Big Bend to get wilderness protection?

I totally support the idea of getting federal wilderness protection for a big chunk of Big Bend National Park, but that's not the only thing that needs addressing.

There's light pollution from increased gas flaring at the southern end of the Permian leading into the park. The last time I was there was Christmas 2019, and it was ridiculous. Wayne Christian (or Wayne-o NOT) at the Railroad Commission says his org is cutting the problem, but, yeah, sure. 

Also, based on my most recent previous visit, there's the risk of increased light pollution across the river at Boquillas (no, really) with reliable regular electricity and night lighting. Big Bend itself, as well as Big Bend Ranch State Park, have International Dark Sky designation, but none of the Mexican preserves across the river do.

Why Congress never adopted the original 1978 NPS recommendation within the park, that said, I don't know. Actually, per the story and my own knowledge of NPS, I do know. It was apparently just a pro forma ask that NPS never pushed further.

At Olympic, as I noted last year, the Park Service, and not just local staff, opposed wilderness designation for much of that park. (Fortunately, creosote bushes aren't eyeballed for commercial logging.) Meanwhile, when we do get wilderness designation, the NPS wants to de-wild it as much as possible. That's why Carsten Lien, the author of the book about Olympic's woes that was behind the first link, wanted a "U.S. Wilderness Service" to be formed — the NPS was too much of a sellout. And, per that second link, we don't need more cellphone towers being built in designated wilderness areas.

And, seeing the expansion of cellphone towers in national parks, and other things, "pristineness," more than "just" wilderness, is what's needed. Beyond wilderness, we also, as part of pristineness, need to cut way back on the whole issue of corporate sponsors of and partners with the NPS.