[Cdt-l] FW: Cattle Dung Trail (was: Cattle Divide Trail )‏

[Jim and_or Ginny Owen]

There are times when the formatting on this thing really pisses me off.  Frankly, " I" 
don't want to read what showed just up on cdt-l, so let's try this again.  BTW, it came 

in just fine on my machine.  Good luck.  



Brett – We’re still not getting your posts, so I didn’t see this until I went back to cdt-l tonight. And you know I’ve got some comments.   > While there's little question that the CDT hiking experience of today is> part and parcel with the ranching industry, I don't think it's> inevitable that this will always be the case. It's an increasingly tough> and unglamorous line of work (for the next generation, especially), and> hikers (those willing to adapt, or who know no different) would be able> to navigate a way through a landscape less beholden to the ranching> business. Ironically, though, there might be some major caveats to this> future landscape that might affect hikers adversely in other ways. Ranching is certainly har
 d work, but it’s a hell of a lot better than working at Mcdonalds.  Pays better, too – you can actually make a living at it if you work hard enough and the government doesn’t screw you too badly. You obviously missed the idea that for much of the trail, if the ranchers aren’t there, then the cow aren’t there, then the water sources aren’t there either.  That’ll be as true in the future as in the past.  Maybe more so. So let’s talk about the future. It’s like being a mosquito in a nudist colony – where do I start?  At the beginning, of course ----  > In this hypothetical future world (where YMMV, no question!):>> - The land recovers from decades of overgrazing, in some cases slowly,> as native grassland habitat slowly replaces c
 attle-induced mesquite> forests in the arid zones, for example; in other cases, with surprising> speed, as springs and riparian zones become viable, in some cases> perennial again, maybe in the course of only a year or two. In general,> the land heals, wildlife habitat improves, and the net positive effect> is profound beyond our anticipation as we recognize how desensitizing> the status quo cow-burnt landscape really was. (And yes, it really was> cow-burnt!) Sorry – ain’t gonna happen. Your “native grassland” went the way of the dodo sometime around 3 or 4 hundred years ago.  Yes, there ARE patches of actual original type grassland still left, but it’s a constant fight to keep them from being overrun by the invasive species.  Been 
 there and seen those places.  And the rest of the West ain’t ever gonna look like that again.    I do agree that land will “heal itself” to some degree, but your apparent expectation that it’ll return to the “pristine state” that you imagine it once was, is a projection of your own ideas of “pristine” that has no basis  in history.  It never was like what you imagine.  Think about, not herds of hundreds of cows, but herds of MILLIONS of buffalo.   > - Naturally flowing surface water being more abundant, hikers are less> dependent on the stock tanks (which have filled with sediment) and> windmills (many broken or removed). Hikers have also learned to seek out>
  water sources farther afield and have adapted their hiking route and> itinerary to accommodate this water (the CDT route itself evolves). You do realize, I hope, that this discussion is nonsense in the terms you’ve imposed on it?  Meaning that, in general, a discussion of conditions in New Mexico bears no relation to what the same discussion would look like for Wyoming or Montana.  And this is one of those places.   New Mexico – is a mixed bag.  The Gila, for example, is one of the very few “Naturally flowing surface water sources” in New Mexico.  In the bootheel, there’s no such thing.  Therefore, hikers will be just as dependent on the stock tanks in the fu
 ture as they have been in the past.   Second error – assuming that hikers will be willing to “seek out water sources farther afield”.  You’ve obviously forgotten how lazy most hikers are. You also apparently assume that there are water sources to be found, which is not true in the bootheel, and may not be true in the Wyoming desert.  Nor is it necessarily true even for parts of the GET.    > - Continuing a small trend of the latter days of ranching's reign, some> of the old wells have been converted to serve the needs of wildlife and> recreational users and are ma
 intained by the USFS, BLM, etc. expressly> for this purpose. Boy Scout projects and such also contribute to this> effect, with rainwater catchments (rain aprons) replacing some of the> old earthen tanks and providing better quality water as a result. Conversion of those wells costs money – big time money.  Given the present financial situation, the increasing number of minority group legislators at both local and national levels, and the decreasing level of "disposable income" for governments at all levels, that ain't gonna happen.   > - The USFS and other agencies more actively include recreational use of> their lands in management plans, and court these groups in an effort to> increase funding for their districts. User fees may become more< PRE>> commonplace, commensurate with services provided, and user groups may or> may not include OHV's to a greater degree than before (ostensibly an> appropriate use of the existing road infrastructure). The agencies are already trying their absolute best to shunt CDT hikers off into places that are bacisally undesirable.  Witness the CDT route through the Malpais as just one of many examples. They don't want us there.  User fees – how much more do you want to pay for the “privilege” of hiking through your own land?  In your scenario, OHV’s will certainly dominate the trails that now make up the CDT.  Do you really want to share the trail with them?  More than that, what on Earth makes you think that the OHV’s will li
 mit themselves to presently extant roads?  That canard is disproved daily in Pennsylvania.   > - More land is set aside as designated Wilderness, especially BLM land.> Non-motorized recreational use and interest steadily increase,> domestically but especially from abroad. Your first sentence is “possible”, but I see major problems with it if, as I expect, more minority legislators are elected.  For those who don’t understand, let me ask a question – which minorities in this country presently support environmental agendas such as increased wilderness area designation?  If you find one, let me know.   Then, the tendency is toward INCREASED motorized and mountain bike use –  not less.  The backpacking community is shrinking – not growing.  Why would you expect legislative action in favor of a shrinking community?  That, my friend, is simply BAD public policy.   > - The small communities near the trail transition to more of a> tourist-based economy, although old ways die hard and some towns thrive> while others do not. It’s funny, cause I knew you were gonna go there.  And it’s a false argument.  Your tourist based economy is a proven recipe for turning an area into a ward of the government. It’s a surefire way to take people out of occupations that enable them to reasonably support families, and put them into minimum wage McDonalds-type jobs that reduce their incomes drastically and thrust them forcibly into poverty.  Thus making them dependent on welfare.  New Mexico already has major examples of this kind of political nonsense - like the Reserve area.   > - Some of the ranches creak on, while many sell off to developers, as a> growing baby boomer population spreads out in search of the good life.> Pitched battles ensue between preservationists and developers, whose> housing and community development projects lie adjacent to public lands> in many cases, or are located on formerly public land 'swapped' or sold> off by the government i
 n order to boost struggling rural economies. I waited for this one.  New Mexico again – the area north of Pie Town – has largely been sold off to developers.  It’s now a gauntlet of mini-ranches, with the previously available water tanks being closed off intosealed systems for the exclusive use of those mini-ranches.  The saving grace on this section is the Trail Angel at the 15 mile mark. We introduced them to the concept back in ’99 and they’ve continued the tradition on their own.  But – what happens when they’re gone and that water source is closed down?   I have MUCH more on this subject, but not here, not now.   > - Decades later now, the landscape, in some areas along the Divid
 e,> bears little resemblance to the one hikers knew back in the early years> of the 21st century. In some areas, a level of pristinehood once> reserved for places like Yellowstone or Glacier has become the new norm.> In other places, sometimes in close proximity to these oases, patchworks> of development signal the encroachment of the modern world - the New> West - where before the land was still, bucolic, dirt-roaded, and silent> except for the distant bellow of a rancher's cow, or the discharge of a> hunter's rifle. Your first sentence WILL happen. The second is less likely, the third would change the Trail to something beyond your worst nightmare.  It HAS happened in many places in the West – witness Moab and Jackson among 
 others.  It’s also happened in the East. And it’ll happen if your apparent desire for the demise of the ranching culture becomes reality.  > Again, YFWMV (your future world, that is!). But as for today, in many> ways ranching remains the glue that holds the current motley assemblage> together. It's an imperfect world, certainly, though it *is* at least> the devil we know. Whether or not that bond breaks of its own accord, it> may well happen, and the future world that emerges - for hikers, for the> Divide - will be an unpredictable place indeed. The Divide is and always has been an unpredictable place.  It will continue to be so.  Any expectation to the contrary is simply a badly blurred vision.  A final note here – there’s a contingent that wants the demise of the cow and the return of the buffalo/bison.  Sometimes I wonder about people – how do those people miss the fact that bison are just another form of cow? Can you tell the difference between cow shit and bison shit?  I know you can’t because there is no difference for the casual observer.  

http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/cdt-l/attachments/20100210/c29a0303/attachment.html