# U.S. Department of State Travel Update for Mexico - August 15, 2014



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

The U.S. Department of State has updated it's Travel Warning document pertaining to Mexico. The way I use the information contained in these continuing warnings is to blend the information with other current event information from a variety of sources and then I make a determination as to potential risks as I move about Mexico. Some people, like myself, find the information helpful ... while others disregard it. To each his/her own preference.

Here's a link to the August 15, 2014 Mexico Travel Warning:

Mexico Travel Warning


----------



## mxfan (Jun 7, 2014)

This is the first time I have read an official update and I found some valuable information in it. Thanks.


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

I always appreciate the travel advisories by the State Dept. They know some things that most of us do not.


----------



## diablita (May 7, 2010)

According to the report, I should stay inside and hide under my bed. Be afraid, very afraid!


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

diablita said:


> According to the report, I should stay inside and hide under my bed. Be afraid, very afraid!


I don't think you understand the purpose of the warning and who it is directed to.


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

diablita said:


> According to the report, I should stay inside and hide under my bed. Be afraid, very afraid!


I certainly never read anything like that in any of them. 
I don't think you understand the purpose of the warning and who it is directed to.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

diablita said:


> According to the report, I should stay inside and hide under my bed. Be afraid, very afraid!


----------



## LMtortugas (Aug 23, 2013)

Longford's strategy to blend info & data derived from multiple resources is sound. Although I certainly do not adhere strictly to, or necessarily buy into all, of US State's recommendations and cautious perspectives, I do drive regularly in and out of Chihuahua, Sinaloa, and Sonora and I will attest much of the dept.'s counsel dispensed is accurate workable information.


----------



## citlali (Mar 4, 2013)

By the way Mexico does the same thing. When I was travelling in Guatemala and Honduras with Mexican friends they received travel warning regarding Guaemala and Honduras.
It is not a bad idea to be aware of where there are problems.


----------



## diablita (May 7, 2010)

In the same vein Mexico's Most Dangerous States - Oklahoma City Political Buzz | Examiner.com


----------



## diablita (May 7, 2010)

Isla Verde said:


>


Wow, someone still has a sense of humor here.


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

diablita said:


> In the same vein Mexico's Most Dangerous States - Oklahoma City Political Buzz | Examiner.com


Unfortunately, those stats are for 2013, and are not for the complete year. They are of no benefit when we are about to go into 2015 in 4 months. The State Dept. Warning is for right now.


----------



## diablita (May 7, 2010)

coondawg said:


> Unfortunately, those stats are for 2013, and are not for the complete year. They are of no benefit when we are about to go into 2015 in 4 months. The State Dept. Warning is for right now.


So sorry to have posted something of no benefit. Color me chastised.


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

No reason to feel chastised, we are here to try and help each other.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

coondawg said:


> Unfortunately, those stats are for 2013, and are not for the complete year. They are of no benefit when we are about to go into 2015 in 4 months. The State Dept. Warning is for right now.


2013 only ended 8 months ago. It takes awhile to compile statistics. 2015 won't be available for 2 years. Also the INEGI results are based on data, perhaps flawed, but data. I am not sure what process the State Department uses in creating its assessments.


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

TundraGreen said:


> 2013 only ended 8 months ago. It takes awhile to compile statistics. 2015 won't be available for 2 years. Also the INEGI results are based on data, perhaps flawed, but data. I am not sure what process the State Department uses in creating its assessments.


Absolutely, those results are certainly "old" info, incomplete, and do not include drug cartel related deaths as during the Calderon years. 
I believe the State Dept. relies on its own people on the ground and in its consulates to determine which areas are in need of a precautionary warning( certainly no "obligation" here). No politics either, IMHO. The "liberal" response will be quite different, IMHO.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

coondawg said:


> Absolutely, those results are certainly "old" info, incomplete, and do not include drug cartel related deaths as during the Calderon years.
> I believe the State Dept. relies on its own people on the ground and in its consulates to determine which areas are in need of a precautionary warning( certainly no "obligation" here). No politics either, IMHO. The "liberal" response will be quite different, IMHO.


If the State Department relies on their people on the ground, I would not have much confidence in their assessments. State Department staff are governed by very strict rules on where they can live, where they can go, and what they can do. I have had lots of friends in the consular office in Guadalajara. In general I find that they are very knowledgeable about lots of topics that I know little about. But their exposure to every day life in Mexico is very limited.


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

TundraGreen said:


> If the State Department relies on their people on the ground, I would not have much confidence in their assessments. State Department staff are governed by very strict rules on where they can live, where they can go, and what they can do. I have had lots of friends in the consular office in Guadalajara. In general I find that they are very knowledgeable about lots of topics that I know little about. But their exposure to every day life in Mexico is very limited.


You see, there is our difference. I trust the information that is provided by the State Department as being something that I am interested in knowing. I believe they have access to information that I do not have. I use my own judgement and my sources to decide how it impacts my life. 

I find it very strange that anyone that does not find it of benefit, would ever respond to this thread, as it is intended for those who find it helpful.

It would be most unfair and oppressive of me to try to convince someone who uses this information that it is "bunk" and "political based", as it just might save someone's life (may have already). I could not do that in good faith, as I care for my fellow man more than that.

So, hopefully, those of us who welcome this information, can continue to get and use it without having to explain ourselves or listen to people condemn it.

You are always entitled to your opinion, I just don't think this one belongs here.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

coondawg said:


> You see, there is our difference. I trust the information that is provided by the State Department as being something that I am interested in knowing. I believe they have access to information that I do not have. I use my own judgement and my sources to decide how it impacts my life.
> 
> I find it very strange that anyone that does not find it of benefit, would ever respond to this thread, as it is intended for those who find it helpful.
> 
> ...


I have no idea where the information comes from nor how accurate it is. I was reacting to the comment that their assessments are based on people on the ground. I doubt that is the sole source of their information, at least, I hope it is not.


----------



## LMtortugas (Aug 23, 2013)

Earlier this year I was reading, more for interest/curiosity rather than need, the US STATE OSAC regional security reports for Mexico 2014. Quite interesting. The report clearly states its info is not wholly accurate by any means. It continues to explain that information and data is collected from numerous sources (official & otherwise) and developing and continuing trends are closely monitored and analysed. 

It was reporting that the referenced intentional homicide rate (murder) in Ciudad Juarez is likely not an accurate figure, but by all accounts factored into the equation its calculation that murder has decreased in the city is probably correct. Makes sense to me.

I would think STATE probably utilizes a very broad base of resources to draw data from to base its travel advisories upon.


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

LMtortugas said:


> The report clearly states its info is not wholly accurate by any means. It continues to explain that information and data is collected from numerous sources (official & otherwise) and developing and continuing trends are closely monitored and analysed.
> 
> I would think STATE probably utilizes a very broad base of resources to draw data from to base its travel advisories upon.


Exactly. For me, there is no one source more informed than they are. Their "people on the ground" include those training Mexican military and police, those offering technical support to those groups, those that locate most capos (such as El Chapo), so they see and hear many things that average citizens/expats know nothing about. Thus, I want this information, and use it as I stated. 

This Thread is an Information Thread, provided to those who have an interest in it. I still wonder the purpose of anyone responding to it that has doubts about its accuracy and does not choose to use it? Maybe you can enlighten me on why you find it necessary to convince us that it is not of benefit to us, or why you find it necessary to comment on it at all? That would be helpful, as I can make my own decisions and have not asked for help.

It would be nice to be able to just read this Information Thread and not have to come across comments by people who are not interested in its benefit. 

So,TG, tell me again why you are commenting on this Information Thread if you don't find it of benefit to you? And, tell me also, if you think it is not of benefit to me, why you care where they get their information?


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

My understanding is that the information contained in the Travel Warning is included as the result of verifiable incidents, oftentimes incidents involving U.S. personnel stationed in Mexico, employees of the various U.S. Embassy and Consular offices or as the result of reports filed by U.S. residents about incidents which have occurred in Mexico. Other items are included because the information has been provided to the U.S. Government by the government of Mexico. The items are not _speculative_, is my understanding. As I've previously stated, I personally find the information helpful ... as one of the many sources I rely upon; local media reports will oftentimes provide the current/recent information the Travel Warning and Advisories can lack.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

coondawg said:


> …
> So,TG, tell me again why you are commenting on this Information Thread if you don't find it of benefit to you? And, tell me also, if you think it is not of benefit to me, why you care where they get their information?


First of all, let me state clearly that I have no horse in this race. I care not a whit whether or not others read or heed these advisories. 

I would be very interested in knowing where they get their information out of curiosity.

My comments about not trusting the judgement of "people on the ground" referred to the experiences of consulate staff in Mexico, as I believe I clearly stated. The consulate staff live a very protected life. They would not be allowed to live in my neighborhood, a perfectly placid middle class environment.

If sources for these advisories include CIA/DEA or other sources of information not publicly available, as I presume they do, then that would give them some additional credibility.

However, personally, I find them to be so general that they don't have much influence on how I live my life.


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

TundraGreen said:


> First of all, let me state clearly that I have no horse in this race. I care not a whit whether or not others read or heed these advisories.
> 
> 
> However, personally, I find them to be so general that they don't have much influence on how I live my life.


Wonderful ! Now you have your answer. Then there is no need for you to post here on our Information Thread unless you have a positive contribution to add, agreed? 

Hopefully, those of us that use this information, will not need to continually encounter comments from anyone that has no respect for our decision to make use of this info. 

Thanks for your honesty, TG. Enjoy your wise comments on many Discussion Threads.


----------



## LMtortugas (Aug 23, 2013)

I concur with TundraGreen. US STATE employees live very protected-restricted lives if deemed necessary on foreign assignments; the STATE web site clearly outlines these conditions.

I think STATE offers some valuable workable "intentional" overly-cautious advisories; but its sources are not it staff on the ground. 

There are resources (i.e. STRATFOR) that will provide one a very comprehensive thorough strategic report on any particular region of Mexico, well beyond that put forward by STATE, for a VERY healthy fee.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

coondawg said:


> Wonderful ! Now you have your answer. Then there is no need for you to post here on our Information Thread unless you have a positive contribution to add, agreed?
> 
> Hopefully, those of us that use this information, will not need to continually encounter comments from anyone that has no respect for our decision to make use of this info.
> 
> Thanks for your honesty, TG. Enjoy your wise comments on many Discussion Threads.


My contributions to this thread have been in the role of an individual member, not that of a moderator. However, as a Moderator, I am probably more familiar with the rules than many. I see no place in the rules where it states that one has to have a positive view of a subject to contribute.

Consequently, I do not agree to abstain from contributing to this thread just because I do not happen to think State Dept advisories are the greatest thing since sliced bread. 

The Consulate in Guadalajara does issue some very useful advisories. Often on Friday afternoon, they send out an email listing many of the events occurring in town over the weekend.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

coondawg said:


> Wonderful ! Now you have your answer. Then there is no need for you to post here on our Information Thread unless you have a positive contribution to add, agreed?
> 
> Hopefully, those of us that use this information, will not need to continually encounter comments from anyone that has no respect for our decision to make use of this info.
> 
> Thanks for your honesty, TG. Enjoy your wise comments on many Discussion Threads.


Surely you jest? Right?


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

Great. Some of us will continue to appreciate and use the warnings as issued by the State Department no matter how much you decide to put down our choice.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

coondawg said:


> Great. Some of us will continue to appreciate and use the warnings as issued by the State Department no matter how much you decide to put down our choice.


This forum invites comments presenting several points of view on a given topic. IMO, and speaking as a forum member and not as a moderator, TG was not putting down your choice but rather offering comments on the limitations, as he sees them, of the State Department Travel Updates.


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

Isla Verde said:


> This forum invites comments presenting several points of view on a given topic. IMO, and speaking as a forum member and not as a moderator, TG was not putting down your choice but rather offering comments on the limitations, as he sees them, of the State Department Travel Updates.


I accept that. I find that I can manage the "limitations" that is his concern for not using, and although I can not speak for anyone else, I feel that the others that use this information can manage it also. I do appreciate his concern for our welfare.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

TundraGreen said:


> My comments about not trusting the judgement of "people on the ground" referred to the experiences of consulate staff in Mexico, as I believe I clearly stated. The consulate staff live a very protected life. They would not be allowed to live in my neighborhood, a perfectly placid middle class environment.


Most of the employees who staff the consulates and U.S. Embassy in Mexico City ... are Mexican nationals, from what I understand. Only supervisory or senior staff are career diplomatic/Department of State employees. In Mexico City, it was commonplace for the Department of State career employees to live in various colonias, amongst "locals." I believe that arrangement has changed, somewhat, and that the senior staff are now housed in more secure facilities. Embassy staff, and some of the consular staff, receive or were receiving hazardous duty pay when stationed in Mexico. Some of the warnings about taxi crime in Mexico City in the past were the direct result of consular staff, Mexicans, who were assaulted while passengers in taxi's. Other factual information comes from U.S. Citizens/Residents who are living or traveling in Mexico and who file reports with the consulates or Embassy when they've been victimized. 



> If sources for these advisories include CIA/DEA or other sources of information not publicly available, as I presume they do, then that would give them some additional credibility.


The military, FBI, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, DEA, etc., all have representatives working on behalf of the US government and also assisting the Mexican government and I don't doubt for a minute that their experiences and knowledge are some of what prompts certain language in the Travel Warnings.



> However, personally, I find them to be so general that they don't have much influence on how I live my life.


I've found the Travel Warnings to be more specific today than ever before, and that's, I'm recalling, the result of the Mexican government asking the USA to do that. Some specific incidents are referred to and the other information, which I do think is specific enough for my purposes, represents a series of incidents warranting the warning. Many nations, not just the USA, provide travel warnings/advisories for their citizens who are abroad. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation for these governments. If they don't advise their nationals of risks and citizens are victimized they turn to their governments and say, "Why didn't you tell us about this?" These are advisories and I don't interpret any of them as dictating how someone should live their lives. But we do see people do stupid things, ignore specific warnings and then become victims ... such as the adventure-seeker on the motorcycle who was slain in Michoacan/Guerrero a couple of months ago. 

The international media, IMO, provides relatively little information about current events in Mexico and, in particular, about the war and terrorist activities, and as pertains to them and other areas of risks for other reasons these warnings/advisories can serve the purpose of giving a "heads up" to travelers/foreign residents who aren't as up-do-date as some other people are or think they are. The same holds true for just about anything written on forums such as this: use what you read/learn together what we read/learn elsewhere and then form an opinion - don't rely on just one source for information.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

Longford said:


> Most of the employees who staff the consulates and U.S. Embassy in Mexico City ... are Mexican nationals, from what I understand. Only supervisory or senior staff are career diplomatic/Department of State employees. In Mexico City, it was commonplace for the Department of State career employees to live in various colonias, amongst "locals." I believe that arrangement has changed, somewhat, and that the senior staff are now housed in more secure facilities. …


That is very true, most of the staff are Mexican locals. They are employed locally, paid in pesos and are not US civil servants. I don't know what the policy was previously, but as long as I have been in Mexico, 7 years, the career US State Department employees have lived in gated communities in the wealthiest suburbs of Guadalajara. I have been to the Consul General's house several times (a perk of my former life in the Peace Corps). She lives in a very nice house with a gate and several full-time guards at the entrance. The public affairs officer lives in a double gated and guarded neighborhood. You check in at one guard house to get into the general neighborhood, then another to get into his family's street.

Given the attention that US embassies and consuls around the world receive, the security precautions are entirely understandable. But, it does seem to me that a consequence is that the consul/embassy US staff have little exposure to real life in Mexico. However, as others point out, it is unlikely the State Department is relying on the life experience of these sheltered employees for their advisories.

Incidentally and apropos of nothing, in contrast to the dollar salaries and perks enjoyed by State Department employees, Peace Corps volunteers are paid a minimal stipend in pesos. It is enough to live on but barely. In consequence, Peace Corps volunteers have an environment and life style more similar to lower middle class Mexicans.


----------



## Playaboy (Apr 11, 2014)

As someone who TRAVELS all over Mexico frequently, I appreciate the State Dept TRAVEL warnings. I am leaving next week for Nogales. Getting some current info on the goings on in Sinaloa and Sonora is helpful. I also look at Strafor, Borderland Beat, other web boards, and talk to people I know that live along my route. The more info I get the better decisions I can make. 

If you are living in your community and don't travel, then I don't see a reason to read TRAVEL warnings.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

Playaboy said:


> As someone who TRAVELS all over Mexico frequently, I appreciate the State Dept TRAVEL warnings. I am leaving next week for Nogales. Getting some current info on the goings on in Sinaloa and Sonora is helpful. I also look at Strafor, Borderland Beat, other web boards, and talk to people I know that live along my route. The more info I get the better decisions I can make.
> 
> If you are living in your community and don't travel, then I don't see a reason to read TRAVEL warnings.


So in other words if you somehow find out there was a gun battle between federal pólice/military and another armed group on a side road 2 klms. off of the Mx. 15D in Sinaloa yesterday you will go the long way around to avoid the área today. How many of the thousands travelling the 15D later that day and today will detour the área? Probably not a single traveller. Why should they? Once it is over it is over, right?


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

AlanMexicali said:


> So in other words if you somehow find out there was a gun battle between federal pólice/military and another armed group on a side road 2 klms. off of the Mx. 15D in Sinaloa yesterday you will go the long way around to avoid the área today. How many of the thousands travelling the 15D later that day and today will detour the área? Probably not a single traveller. Why should they? Once it is over it is over, right?


IMHO, that is a really bad response to PB. That is terrible that you should condemn/make fun of him for making a decision that he feels is best for his own safety. Terrible. It is his decision and his life. He is not interested in what YOU would do, he can make his own decisions. He did not say what he would do, but he would make his own decision. He did not say what you proposed, and even if he did, that is HIS right, not yours. Really terrible that you have such little consideration for his safety and his decisions. He has a right to decide for himself, and what he decides is none of your business. You have no right to chastise him.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

AlanMexicali said:


> Once it is over it is over, right?


Maybe, maybe not. 

Some areas present greater risks than others and just because an incident occurs at one point in a day doens't mean there won't be other, additional, risks the same day or on another day soon thereafter. Truly isolated incidents may be easier to identify and not worry about for some people who are familiar with current events in a particular community/region, but when an area sees multiple problems I think it's prudent for some people to review their travel plans to determine if a modification will provide greater peace of mind (and maybe "peace" of body as well).


----------



## Playaboy (Apr 11, 2014)

AlanMexicali said:


> So in other words if you somehow find out there was a gun battle between federal pólice/military and another armed group on a side road 2 klms. off of the Mx. 15D in Sinaloa yesterday you will go the long way around to avoid the área today. How many of the thousands travelling the 15D later that day and today will detour the área? Probably not a single traveller. Why should they? Once it is over it is over, right?


Alan it is not only the route, it is where you sleep and eat. 

If that gun battle, yesterday, happened 2km away from that restaurant or hotel I might stop at, I would make a different choice of where to eat or sleep today. If there has been multi-ongoing military operations in Los Mochis, I spend the night in Navajoa. Some times the battles go on for days if not weeks in parts of Mexico.

Driving from Cancun to Texas I go out of my way to stay away from the gulf coast. I used to drive the gulf route all the time. I love the Costa Esmerelda. I personally never had seen anything dangerous but I have read enough and talk to enough people to know that is not the safest route anymore. Now I, and most my friends, drive the central Puebla- Arco Norte - 57 route.

If I am in your town of SLP going to Harlingen, TX which route would you recommend as safer? The long way of 57N to Saltillo to Monterrey to Reynosa or the shorter way of taking the new cuota to Ciudad Victoria to 101N thru San Fernando and Valle Hermosa to Los Indios? Also why that choice?

I consult Altahabana (more reliable than the State Dept) all the time if I am driving thru his neck of the woods. If he says to stay away from a certain area, I do.

I appreciate the State Depts Travel Warnings. They are what they are. It is just another source of information to digest.

I drive all over Mexico, probably 30-40K last year. I am just doing the best I can. I want all the info I can get and then I will make my decisions that allow me to feel safe.

Isla and Tundra, I see you liked Alan's post. How much driving around this country do you folks do? How do you prepare for a thousand mile road trip in Mexico?


----------



## citlali (Mar 4, 2013)

The problems with evaluating an area or warning people is that the information is always a step behind. There was no warning that we knew of for September 11 and now we ould look at NY as a target,,which would be totally useless.
It is pretty much the same thing with warnings in Mexico. There are hot areas like the oast and norther Vera Cruz but who knows where and when they will hit next or if they will.
When we know there is a raging battle it is best to say away until it is over but past that there is no road map of where problems will start.

We were on our way to Papantla when all these bodies were discovered on a beach a little north of Vera Cruz and there was plenty of police when we got there but it is all about timing , we arrived the next day, could have been by the beach when it was happening you just never know, So you can stay at your house where it is safe or just gowherever you want to go and inchallah.

Better stay on main roads concidered safe to go from point A to point B but that is about it..


----------



## citlali (Mar 4, 2013)

By the way I think the warning are useful for people who ome to Mexico and have no idea if an area is safe or not. I think if you do not know an area you are smart to read the warning, knowing they there is or have been problems in an area. AT least you have a feel for what area are hot this said problems can happen anywhere at the most inexpected time and chanes are you can do whatever you want and have no problems.

I know that government people do pay attention to the local situations in Mexico but they can be a target when tourists are not so far..


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

What is needed is a crystal ball to predict when and where violence is apt to break out.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

Isla Verde said:


> What is needed is a crystal ball to predict when and where violence is apt to break out.


Not only a crystal ball but more like in the wrong place on the wrong moment.

Living/visiting 3 doors away on the same street and you might think it was fireworks until a neighbor tells you it was a violent incident.

So avoiding a country, a state, a city, a town, a certain road system, a certain neighborhood or even a certain street might be a waste of valuable time. IMHO


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

AlanMexicali said:


> So avoiding a country, a state, a city, a town, a certain road system, a certain neighborhood or even a certain street might be a waste of valuable time. IMHO


Maybe for you, but maybe not for others. That, IMHO, should be the decision of the traveler, as he see it for his safety. Each person has the right to be different and choose what works for him, and we all should respect that choice. What works for one doesn't always work for all.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

coondawg said:


> Maybe for you, but maybe not for others. That, IMHO, should be the decision of the traveler, as he see it for his safety. Each person has the right to be different and choose what works for him, and we all should respect that choice. What works for one doesn't always work for all.


This latest post by CoonDawg is a good summary that we should all keep in mind. We are just posting opinions here. Every one is entitled to their own opinion. By posting their opinions, one is not, or at least should not, be telling anyone else what to do.

This thread seems to have turned into a contest with people on each side appearing to feel attacked by those that disagree. If we can keep this conversation civil it can continue. If I see anymore posts from anyone telling people what they can or cannot say or should or should not say, I am going to close it.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

TundraGreen said:


> This latest post by CoonDawg is a good summary that we should all keep in mind. We are just posting opinions here. Every one is entitled to their own opinion. By posting their opinions, one is not, or at least should not, be telling anyone else what to do.
> 
> This thread seems to have turned into a contest with people on each side appearing to feel attacked by those that disagree. If we can keep this conversation civil it can continue. If I see anymore posts from anyone telling people what they can or cannot say or should or should not say, I am going to close it.


What I don't understand is why this particular topic has raised the hackles of so many forum members.


----------



## HolyMole (Jan 3, 2009)

Isla Verde said:


> What I don't understand is why this particular topic has raised the hackles of so many forum members.


I'm puzzled too. I've read US Travel Advisories in the past, and always found them helpful as a source - one of many - of useful information. I'm also aware of the crowd who greet every travel advisory with derision, dismissing them as nothing more than US government anti-Mexico propaganda, probably financed by the US travel industry. 

In another month, we'll be driving to Zihuatanejo, Guerrero for the winter. One option was to take Baja to La Paz, then ferry to the mainland, and south to Zihua, with our usual 3 or 4 days in Mazatlan on the way down. We've done this trip before, a few years ago.

The other option is to do some traveling around Louisiana/Mississippi, then head west along the Texas gulf coast, cross at Matamoros, continue south along the Mexican gulf coast to Veracruz, then west across Mexico to Zihua on the Pacific. We've done part of this trip before as well, but only as far south on the Mexican gulf coast as Ciudad Victoria, then south and west to San Luis Potosi/Morelia/Patzcuaro/Zihua.

Until I read recent posts here on the Forum, as well as this latest travel advisory, I was not aware that the coastal area north of Veracruz was one to avoid. I appreciate that information.

Over the years, we have traveled on many of the roads, to many of the areas that travel advisories have suggested should be avoided. All I can say is "touch wood." Driving in Mexico is like being one of those little fish in a huge swarm: you hope that when the seals, dolphins and other predators come, they'll get someone else.


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

The really dangerous driving will be from Canada to the Mexican border, where texting and driving is common. Of course you can toot your horn at them to get their attention back to keeping their car on the road, but that just tees them off and they are usually armed. Another foreigner friend, a German, had a lot of trouble of that sort, and finally realized that the ‘D‘ oval on the back of his car was being mistaken for a political symbol.


----------



## Hound Dog (Jan 18, 2009)

_


HolyMole said:



...I'm puzzled too. I've read US Travel Advisories in the past, and always found them helpful as a source - one of many - of useful information. I'm also aware of the crowd who greet every travel advisory with derision, dismissing them as nothing more than US government anti-Mexico propaganda, probably financed by the US travel industry. 


Until I read recent posts here on the Forum, as well as this latest travel advisory, *I was not aware that the coastal area north of Veracruz was one to avoid*. I appreciate that information....

Click to expand...

_


HolyMole said:


> HolyMole:
> 
> What you say about avoiding the drive along the coast north of Veracruz City is interesting to me. A while back, we drove the Veracruz Coast starting in Puebla State to Huachinango, Poza Rica, Papantla and down the coast to Veracruz City and from there to Alvarado and inland to The Tuxtlas, Catemaco and then to the autopista at Acayucan and on to San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas and, coincidental with that drive was the mass killing in Veracruz City with numerous naked bodies dumped on the expressway between the city and suburban Boca del Rio as well as the discovery of mutilated bodies all over the Veracruz metro área but our drive down this "dangerous" coast was uneventful although that is not an endorsement for the drive along that coast which is not that interesting and, besides, this is simply the luck of the draw.
> 
> On the other hand, a couple of years ago, we thought we had discovered a great, isolated beach área at the small settlement of Los Trojes, Guerrero north of Zihuatanejo and thought this a good beach destination from Lake Chapala via Uruapan and Nueva Italia down Highway 37 from the Guadalajara/Morelia Autopista to the coast and, while there, visited Zihuatanejo which was a bit frenetic for us as we like to run our mutts on wide deserted beaches and the beach áreas north of Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo seemed ideal for that. These days, however, that Route 37 to the coast has become noted for serious criminal activities especially in Michoacan´s Tierra Caliente so if we head for the beach from the lake, we prefer the Colima Coast which is more or less the same travel time. Not that we would not drive from Lake Chapala to the Guerrero Coast once again these days but why head into heavy duty cartel territory when alternatives exist both from our home at the lake and down in Chiapas where there are endless kilometers of deserted beaches without cartel activities at least on the Michoacan scale. Besides, those deserted beaches in Guerrero were a bit spooky in the dark while, it seemed to us, the local cops were nowhere to be seen. Maybe we are getting old and more cautious.


----------



## coondawg (May 1, 2014)

Hound Dog said:


> _Maybe we are getting old and more cautious._


_

Old, more cautious and wiser. _


----------

