<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
There are times when the formatting on this thing really pisses me off. Frankly, " I" <BR>don't want to read what showed just up on cdt-l, so let's try this again. BTW, it came <BR>
in just fine on my machine. Good luck. <BR><BR>
<STYLE>
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
</STYLE>
<PRE>Brett – </PRE><PRE>We’re still not getting your posts, so I didn’t see this until I went back </PRE><PRE>to cdt-l tonight. And you know I’ve got some comments.<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>><I> While there's little question that the CDT hiking experience of today is</I></PRE><PRE>><I> part and parcel with the ranching industry, I don't think it's</I></PRE><PRE>><I> inevitable that this will always be the case. It's an increasingly tough</I></PRE><PRE>><I> and unglamorous line of work (for the next generation, especially), and</I></PRE><PRE>><I> hikers (those willing to adapt, or who know no different) would be able</I></PRE><PRE>><I> to navigate a way through a landscape less beholden to the ranching</I></PRE><PRE>><I> business. Ironically, though, there might be some major caveats to this</I></PRE><PRE>><I> future landscape that might affect hikers adversely in other ways.</I></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Ranching is certainly har
d work, but it’s a hell of a lot better than working </PRE><PRE>at Mcdonalds.<SPAN> </SPAN>Pays better, too – you can actually make a living at it if you </PRE><PRE>work hard enough and the government doesn’t screw you too badly. </PRE><PRE>You obviously missed the idea that for much of the trail, if the ranchers </PRE><PRE>aren’t there, then the cow aren’t there, then the water sources aren’t there </PRE><PRE>either.<SPAN> </SPAN>That’ll be as true in the future as in the past.<SPAN> </SPAN>Maybe more so. So </PRE><PRE>let’s talk about the future. It’s like being a mosquito in a nudist colony – </PRE><PRE>where do I start?<SPAN> At the beginning, of course ---- </SPAN></PRE><PRE><I> </I></PRE><PRE>><I> In this hypothetical future world (where YMMV, no question!):</I></PRE><PRE>><I></I></PRE><PRE>><I> - The land recovers from decades of overgrazing, in some cases slowly,</I></PRE><PRE>><I> as native grassland habitat slowly replaces c
attle-induced mesquite</I></PRE><PRE>><I> forests in the arid zones, for example; in other cases, with surprising</I></PRE><PRE>><I> speed, as springs and riparian zones become viable, in some cases</I></PRE><PRE>><I> perennial again, maybe in the course of only a year or two. In general,</I></PRE><PRE>><I> the land heals, wildlife habitat improves, and the net positive effect</I></PRE><PRE>><I> is profound beyond our anticipation as we recognize how desensitizing</I></PRE><PRE>><I> the status quo cow-burnt landscape really was. (And yes, it really was</I></PRE><PRE>><I> cow-burnt!)</I></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Sorry – ain’t gonna happen. Your “native grassland” went the way of the </PRE><PRE>dodo sometime around 3 or 4 hundred years ago.<SPAN> </SPAN>Yes, there ARE patches </PRE><PRE>of actual original type grassland still left, but it’s a constant fight </PRE><PRE>to keep them from being overrun by the invasive species.<SPAN> </SPAN>Been
there and </PRE><PRE>seen those places.<SPAN> </SPAN>And the rest of the West ain’t ever gonna look like </PRE><PRE>that again.<SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN></SPAN> </PRE><PRE>I do agree that land will “heal itself” to some degree, but your apparent </PRE><PRE>expectation that it’ll return to the “pristine state” that you imagine it </PRE><PRE>once was, is a projection of your own ideas of “pristine” that has no basis <SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN></SPAN>in history.<SPAN> It never was like what you imagine. Think about, not herds of </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>hundreds of cows, but herds of MILLIONS of buffalo. </SPAN></PRE><PRE><I> </I></PRE><PRE>><I> - Naturally flowing surface water being more abundant, hikers are less</I></PRE><PRE>><I> dependent on the stock tanks (which have filled with sediment) and</I></PRE><PRE>><I> windmills (many broken or removed). Hikers have also learned to seek out</I></PRE><PRE>>
<I> water sources farther afield and have adapted their hiking route and</I></PRE><PRE>><I> itinerary to accommodate this water (the CDT route itself evolves).</I></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>You do realize, I hope, that this discussion is nonsense in the terms you’ve </PRE><PRE>imposed on it?<SPAN> </SPAN>Meaning that, in general, a discussion of conditions in New </PRE><PRE>Mexico bears no relation to what the same discussion would look like for </PRE><PRE>Wyoming or Montana.<SPAN> </SPAN>And this is one of those places.<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>New Mexico – is a mixed bag.<SPAN> </SPAN>The Gila, for example, is one of the very </PRE><PRE>few “<I>Naturally flowing surface water sources” </I><SPAN>in </SPAN><SPAN>New Mexico</SPAN><SPAN>.<SPAN> </SPAN>In the </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>bootheel, there’s no such thing.<SPAN> </SPAN>Therefore, hikers will be just as </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>dependent on the stock tanks in the fu
ture as they have been in the past.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>Second error – assuming that hikers will be willing to “<I>seek out</I> <I>water </I></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN><I>s</I></SPAN><SPAN><I>ources farther afield”.<SPAN> </SPAN></I>You’ve obviously forgotten how lazy most hikers </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>are.<I> </I>You also apparently assume that there are water sources to be found, </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>which is not true in the bootheel, and may not be true in the </SPAN><SPAN>Wyoming</SPAN><SPAN> desert.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN><SPAN></SPAN>Nor is it necessarily true even for parts of the GET.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE><SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE>><I> - Continuing a small trend of the latter days of ranching's reign, some</I></PRE><PRE>><I> of the old wells have been converted to serve the needs of wildlife and</I></PRE><PRE>><I> recreational users and are ma
intained by the USFS, BLM, etc. expressly</I></PRE><PRE>><I> for this purpose. Boy Scout projects and such also contribute to this</I></PRE><PRE>><I> effect, with rainwater catchments (rain aprons) replacing some of the</I></PRE><PRE>><I> old earthen tanks and providing better quality water as a result.</I></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Conversion of those wells costs money – big time money.<SPAN> </SPAN>Given the present </PRE><PRE>financial situation, the increasing number of minority group legislators at </PRE><PRE>both local and national levels, and the decreasing level of "disposable income" </PRE><PRE>for governments at all levels, that ain't gonna happen. </PRE><PRE><I> </I></PRE><PRE>><I> - The USFS and other agencies more actively include recreational use of</I></PRE><PRE>><I> their lands in management plans, and court these groups in an effort to</I></PRE><PRE>><I> increase funding for their districts. User fees may become more</I></PRE>< PRE>><I> commonplace, commensurate with services provided, and user groups may or</I><PRE></PRE><PRE>><I> may not include OHV's to a greater degree than before (ostensibly an</I></PRE><PRE>><I> appropriate use of the existing road infrastructure).</I></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>The agencies are already trying their absolute best to shunt CDT hikers </PRE><PRE>off into places that are bacisally undesirable.<SPAN> </SPAN>Witness the CDT route </PRE><PRE>through the Malpais as just one of many examples.<SPAN> They don't want us there. </SPAN></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>User fees – how much more do you want to pay for the “privilege” of </PRE><PRE>hiking through your own land?<SPAN> </SPAN>In your scenario, OHV’s will certainly </PRE><PRE>dominate the trails that now make up the CDT.<SPAN> </SPAN>Do you really want to </PRE><PRE>share the trail with them?<SPAN> </SPAN>More than that, what on Earth makes you </PRE><PRE>think that the OHV’s will li
mit themselves to presently extant roads?<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN></SPAN>That canard is disproved daily in Pennsylvania.<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><I> </I></PRE><PRE>><I> - More land is set aside as designated Wilderness, especially BLM land.</I></PRE><PRE>><I> Non-motorized recreational use and interest steadily increase,</I></PRE><PRE>><I> domestically but especially from abroad.</I></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Your first sentence is “possible”, but I see major problems with it if, </PRE><PRE>as I expect, more minority legislators are elected.<SPAN> </SPAN>For those who don’t</PRE><PRE> understand, let me ask a question – which minorities in this country </PRE><PRE>presently support environmental agendas such as increased wilderness area </PRE><PRE>designation?<SPAN> </SPAN>If you find one, let me know.<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Then, the tendency is toward INCREASED motorized and mountain bike use – </PRE><PRE> not less.<SPAN> </SPAN>The backpacking community is shrinking – not growing.<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN></SPAN>Why would you expect legislative action in favor of a shrinking </PRE><PRE>community?<SPAN> </SPAN>That, my friend, is simply BAD public policy.<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><I> </I></PRE><PRE>><I> - The small communities near the trail transition to more of a</I></PRE><PRE>><I> tourist-based economy, although old ways die hard and some towns thrive</I></PRE><PRE>><I> while others do not.</I></PRE><PRE><SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>It’s funny, cause I knew you were gonna go there.<SPAN> </SPAN>And it’s a false </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>argument.<SPAN> </SPAN>Your tourist based economy is a proven recipe for turning </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>an area into a ward of the government. It’s a surefire way to take </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>people out of occupations that enable them to reasonably support </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>families, and put them into minimum wage McDonalds-type jobs that </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>reduce their incomes drastically and thrust them forcibly into poverty.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN><SPAN></SPAN>Thus making them dependent on welfare.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN>New Mexico</SPAN><SPAN> already has major </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN>examples of this kind of political nonsense - like the Reserve area.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE>><I> - Some of the ranches creak on, while many sell off to developers, as a</I></PRE><PRE>><I> growing baby boomer population spreads out in search of the good life.</I></PRE><PRE>><I> Pitched battles ensue between preservationists and developers, whose</I></PRE><PRE>><I> housing and community development projects lie adjacent to public lands</I></PRE><PRE>><I> in many cases, or are located on formerly public land 'swapped' or sold</I></PRE><PRE>><I> off by the government i
n order to boost struggling rural economies.</I></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>I waited for this one.<SPAN> </SPAN>New Mexico again – the area north of Pie Town – </PRE><PRE>has largely been sold off to developers.<SPAN> </SPAN>It’s now a gauntlet of </PRE><PRE>mini-ranches, with the previously available water tanks being closed </PRE><PRE>off intosealed systems for the exclusive use of those mini-ranches.<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN></SPAN>The saving grace on this section is the Trail Angel at the 15 mile mark. </PRE><PRE>We introduced them to the concept back in ’99 and they’ve continued the </PRE><PRE>tradition on their own.<SPAN> </SPAN>But – what happens when they’re gone and that </PRE><PRE>water source is closed down?<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>I have MUCH more on this subject, but not here, not now.<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><I> </I></PRE><PRE>><I> - Decades later now, the landscape, in some areas along the Divid
e,</I></PRE><PRE>><I> bears little resemblance to the one hikers knew back in the early years</I></PRE><PRE>><I> of the 21st century. In some areas, a level of pristinehood once</I></PRE><PRE>><I> reserved for places like </I><I>Yellowstone</I><I> or Glacier has become the new norm.</I></PRE><PRE>><I> In other places, sometimes in close proximity to these oases, patchworks</I></PRE><PRE>><I> of development signal the encroachment of the modern world - the New</I></PRE><PRE>><I> West - where before the land was still, bucolic, dirt-roaded, and silent</I></PRE><PRE>><I> except for the distant bellow of a rancher's cow, or the discharge of a</I></PRE><PRE>><I> hunter's rifle.</I></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Your first sentence WILL happen. The second is less likely, the third </PRE><PRE>would change the Trail to something beyond your worst nightmare.<SPAN> </SPAN>It HAS </PRE><PRE>happened in many places in the West – witness Moab and Jackson among
others.<SPAN> </SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN></SPAN>It’s also happened in the East. And it’ll happen if your apparent desire for </PRE><PRE>the demise of the ranching culture becomes reality. </PRE><PRE><I> </I></PRE><PRE>><I> Again, YFWMV (your future world, that is!). But as for today, in many</I></PRE><PRE>><I> ways ranching remains the glue that holds the current motley assemblage</I></PRE><PRE>><I> together. It's an imperfect world, certainly, though it *is* at least</I></PRE><PRE>><I> the devil we know. Whether or not that bond breaks of its own accord, it</I></PRE><PRE>><I> may well happen, and the future world that emerges - for hikers, for the</I></PRE><PRE>><I> Divide - will be an unpredictable place indeed.</I></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>The Divide is and always has been an unpredictable place.<SPAN> </SPAN>It will continue </PRE><PRE>to be so.<SPAN> </SPAN>Any expectation to the contrary is simply a badly blurred vision. </PRE> <PRE></PRE><PRE>A final note here – there’s a contingent that wants the demise of the cow a</PRE><PRE>nd the return of the buffalo/bison.<SPAN> </SPAN>Sometimes I wonder about people – how </PRE><PRE>do those people miss the fact that bison are just another form of cow? Can </PRE><PRE>you tell the difference between cow shit and bison shit?<SPAN> </SPAN>I know you can’t </PRE><PRE>because there is no difference for the casual observer.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR><BR>http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/<BR><BR></PRE> </body>
</html>