One of Our Maps Is Missing
The legally binding 1978 map of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has gone missing, the New York Times reports (free registration required). The map, wall-sized and 1:250,000 scale, was last seen in 2002 and apparently disappeared some time in early 2003.
Mr. Vandegraft said he had folded the map in half, cushioned within its foam-board backing, and put it behind the filing cabinet in the locked room for safekeeping. […] In its place in the original nook, he said, he found a new, folded piece of foam board similar to the old one — but with no map attached.
Astonishingly, there are no copies, digital or paper, of this important map.
In its place, the USGS has drafted a new map. But the new map isn’t quite like the old map, and in the politically charged context of the question of drilling for oil in ANWR, that’s important.
The missing map did not seem to include in the coastal plain tens of thousands of acres of Native Alaskans’ lands. On the new map, those lands were included, arguably making it easier to open them to energy development.
The cartographer who last saw the map believes it was inadvertently thrown out. Scott, though, is suspicious: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been a political hot potato for years, and he argues that the Bush administration has suppressed politically inconvenient maps of ANWR before. I’m not willing to go so far as to say that the map was stolen for political reasons — there’s no evidence for it, and, in my experience, government incompetence is far more common than malfeasance. (Why the hell wasn’t there a copy, for example?) But it does seem … convenient that the map that defines ANWR’s boundaries has disappeared.
Via GeoCarta.
7
The Map Room is a blog about maps by
Moon:
I came across your blog by a blissful hazard, only to find this amazing news!
is it for real?
it sounds like a real thriller! a thriller that could only be made up by a gifted writer, such as Jul Verne or John Le Carree :-)
anyhow…a map today, how important can it be? after all we are all computurized and all this information, must exist in a computer? nop?
and all the satellites that can give amazing view of the land…
can you please explain to an ignorant, yet, curious person such as me, how can it be?
need i to say, that the political issue - should it have any connection to it, makes the story even more interesting and relevant.
thanks!
October 21, 2005 at 11:11 AM
Richard Kimberley:
The New York Times never misses an opportunity to bash Bush.
No wonder Americans rank news reporters akin to used car salespeople.
The Times should be ashamed to drag politics into an otherwise yawner of a story.
October 21, 2005 at 11:43 AM
Ann:
And since when is a map used as the legal description of a property? Especially at 1:250,000?!?! Surely there is a legal document with legally described boundaries.
October 21, 2005 at 1:09 PM
Reed:
“And since when is a map used as the legal description of a property?”
Quite often.
“Surely there is a legal document with legally described boundaries.”
Probably, but it may sometimes only refer to known regions whose boundaries are only described by a map. So the law may say “Region X” but when it comes to actually putting the law in practice during oil exploration activity or something, someone has to be able to determine, on the ground, where the boundary is. If they’re using the replacement map, they may drill in a different spot than they would have if they were using the original.
October 21, 2005 at 1:21 PM
Stephen A.:
Richard is right, this is a story about a sloppy janitor, not a political plot to open ANWAR to drilling.
It’s a shame the NYT has sunk to this level to get just one more “kick” into Bush’s hide, but it’s not a surprise.
I also have to question why a 27-year-old map holds such relevance. Better maps can be created with today’s technology. Using an old map to update a new one is “a new one” for me.
Didn’t the Russians map this region when they owned it? If so, I suggest using THAT map. I’m sure it’s accurate.
October 22, 2005 at 11:22 PM
James:
so, we’ve got people in govt that handle important things sloppily and the New York Times isn’t fond of accurate cartography when it works against their agenda…. the only thing new here is an updated, more informative map.
October 23, 2005 at 5:28 PM
Reed:
I’m sure a new map will be more accurate in natural features, but this little problem does bring up the question of how political boundaries must be determined and how they can change.
October 24, 2005 at 3:15 PM