[cdt-l] Tom Jacoby Jan 18

Ginny & Jim Owen spiritbear2k at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 21 07:26:03 CST 2007

Dick -
The BLM land management maps are precisely what you're looking for - we used 
them for our '99 and '06 hikes.  They're color coded to indicate private, 
state and federal agency land ownership (among others).  The maps we used in 
'99 were entirely adelquate for our '06 hike. In spite of your conversation 
with the cop - land turnover in this area is not a major problem.  And when 
a tract does change hands, it generally changes to the same type of 
ownership (i.e. - private party to private party). Land swaps between 
private and government agencies do occur - but slowly - very slowly.  A 
mandated quarterly update of the maps would be precisely what you've 
indicated - a massive waste of my tax money (and yours).  I do agree with 
you that a whole lot of gubmint money could find better uses.  I have my own 
list of suggestions -

BTW - as far as I can determine, those maps show the area in question as 
being entirely private.  I'm missing a small corner of one map so I couold 
be wrong - but I don't think so. That's what happens when you cut maps - you 
end up missing pieces.

If you want the applicable BLM maps for the bootheel, go here -

Keep in mind that some of the information on that page will be updated in a 
few days.   But not the specific maps.

Second point - there IS a designated trail - and it's entirely on government 
land - mostly BLM, some State.  Go here for details -


I think the same information will be on Jonathon's maps.

Walk softly,


dickebird wrote:

>I didn't want to ignore your post Tom. Good information and perspective. I
>finally found the time to read and digest Chapter 14 of your New Mexico
>trespass link. It really boils down to common sense but I would like to
>shift the emphasis of trespass from the hiker to the land manager/property
>owner. This link is a prime example of the piles of money the government
>spends on reams of pulp to explain simple rules. Some of that pulp budget
>could be spent on a color coded web-based map that each agency was expected
>to continually update on a quarterly basis as land issues changed.
>Information sharing would solve the majority of trespass issues created by
>hikers, hunters, horse, ATV, rockhounds, birders and berrypickers. It would
>end any question of what was legal right-of-way and what was not.
>The simple hiker solution is to establish a trail. Maybe it should be
>explained to those who oppose a trail in different terminology. We should
>call it the National Scenic Cattle Chute. Tell them we need to herd all
>those hikers through the high desert and keep them all together where we 
>keep an eye on them. The class of 2007 is an example of how this trail is
>gaining in popularity with LDH's. Without a designated trail it is pretty
>easy to figure they will all be hiking a shotgun pattern across New Mexico.
>Ben (Franklin) said it best, "We must all hang together, or most assuredly
>we shall all hang separately." A trail, no different that I-10 or Rt. 66,
>should gain right-of-way in the same manner. It will improve the economy of
>every outpost along the trail and end all trespass issues--basic crowd
>I did camp in White Sands, but legally. You can get a backcountry permit
>from the Monument. They lock the gate at night so you are in for the
>duration even if aliens try to experiment on you. We always go during the
>full moon. In the words of John Denver it's, "Far Out."
>--Keep Smilin', Dick E. Bird

>cdt-l mailing list
>cdt-l at backcountry.net

Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live 

More information about the Cdt-l mailing list