Dear Editor,

I live in Silver City, New Mexico, in Congressman Steve Pearce's District. His October 10, 2014, op-ed accusing the US Forest Service and unspecified "environmental groups" of restricting New Mexicans' access to the National Forests in our state, shows he is either unable or unwilling to represent all the New Mexicans in his District.

Pearce claims that by managing federal public lands, the US Forest Service demonstrates a "...flagrant violation of properties rights [sic]" by reducing "ranching and resource production" on public lands. Pearce seems to assume that ranching and "resource production" – that is, corporate oil and gas extraction – have a "right" to use public lands that is superior to anyone else's use of public lands for any other purpose. This is false.

I suppose it is no surprise that Pearce feels this way. His own campaign website discloses he ran an "oilfield services firm" for many years; he and his family made a reported $12 million when they sold the business to another oil firm. Pearce has also made clear for years that he supports private, for-profit companies using public land specifically for oil and gas extraction (Source: Albuquerque Journal). He has gone even further and advocated that all federal lands in New Mexico – including the National Forests he discusses in his op-ed - should be turned over to the state of New Mexico to sell to private, for-profit oil and gas companies (Source: Pearce's 2012 speech to Colorado CPAC). If Pearce's dream were to come true, no New Mexican member of the public – even the ranchers Pearce claims he supports - would have the right to set foot on those lands again. Pearce's idea is clearly much more restrictive than how he describes the US Forest Service is currently managing federal lands.

From what Pearce has written in his op-ed and has said in other forums, he seems to believe that if you are not running an oil extraction company, your right to enjoy public lands doesn't count.

Marianne Smith
Silver City, New Mexico