue in some hot pursuit. they re limited to what they can do on foot. they re limited what they can do by transportation. t