[cdt-l] Treaspassing Question

[Ginny & Jim Owen]

Doug wrote:

>There are three types of attitudes in the world,  One pretends to be 
>shocked
>by wrong doing but secretly does it.  The other quietly complies the last
>quietly doesn't comply.
>
>Then it comes to trespassing over open land that comes between me and a 
>nice
>tract of BLM land, well, I think I would be one of the quiet ones.  I've
>never hiked the Bootheel yet, I don't know the issues.  That's how it is
>with most CDT hikers I imagine- covering ground for the first time.
>
>Well, there are some difficult issues out there.
>


Doug -
Not to pick on you - this is really addressed to the whole list - and 
particularly to future hikers.

When Dick did his hike (1999) there was no "official route" and no guidebook 
for any of  Southern New Mexico. Most thruhikers used either Antelope Wells 
or Columbus as the terminus and did a lot of roadwalking.  A few (VERY few) 
used the Crazy Cook Monument (aka Tierra Comun) because access to it was by 
4WD vehicle only.  But the information about that route was, for practical 
purposes, nonexistent.  I know that because we tried for several years to 
get information about that route - from CDTA, from the BLM, from the Forest 
Service, from other hikers - even from Bob Julyan and Joseph Gendron. And 
nobody could or would tell us anything useful.  So we used the Columbus 
terminus.

That was then, this is now.  And at this point in time, there is no excuse 
for a "CDT hiker" to be trespassing on private land.  Today there are 
guidebooks, there's a "Designated BLM route" all the way to Silver City and 
Jim Wolf provides a viable route from Columbus.  Both of them are good 
routes.  For those who care, the BLM route is on our website.

Once you get beyond Silver City, most thruhikers are smart enough to blow 
off the Black Range route and do the Gila - which is NOT the designated 
route, but is a much better hike. But both the Gila and the Black Range 
routes are on public land.

Both Jim Wolf's routes and the CDTA/Westcliffe routes  are nearly entirely 
on either public lands or roads (which, of course, are also public land).  
If you're doing something other than one of those routes, then it's 
incumbent on YOU to find a way to get where you want - WITHOUT trespassing.  
If you have to trespass to get there, then you're pissing off the neighbors 
and you don't belong there - period.

Oh - so the Divide goes through the Ranch?  So what - it still ain't the 
Trail, it's still private property and you still don't belong there without 
permission from the owner. There's no moral, ethical or logical 
rationalization that will excuse the fact that, as a trespasser, you're 
being not only illegal, but rude, crude and disrespectful.

I know - you're thruhikers - and the rules don't apply to you.

REALLY??

Do you have any idea how juvenile that is?

Last year there was a group of thruhikers that decided to traipse through a 
Forest in NM that was closed because of fire danger.  When we got to Grants, 
we were told that the Forest was considering closing down the Forest 
(including the Trail) entirely to hikers.  How do you think the actions of 
that group of thruhikers would have influenced the Forest management's  
decision?  Think maybe it would make them more cooperative?

REALLY????

>From the other side - How do you think the southbounders would have felt 
about finding the Forest closed to them?

A few weeks later, there was a group (not thruhikers, although that's not 
really relevant) that lit off a fire in Glacier - in a fire-restricted 
campsite - in spite of a total fire ban in the Park.  The rules didn't apply 
to them either.  And their little fire burned several hundred thousand 
acres. Those who hike the CDT next year (and for the next 50 or more years) 
will suffer for it - just as those thruhikers who've broken the rules in the 
past (because "the rules don't apply to thruhikers") have set up attitudes 
(pissed off neighbors) and conditions (like burn zones) that will affect 
"next years" thruhikers negatively.

Now - I would certainly encourage anyone who wants to hike a different route 
than the Wolf or CDTA routes to do so.  After all, that's precisely what 
Ginny and I did last year.  But if you're gonna do that, then it requires a 
whole lot more planning than just saying "the rules don't apply to me so I 
can go where I want".  It means you need to KNOW what's private land - and 
what's public land - and how to get between the two without pissing off the 
neighbors by trespassing.  We did some road walks that I really didn't like 
last year - but that was the price for doing the routes we chose.  And what 
we did was definitely worth the "price."

I know - there's the "Oh, I was lost" line.  But - if you're not using GPS, 
then there's a presumption that you actually know how to navigate using map 
and compass.  And that you HAVE the maps.  So - if you have the maps and 
know how to use them, what are you doing so "lost" that you're wandered onto 
private land?  BTW - standing there, map in hand and saying "I'm lost" to 
the locals just makes you look stupid - or at best, incompetent.

If you ARE using GPS, then "my" presumption is that while you may not know 
how to navigate,  you've had enough instruction in using the GPS to not get 
lost.  And to not wander into places you don't belong.

A couple points - in no particular order ---

1. The BLM maps show land ownership.  BLM land does not change hands on a 
daily or weekly basis nor are the maps entirely wrong.  We used the same BLM 
and Forest maps last year that we used in 1999.  The trail route has changed 
in many places - but the maps are still as good as they were in 1999.

2.  There seems to be an assumlption that if a hiker doesn't see anyone, 
then nobody will ever know they were there.  That's self-delusional fantasy 
- in the desert, tracks will last a long, long time.  There are people who 
work out there - and they WILL see the tracks (that's their job, babe).  And 
they WILL become pissed off neighbors.  Which is probably one of the several 
reasons why hikers aren't welcome on the Gray Ranch.  From my point of view 
- if past hikers were so rude and inconsiderate as to deliberately and 
knowingly trespass on "my" land without permission, then why would "I" allow 
more rude, inconsiderate, disrespectful  hikers to use it in the future?

3.  There are common law ramifications to allowing hikers to use the Ranch 
as a passage.  And it's a lose-lose proposition for the land owner.

Enuff - said my piece so now I can go do something useful - like work on the 
website.  Y'all have a good night.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hilary Duff’s homepage with her photos, music, and more. 
http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=hilary&ocid=T001MSN30A0701