Zion Backcountry Report 2006

[Iceaxe]

Attached in the 2006 Zion Backcountry Report in PDF format. Some really interesting information is buried inside. I'll let some of you comment and then make a couple of my own.

Thanks to Tom Jones for getting his hands on a copy so quickly.

I would be a good idea for everyone to take a few minutes and write a letter letting the NPS know how you feel about the current Backcountry Permit boondoggle.

letters should be sent to:

Superintendent
Zion National Park
Springdale, UT 84767


My personal feelings is that the permit system should be eliminated with the possible exception of a few high profile canyons. I believe trailhead registers could accomplish many of the same goals with a lot less hassles. But that is just my opinion.... feel free to express your own.... but please write a letter.

:five:

[tanya]

Has anyone read this yet?

[neumannbruce]

I have sent many letters to Zion NP Management - and plan to send another one. Such a waste of funds. There is no way the fees collected offset the costs associated with running such an in-efficient opperation ("long morning lines at the backcountry desk continue to be a problem") (is only one example).

A trailhead register would be ideal for the less popular slot canyons.

[tanya]

I have sent many letters to Zion NP Management - and plan to send another one. Such a waste of funds. There is no way the fees collected offset the costs associated with running such an in-efficient opperation ("long morning lines at the backcountry desk continue to be a problem") (is only one example).

A trailhead register would be ideal for the less popular slot canyons.

I also think a trailhead register would be ideal. I attended the scouting meetings and strongly suggested that idea to Kevin, Jill and the rest of the Zion types there. It should work with the exception of Keyhole, Subway and Pine Creek.. maybe Mystery. If I remember right their answer was they need to plan ahead for a growing sport... thus they need to keep it tight. It's easier to do that then take something away when it gets too popular.

[jb]

Tough to know what some of these numbers mean. For example, the percentage of days that the quota was reached. The author of this document states that for his/her purposes, a canyon was full when within 20% of the limit, which means at least 10 people for Spry. Spry was reported to be "full" 17 times last year, which apparently means that 170-204 people descended Spry on the "full" days. This seems to suggest that we should be careful not to equate "permits" with "people," because only 176 permits were issued during all of 2006 for Spry Canyon. Or was Spry only ever descended by large groups, and otherwise not at all? How many people were on the average permit? And if Spry only filled up 17 times during an optimal season lasting at least 180 days, the use limit of 12 is not only unnecessary, it borders on irrlevant and ridiculous. Even Behunin, that canyon that supposedly experienced the "600%" use increase a few years back, only filled 18 times and only 2 canyons filled more than the equivalent of a month's worth. If the use limits are ridiculous for most canyons, then an expensive permit system to enforce them is even more ridiculous.

It seems like the park should be issuing figures for number of people actually descending the canyon. At least, that's what it should be doing if it were really concerned about resource protection, which I thought was one of the principal justifications for the whole permit mess. Unless the numbers are skyrocketing--which they do not appear to be, although it is impossible to tell from this document--the whole permit mess should be abolished. Goose Creek has been an RNA for how long now? Show us some actual science comparing popular canyons with relatively untrodden ones. Describe and measure the ecological impact inflicted by numerous canyoneers. Please, NPS, give us some kind of rational, honest explanation for the expense and inconvenience that is the permit system. It's been almost 10 years, that should be enough time.

(Yes, I sent a letter.)

Jeff

[Iceaxe]

It seems like the park should be issuing figures for number of people actually descending the canyon.

One problem I know of that is a big concern..... only about 1/2 the permits that are reserved in advance are actually being picked up and used. I know this is a major problem with Subway. Permits are seldom cancelled. Second part of that problem is a large number of permits are for a greater number than actually descend the canyon. This again is from party members backing out at the last minute or groups over booking hoping additional friends will join up.

It seems to me that this "over booking" condition should be considered when setting group limits.

:popcorn: