Arches NP Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan [Archive]

Iceaxe

07-12-2010, 08:48 AM

Arches National Park is beginning work on a management plan to determine what impacts climbing, canyoneering, and associated activities, commercial and noncommercial, have on the park, and to consider how the NPS should further manage or limit those activities. Issues identified to date include effects on natural and cultural resources, increase in use levels, the development of new routes, use of fixed hardware, designation of climbing/canyoneering routes, development of approach trails, visual impacts and the effects of climbing/canyoneering on visitor safety and experiences.

A climbing/canyoneering management planning effort will consider a full range of alternatives to protect resources, visitors and visitor experience while providing for recreational climbing activities. This plan will comply with the Organic Act of 1916, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Arches National Park General Management Plan, and Wilderness Act of 1964. Arches National Park will seek to involve as many individuals as possible who have an interest in or concerns about climbing activities at Arches.

The NPS encourages public participation throughout the NEPA process during which the public has two opportunities to formally comment on the project; once during initial project scoping and again following release of the Environmental Assessment. We are currently in the scoping phase of this project, and I invite you to voice your ideas, comments, or concerns in this effort. These comments will be considered during preparation of the Environmental Assessment.

To submit a comment, please review the scoping brochure by clicking on "Open for Public Comment" on the lefthand side of this screen to access the document.

Contact Information
Sabrina Henry, Planning and Compliance Coordinator
sabrina_henry@nps.gov
435-719-2135

And here is a link to the Actual document
Public Scoping Brochure
(http://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectId=31985&docType=public&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=CCMP%20Scoping%20brochure%2Epdf&clientFilename=CCMP%20Scoping%20brochure%2Epdf)
The brochure is in PDF format.

Iceaxe

07-12-2010, 09:01 AM

And the part that is of interest to all canyoneers is the discussion of a permit system. Now would be a good time to send the park a nice short letter on your thoughts about a permit system and/or anything else that you consider important.

Issues/Alternatives
The following are some additional issues that have been identified through internal and preliminary project scoping:
• Continue with current management
• Define Arches NP climbing ethics
• Sport climbing
• Establishment of new routes via a permit system
• Establish trail systems to and through routes
• Commerical guiding for rock climbing and canyoneering
• Establish use levels for each activity via a permit system
• Bouldering
• Installation/Replacement of bolts, anchors, and software
• Rock grooving
• Group size limits
• Rescue considerations

It might be a good idea to toss around a few ideas or post a couple sample letters for comment to the forum if anyone has some free time to write something up (my time is really limited for the next few weeks). Maybe dust off a few of the old Zion letters regarding the permit system for thoughts.

The one thing I'm certian of is that if canyoneers present a united front with reasonable thoughts and suggestions our voice is more likely to be heard.

My basic thought is everyone should write a letter stating how a permit system detracts from your experience, how you have never considered crowding to be an issue in the Arches backcountry and how a permit system eats up valuable park resources in maintaining and management that you would prefer to see spent on more important projects.

:cool2:

jman

07-12-2010, 09:44 AM

If something was to be implemented or decided, what's the timeframe on that?

Like 2011? 2012???

Iceaxe

07-12-2010, 10:42 AM

The public scoping period is open from July 12 - August 10, 2010.... so start writing....

This is the first of two comment periods.... I've noticed anything that makes it to the second comment period is pretty much written in stone.... the first comment period is when all the spit balling is done and the best time to make your voice heard.... or at least that has been my past experiance in these dealings...

Iceaxe

07-12-2010, 10:45 AM

Anther thought..... consider the nightmare involved if the Lost Springs area was included in a permit system.... a 70 to 80 mile drive each way over a lot of rough dirt roads to pick up a permit....

Yeah.... that sounds fun... :roll:

Iceaxe

07-14-2010, 11:08 AM

I'm giving this a BUMP....

Folk's really need to spend a few minutes and write a letter so we do not end up with a permit system similar to the trainwreak in Zion.

moab mark

07-14-2010, 11:37 AM

I just went in and followed the steps to send in comments and it just kept sending me around in a circle? Has anyone been able to send in a comment electronically?

There is also a management plan discussing Desert Highlight reapplying for a permit.

Don

07-14-2010, 01:13 PM

Sounds like they are set on implementing a managment plan. Have you made suggestions about ways you think a management plan could work better than Zion's plan? Or are you just completely opposed to any permit plan? Given the popularity of canyons like Mystery, Pine Creek and the Subway do you see any benefit in the Zion permit system?

Iceaxe

07-14-2010, 01:33 PM

OK... first off I just contacted the park about the "continual do loop" their website runs you through. I'll post the info of where to email your letter when I get.

If you want to snail mail a letter it goes here:

National Park Service
Attention: Planning and Compliance
2282 S. West Resource Blvd
Moab, UT 84532

The future of Commercial guiding will be addressed under the new management plan. If I'm reading the arches website correctly the permit for Desert Highlights appears to be an open request for their licence renewal. Matt can probably provide more info and guidance if he would like help from the canyoneering community.

I don't know the exact rules.... but each NP is required to review and update their management plan every so often.

Climbing became a bullseye on the parks radar after Dean Potters climb of Delicate Arch and slack line over the Gossips. This is the fall out from those stunts. Canyoneering got scooped up and tossed in with climbing because the park feels they should be addressed as a unit.

renshiwo

07-16-2010, 02:54 PM

moab mark

07-16-2010, 08:10 PM

Sorry I didn't realize that this thread was here! I've just included the link.

Please review the brochure and submit your comment online at the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/arch (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/arch)

Hijack, hey non prego chic- Rebecca did you have a boy or girl? Hope all is well.

Have you got the inside track on what the park service is going to do to us poor canyoneers?

Mark

Iceaxe

07-17-2010, 11:46 AM

Hijack, hey non prego chic- Rebecca

I didn't realize who renshiwo was.... but now the avatar makes perfect sense. :lol8:

Iceaxe

07-20-2010, 09:10 AM

Here is the DIRECT link to comment on the Arches Climbing and Canyoneering Management plan:

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?parkID=25&projectID=31985&documentId=35115

Please take a minute to post your concerns.

Don

07-20-2010, 09:32 AM

Iceaxe

07-20-2010, 10:45 AM

Each National Park is required to have a management plan and keep it updated.... so "YES" the management plan is a done deal.....

One of the options open to the park is to continue with their current management plan. But after the Dean Potter stunts I don't see that happening.

Below are my personal opinions. Feel free to use ideas from the list below when making your own comments.

I oppose any additional permit system outside of the one currently in place with regards to the Fiery Furnace.

Permit systems are the greatest single obstruction to a pleasurable National Park experience. The bureaucratic requirements of the permit system are not conducive to enjoyable recreation. Standing in permit lines and dealing with the logistics of obtaining a permit place an unnecessary burden on the user that has a negative impact on visiting a National Park.

Climbers and canyoneers are not your typical tourists and often operate outside the normal hours of the visitor center, which make obtaining a permit problematic.

The establishment of use levels will do nothing to enhance my park experience. I have enjoyed Arches backcountry for many years and have never considered crowding or over use to be an issue off the tourist trails.

It has been my experience that administration of a permit system uses up valuable resources in money and manpower to operate that could be put to better use.

Poorly run or poorly executed permit systems often create friction between users and rangers turning the two groups into antagonists instead of partners.

Group size should be limited to a maximum of 12 and smaller groups encouraged. Smaller groups move faster with less impact.

I oppose commercial guiding inside Arches National Park. There are extensive areas outside of Arches that are currently available for commercial guiding.

Here is the parks bullet list:

o Continue with current management
o Define Arches NP climbing ethics
o Sport climbing
o Establishment of new routes via a permit system
o Establish trail systems to and through routes
o Commerical guiding for rock climbing and canyoneering
o Establish use levels for each activity via a permit system
o Bouldering
o Installation/Replacement of bolts, anchors, and software
o Rock grooving
o Group size limits
o Rescue considerations

Comment on the items you feel impact or are important to you.

Post your comments here:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?parkID=25&projectID=31985&documentId=35115

moabmatt

07-20-2010, 02:11 PM

I oppose commercial guiding inside Arches National Park. There are extensive areas outside of Arches that are currently available for commercial guiding.

Are you for real?

Iceaxe

07-20-2010, 02:21 PM

Are you for real?

Sorry Matt, I knew you wouldn't like that.... but I'm not a fan of commercial guiding when privateers have to begin competing against a commercial business for a limited resource (which is what this appears to be heading towards). As a sometimes river rafter I've had to many bad experiences..... outside of that I have nothing against commercial guiding....

ratagonia

07-20-2010, 09:00 PM

Iceaxe

07-20-2010, 09:23 PM

Hey.... I truly feel sorry for Matt and his permit problems. If it were just Matt and his permit I'd be all for it. But the other commercial outfitters are already lining up hoping for a concession to guide in Arches. If someone can point out positive reasons to void my concerns I'll be happy to change my opinion..... The park asked "for my opinion" and I told them. It was the same response I gave during the last Zion Scoping with regards to guiding. Feel free to express your opinion in your letter to the park.

moabmatt

07-21-2010, 07:16 PM

Sorry Matt, I knew you wouldn't like that.... but I'm not a fan of commercial guiding when privateers have to begin competing against a commercial business for a limited resource (which is what this appears to be heading towards). As a sometimes river rafter I've had to many bad experiences..... outside of that I have nothing against commercial guiding....

In that case, why not simply tell the NPS that "if a permit system is implemented then I'm against private groups having to compete with commercial groups for limited permits?" The way you state it, you're basically hosing your good buddy Matt! Would you still be against guiding in Arches if there was no competition for permits?

The irony and reality of it is, Shane, that the park service is not happy with the impacts begat from your beta. Plain, simple and true. They do not like the marked increase in visitation and resultant proliferation of social trails, the increase in visual impacts from new fixed anchors, the heinous rope grooves from careless rope anchoring, the increase in search and rescue callouts, etc. So far this year there have been two rescues of private groups in Tierdrop (a broken leg from some guy who didn't know how to control his rappel and another fella who got his autoblock stuck and couldn't free it on his own - yes, SAR was actually called out to assist someone who didn't know how to disengage his self-belay!) and a near-fatality in Bighorn because someone didn't know how to tie a water knot. :roll: Another group a couple years back was led by a leader who got in over his head in Dragonfly and the leader actually prayed to god for the safety of his group! This fella became overwhelmed in this most basic canyon with bombproof fixed anchors with bombproof weather with athletic young men! I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but there is no doubt that the caliber of groups visiting these canyons - and certainly the caliber of leadership of these groups - has gone waaay down as a result of your beta. Believe me, this is what most concerns the NPS right now. Yes, there was another guide service requesting a permit that gave the NPS some pause, but this service was using your beta. And we've seen this other service in the other canyons using your beta. I'm sorry if I sound sour regarding your website beta service, but the reality is that it's f'ing up the park and our business.

Finally, saying that there are "extensive areas" outside the park available for guiding makes it clear you've not applied for a permit to guide on public lands. Yes, there is a lot of BLM land near Moab, but with all the strictly managed designated WSAs (Wilderness Study Areas), ACECs (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern), NSO areas (Non-Surface Occupancy), spotted owl habitat, raptor nesting sites, nesting seasons, bighorn lambing seasons and so on, there are few canyons where permits are readily issued or where guiding isn't significantly restricted. In canyons we are able to get permits for it's not uncommon to have significant restrictions on group sizes, frequency of trips and even whole seasons where guiding is not allowed. The most recent canyon we received permits for is off-limits from April 1st to August 31st. Great, we've got basically three workable months to guide that canyon. :roll: By the way, none of these restrictions are imposed on private groups. So what it boils down to is that despite Moab being surrounded by these seemingly less-regulated public lands (BLM and FS) there really aren't the "extensive areas" you mention available to make guiding very viable. And the bottom line for us is that, while there are canyons outside the park, we simply love guiding in Arches. The park is convenient to Moab and the canyons there are great. Losing those canyons for no good reason is really hurting us, both financially and emotionally.

So, as long as you continue to post beta of - and make money from - the canyons inside the park, we'd appreciate it if you can find it in your heart to show a little more support of us guides who love providing safe, enjoyable, low-impact experiences in those canyons to visitors who are not a part of your little circle of friends.

moab mark

07-22-2010, 07:06 AM

oldno7

07-22-2010, 08:21 AM

Matt,

What do you want to see the Park do from this point forward? Do you have a feeling from your meetings with the Park on reinstating your permit what they are looking at doing? What do you suggest our comments as recreational canyoneers should be to the Park?

In your above post you talked about significant wear and tear on the routes. Can you give us some examples of where the Park is seeing this and any suggestions on how we could address this with the Park Service? Other then the freeway now into Tierdrop I have not seen any significant change in the last several years. I would imagine Tierdrop and Dragon Fly are seeing the majority of the use?

Mark

And beyond what Marks questions are--maybe you could explain the benefits of having your guide service in the park are to the general public.
You have a track record of fabricating stories to help your own agenda in the park, maybe explain how you have made zero impact on the park in the time you have had a permit there.
maybe explain how you held a rendezvous open to unlimited, trained and untrained guests, and how they had zero environmental impact on the park and local area.
As for now, I'll agree with Shane, I don't see the benefit of your company in "our" park. But I'm willing to listen to your argument.(I haven't sent my reply in yet)
So easy to blame others, so hard to look in the mirror for blame.

rcwild

07-22-2010, 09:44 AM

And beyond what Marks questions are--maybe you could explain the benefits of having your guide service in the park are to the general public.
You have a track record of fabricating stories to help your own agenda in the park, maybe explain how you have made zero impact on the park in the time you have had a permit there.
maybe explain how you held a rendezvous open to unlimited, trained and untrained guests, and how they had zero environmental impact on the park and local area.
As for now, I'll agree with Shane, I don't see the benefit of your company in "our" park. But I'm willing to listen to your argument.(I haven't sent my reply in yet)
So easy to blame others, so hard to look in the mirror for blame.

Kurt,

You certainly understand that the exact same arguments can be made about you teaching courses outside "our" park. Are you suggesting that lines exist (i.e. Park boundaries) that require zero impact on one side but not the other? None of us can claim to have zero impact where we travel, but anyone who actually knows Matt knows he is the most conscientious canyon guide in the U.S. I have done canyons and taught courses with him. I have never seen anyone else go to the same degree he does to educate guiding clients and students in low impact travel. Matt does not just talk the talk; he walks the walk and encourages everyone he meets to do the same.

Do the trained and untrained individuals who participate in your courses have zero environmental impact? Of course not, but knowing you as I do, I am sure you do your absolute best to teach appropriate low impact skills to your students just as Matt does with his.

I know you and Matt have clashed in the past. That's unfortunate because I think you are both great guys who would become friends if you spent some time together. Don't interpret your misunderstandings with Matt as anything but misunderstandings. Very unlikely Matt ever fabricated any stories. You are both very honorable men.

On this issue, I must respectfully disagree with you and Shane. Matt was a great asset to the Park. They made a mistake pulling his permit. If anyone is interested in started a petition drive to help Matt get his permit back, let me know. I will be happy to help any way I can.

Iceaxe

07-22-2010, 10:05 AM

I have a few questions and thoughts for some of you.....

Tom - During the Zion Scoping a few years back you were a huge advocate of no commercial guiding inside Zion NP. My comments above on guiding are basically stolen from your Zion Scoping suggestions. So my question to you is why is Arches any different? I understand Matt is a personal friend and you are now a professional guide, but this is supposed to be about what is best for our park over the next 20 years or so.... so why is Arches different or why has your opinion changed?

Matt - You have a habit of laying all the blame on those who post beta. But I see it much differently.... it really depends on how big of picture you want to look at. I could just as easily say you are the problem. If you were not guiding canyons inside the park the sport would not be under such a fine microscope. If you were not hyping the wonders of routes inside Arches there would be little demand for me to post beta. I've told you this before, demand for Moab beta runs 10 to 1 in my mailbox over everything else combined. Or at least it did until two years ago when I made a concentrated effort to meet the demand. Arches is very popular and folks want information on the area. For better or worse.... You are as responsible as anyone for making the place so popular and the current situation.

Anyhoo.... you keep harping on what has already transpired. There is no way to put the genie back in the bottle, even if I was inclined to do do it. So my question to you is what would you like to see from the canyoneering community? Or at least those that would like to see commercial guiding continue inside the park. Perhaps posting a few suggestion of what you would like to see included in our comments?

And Matt, please understand that none of this is aimed directly at you. My personal beliefs are that commercial guiding should be eliminated from all National Parks...... but I have an open mind and I'm happy to listen to arguments that support guiding.

trackrunner

07-22-2010, 10:07 AM

I guess my questions for Matt, in addition to Mark's and Kurt's, if the park has a permit process should guide services and rec canyoneers compete against each other for those limited permits? Meaning the # of people with a guide will affect the # of people allowed from the rec pool.

Or should it be the # from guide services and rec canyoneers does not change the # allowed from the other group?

What could rec canyoneers write for their comments that will help your business get its access back?

Do you see the permit process avoidable? What can we do to avoid it? Are you in favor of permits?

FYI, even though we haven’t met, of the major players I’ve met they all speak highly of you and your services privately (& publically). I respect the minimum impact you have had over the years and your “slick” invention. So whatever I (we) can do to help you out let me (us) know. I just hope rec canyoneers don’t compete against your guide service if a permit process is inevitable.

Thanks,

oldno7

07-22-2010, 10:18 AM

Kurt,

You certainly understand that the exact same arguments can be made about you teaching courses outside "our" park. Are you suggesting that lines exist (i.e. Park boundaries) that require zero impact on one side but not the other? None of us can claim to have zero impact where we travel, but anyone who actually knows Matt knows he is the most conscientious canyon guide in the U.S. I have done canyons and taught courses with him. I have never seen anyone else go to the same degree he does to educate guiding clients and students in low impact travel. Matt does not just talk the talk; he walks the walk and encourages everyone he meets to do the same.

Do the trained and untrained individuals who participate in your courses have zero environmental impact? Of course not, but knowing you as I do, I am sure you do your absolute best to teach appropriate low impact skills to your students just as Matt does with his.

I know you and Matt have clashed in the past. That's unfortunate because I think you are both great guys who would become friends if you spent some time together. Don't interpret your misunderstandings with Matt as anything but misunderstandings. Very unlikely Matt ever fabricated any stories. You are both very honorable men.

On this issue, I must respectfully disagree with you and Shane. Matt was a great asset to the Park. They made a mistake pulling his permit. If anyone is interested in started a petition drive to help Matt get his permit back, let me know. I will be happy to help any way I can.
I've never claimed to not make an impact, I'm more realistic than that. Matt on the other hand has stated he has no impact on the canyons, and that large groups are a serious detriment to the park.(paraphrased from arguments on your site last year)
There are definite lines and differences between inside vs. outside the park. I teach in an area that is destined to become condominiums. That probably can't be said anywhere inside the park.
As I said, I'm open to Matts pitch on how he can benefit the park with his service. Until I hear otherwise, I'll stick with my first assessment.

ratagonia

07-22-2010, 10:29 AM

Tom - During the Zion Scoping a few years back you were a huge advocate of no commercial guiding inside Zion NP.

Nope, not me. I have always considered well-managed guiding to be a positive for a National Park.

In ZCC discussion, I was highly outvoted on this issue. Therefore the ZCC position was different than my own, personal position.

I believe that the Park should manage things that require managing, and not make up problems and exclude user groups based on prejudice and public opinion. This is what I feel happened on the Zion Plan. In the planning process, I believe the burden of the proof is on the Park to demonstrate that a problem exists, and then figure out the least-intrusive way to manage it.

Is there a conflict between recreationists and commercial companies? I mean, an actual, on the ground, in the canyons conflict - rather than an "in Shane's mind" conflict? If so, then what is the least intrusive way of managing the conflict?

The people that Matt and I bring to these wonderful places, and have wonderful adventures with, are co-owners of the National Parks, too.

Tom :moses:

ratagonia

07-22-2010, 10:29 AM

Kurt,

You certainly understand that the exact same arguments can be made about you teaching courses outside "our" park. Are you suggesting that lines exist (i.e. Park boundaries) that require zero impact on one side but not the other? None of us can claim to have zero impact where we travel, but anyone who actually knows Matt knows he is the most conscientious canyon guide in the U.S. I have done canyons and taught courses with him. I have never seen anyone else go to the same degree he does to educate guiding clients and students in low impact travel. Matt does not just talk the talk; he walks the walk and encourages everyone he meets to do the same.

Do the trained and untrained individuals who participate in your courses have zero environmental impact? Of course not, but knowing you as I do, I am sure you do your absolute best to teach appropriate low impact skills to your students just as Matt does with his.

I know you and Matt have clashed in the past. That's unfortunate because I think you are both great guys who would become friends if you spent some time together. Don't interpret your misunderstandings with Matt as anything but misunderstandings. Very unlikely Matt ever fabricated any stories. You are both very honorable men.

On this issue, I must respectfully disagree with you and Shane. Matt was a great asset to the Park. They made a mistake pulling his permit. If anyone is interested in started a petition drive to help Matt get his permit back, let me know. I will be happy to help any way I can.

:2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs:

and, for the record, I 'rarely' agree with Rich.

Tom :moses:

rcwild

07-22-2010, 10:31 AM

Matt - You have a habit of laying all the blame on those who post beta. But I see it much differently.... it really depends on how big of picture you want to look at. I could just as easily say you are the problem. If you were not guiding canyons inside the park the sport would not be under such a fine microscope. If you were not hyping the wonders of routes inside Arches there would be little demand for me to post beta. I've told you this before, demand for Moab beta runs 10 to 1 in my mailbox over everything else combined. Or at least it did until two years ago when I made a concentrated effort to meet the demand. Arches is very popular and folks want information on the area. For better or worse.... You are as responsible as anyone for making the place so popular and the current situation.

Guides and beta peddlers (websites and guidebooks) all make money from canyons. Public at large might complain about the profit motive, but many take advantage of the beta generated by the guides and beta peddlers. Who are the better stewards of the canyons? Guides? Beta peddlers? Recreational canyoneers?

I will argue that, in most instances, guides are the better stewards. In most instances they love the canyons as much or more than other users. Love for the canyons was likely their primary motivation for becoming guides. Very few people become guides for the money. Guides are also motivated to be good stewards for financial reasons. Always more desirable to guide in a pristine canyon than in one that is scarred by heavy traffic, graffiti, multi-colored webbing, rope grooves, trash, etc. Guides are also face-to-face with their clients. Beta peddlers can include a page on their websites or in their books about leave no trace ethics, but it is doubtful that very many of their users actually read those pages. Guides, especially those like Matt who really care, command their clients' attention and provide instant feedback/correction when appropriate practices are violated. Clients experience Matt's passion. They hear it in his voice and observe him practicing what he preaches.

There is also a huge disparity in the volume of people who are attracted to canyons by guides vs those who are attracted by beta peddlers. The number of people guided is extremely low compared to the number of people who get beta from websites and guidebooks. Consider: Matt guides six people from Iowa who go back to Iowa and tell their friends. Few of their friends run out to Utah to visit the canyons. Thousands of people who live in the west/southwest pay for beta. The beta buyers are just the tip of the iceberg. Buyer spends $19.95 for his guidebook and shares the beta with friends, who share it with friends, who post it on internet forums for more people to see. Beta spreads exponentially - by the 2nd power with guides, by the 10th power with beta peddlers.

rcwild

07-22-2010, 10:35 AM

:2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs:

and, for the record, I 'rarely' agree with Rich.

Tom :moses:

As it should be. When you disagree with me, it provides confirmation that I am right. :cool2:

oldno7

07-22-2010, 10:40 AM

As it should be. When you disagree with me, it provides confirmation that I am right. :cool2:

So if Tom disagrees with you your "right"--------------
Therefore if he agrees with you, your W______:lol8:

rcwild

07-22-2010, 10:50 AM

So if Tom disagrees with you your "right"--------------
Therefore if he agrees with you, your W______:lol8:

Touche :haha:

ratagonia

07-22-2010, 10:51 AM

My personal beliefs are that commercial guiding should be eliminated from all National Parks...

Would you like to put forth a reason for that, Shane? Or, do you just hate America?

Tom :moses:

ratagonia

07-22-2010, 11:06 AM

So if Tom disagrees with you your "right"--------------
Therefore if he agrees with you, your W______:lol8:

I asked God for a three-way for my Birthday. Guess I should have been more specific... :moses:

oldno7

07-22-2010, 11:18 AM

I asked God for a three-way for my Birthday. Guess I should have been more specific... :moses:

Now that's hilarious:haha:........

BTW--If it is your birthday--best wishes.

ratagonia

07-22-2010, 11:52 AM

Now that's hilarious:haha:........

BTW--If it is your birthday--best wishes.

It's a few months away - and I'm working of being very, very specific!

Tom :moses:

trackrunner

07-22-2010, 11:58 AM

Is there a conflict between recreationists and commercial companies? I mean, an actual, on the ground, in the canyons conflict

I never had. bumped into some ZAC guides with clients in a canyon before. They have always have been nice and courteous towards me, and me towards them.
A perceived conflict may be with the permit quota. If only 12 people allowed in a canyon per day guides and rec canyoneers would compete for those spots.

ratagonia

07-22-2010, 12:03 PM

I never had. bumped into some ZAC guides with clients in a canyon before. They have always have been nice and courteous towards me, and me towards them.
A perceived conflict may be with the permit quota. If only 12 people allowed in a canyon per day guides and rec canyoneers would compete for those spots.

Then what you should be working against is inappropriate quotas, not guiding.

Tom

oldno7

07-22-2010, 12:13 PM

Since we seem to be going the rounds here and not gaining much, I thought I'd throw out my talking points:

1) If commercial guiding of canyoneers is allowed, how about commercial guiding for hunting, horse pack trips, trekking, atv tours,etc? Where and how do you draw the line?
2) Since were talking commercialization within a NP, should we allow drilling and mining in the same park?(they return huge profits to land agencies)
3) how do you define commercial use?

That might be enough to get us started on the next 10 pages.......

jman

07-22-2010, 12:46 PM

Personally, if a permit system is implemented. That's okay by me. First, it is the "backcountry" and lives have been saved by their lack of preparedness, stupidity, weather, acts of god, etc.

The only problem with permits is the quota, which I think everyone could agree with. If we had to register and let the NP be know what canyon we were doing, that would be totally fine. But on the other side of the token, if large groups like 300 boy scouts going through Dragonfly canyon or Tierdrop at the same time - that is a BIG problem and recipe for disaster.

My vote would be a maximum of 100 people per day per canyon. That eliminates the extremes - and no more than 15 people in a group. Just throwing that out there...

Maybe, I'm reflecting my feeelings from Zion to Moab...

Don

07-22-2010, 01:01 PM

Weird. I'm all for conservation but I suddenly find the idea of the Swell or North Wash becoming N.M. or N.P. much less appealing.

DWayne27

07-22-2010, 02:14 PM

Weird. I'm all for conservation but I suddenly find the idea of the Swell or North Wash becoming N.M. or N.P. much less appealing.

My sentiments exactly.

bshwakr

07-22-2010, 02:54 PM

oldno7

07-22-2010, 03:24 PM

oldno7

07-22-2010, 03:29 PM

For those interested in opening a Hunting concession in Arches:

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][B]TITLE 36

bshwakr

07-22-2010, 04:04 PM

moabmatt

07-22-2010, 04:53 PM

1) Hunting is allowed in Katmai National preserve as well as Denali. There is precedence.
Snowmobiles are used in Yellowstone as well as Teton National park they are only allowed through a guide concession. (commercial use)
Makes atv's in Arches seem reasonable. Not a lot of tourist in the grand ride donkeys, they do however ride mules.
2) commercial use is not necessarily considered development. Commercial use is an entity that stands to profit from using public lands. In this case Desert Highlights in Arches NP
I would guess if someone were to propose a lodge at fiery furnace(development) the park service would consider.( but I obviously don't know this)

Kurt,

Currently, Arches NP would most definitely not consider a request for a lodge at the Fiery Furnace, nor entertain the use of ATVs in the park. While these developments and activities are allowed in other NPS units, keep in mind that each park is established with certain goals and policies that are outlined through their respective management plans. I said "currently" because these management plans are updated on a regular basis, typically 10 to 20 year intervals. If a future administration updates the management plan such that it deems that kind of development and use appropriate then so be it. I gotta say, the chance of any future administrators of Arches deeming such development and use appropriate is extremely slim. It's just simply not what the park was set aside for.

Commercial entities are not discouraged in NPS units, so long as the service is deemed necessary and appropriate. The Park Service recognizes that many businesses offer services that are very beneficial to the various park units. The NPS works with these businesses simply because the NPS doesn't want to, or can't, provide these services on their own. We all have to make a living and, whether you like it or not, the NPS finds nothing wrong with a small business owner making a living in a park unit providing a service deemed necessary and appropriate by the NPS.

You asked what benefit we provide to visitors in "your" park? Well, "your" park is "their" park, too. Hopefully the comments of your peers on this site will help convince you of the benefits we provide. If you still have doubts, I invite you to read the many comments and testimonials on our website from the park's visitors that have used us as their guide. I can even forward you a few hundred emails these and other visitors recently sent to Kate Cannon relating the benefits of our services they used in the park. If you're still having doubts after that then I even invite you to ask the employees of Arches, from the seasonal rangers all the way up to Kate Cannon herself, of the benefits we bring to the park's visitors and - ultimately - to the park itself. You'll find they have nothing but positive things to say about our service.

As for hosting a couple of Rondy trips into the park and the associated impacts, well, I'll let those who were on those trips answer that. Of course, I doubt many of them frequent this forum, so you may not hear much, but what you will hear I can assure you will be very positive. And if Rich Carlson - who's undoubtedly spent more time with more guides than all of us combined and who joined me on a Rondy trip into the park - states that I'm the most environmentally concientious guide he knows, well that should help ease your doubt. If it doesn't, then I'm not sure what will - short of personally hiking with me or any of the other Desert Highlights guides (who are, in my opinion even more concientious than I).

That said, I really would love to hike with you sometime. As Rich mentioned, you and I have a lot in common and we'd get along well if only given the chance. As fun as it may be for us to have someone to bash on an faceless, impersonal internet forum, I'd really like to move on and bury the hatchet with you. I hope you'll take me up on that offer while you're in Moab and reciprocate the offer if I'm in your neck of the woods.

Cheers,
Matt

oldno7

07-22-2010, 06:10 PM

RIF Matt
I never said "your" park as in mine. I stated "our" park as in everyones.(see post #22)
It's funny how you hosted a Rondy trip through Fiery Furnace this year and all your co-horts will confirm that it was low impact.
I did the same thing last year at a Rondy I put on(BTW, I coined the term Moab Rondy, glad to see you using it) and you said we destroyed the Fiery Furnace. Despite MY cohorts telling you we had a very low impact.
Best wishes on your future use of the park.

edit: you'll also notice in that post where I stated I was willing to listen to your side.

Scott P

07-22-2010, 08:05 PM

My personal beliefs are that commercial guiding should be eliminated from all National Parks...

But haven’t you yourself been on guided trips in the National Parks? Was it a bad experience?

Anyway, I’m not against guiding in National Parks as long as they leave the place clean (and it seems to me that Matt does) and don’t hog all the permits.

For example, river guiding in the Grand Canyon is extremely unfair. The commercial groups (of which all charge thousands of dollars for their services) take so many permits in that private boaters are nearly squeezed out. I’m not against guiding the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, but someone in a private party and someone on a commercial trip should have the same waiting list and the same chances of getting a permit. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

I can see how the same thing can happen in Zion NP with Pine Creek or the Subway, for example. I would be very against these canyons being guided, even if the quotas were raised.

On the other hand, in the Arches NP canyons, there hasn’t been any competition since about the only ones doing the canyons were the guiding companies and a very select few (such as Steve Ramras) and probably a handful of others.

The “canyons” in Arches seem to be ideal for guiding. I haven’t been to the technical ones at Lost Springs, but the other ones that are well known aren’t really canyons at all and are marginal at best. Most people that would be interested in them are only people whom haven’t seen a good canyon. Even Dragonfly, one of the best canyons in Arches (and still fun) would be considered very marginal if it were in places like Zion, Escalante and the Paria.

For experienced canyoneers (or experienced non-technical hikers), the canyons in Arches/Moab are nothing special (except for maybe the features in Fiery Furnace) and very short. Still for someone whom hasn’t rappelled or isn’t experienced in canyoneering, they would be a thrill (which is why they are perfect for guiding). The awesome part of Arches is the arches themselves and the rock towers, plus the awesome viewpoints (which is the best part about places like Tierdrop).

In my opinion, publishing the canyons in Arches is probably the main reason for increased restrictions. It is not limited to the internet or Arches. Virginia Park and Jasper Canyon were both closed right after Kelsey’s book came out with beta on the routes. Same goes for some of the canyons on the Navajo Nation.

From a legal standpoint, I agree with Shane that it is perfectly legal to post the beta on the Arches canyons, but from a principle standpoint, I would side mostly with Matt on this one.

I think the canyons in Arches are perfectly suitable and desirable for guiding (if done discreetly and clean). IMHO, they are not very ideal for an experienced canyoneer (at least the ones I have done).

There are thousands of other canyons out there that can be published, so I don’t know if placed like Tierdrop really need to be.

moab mark

07-22-2010, 09:56 PM

Kurt,

I can even forward you a few hundred emails these and other visitors recently sent to Kate Cannon relating the benefits of our services they used in the park. If you're still having doubts after that then I even invite you to ask the employees of Arches, from the seasonal rangers all the way up to Kate Cannon herself, of the benefits we bring to the park's visitors and - ultimately - to the park itself. You'll find they have nothing but positive things to say about our service.

Cheers,
Matt

My buddy has used Matt's service several times and sent an email as well as a phone call to Cannon on Matt's behalf. By the response he got back I will be surprised if commercial guiding is reestablished in the Park. Her response was pretty final in regards to commercial guiding. She stated that several other companies had approached the Park about permits and this was not a path they wanted to go down. She stated that Desert Highlights had done an exemplary job over the years but they could not discriminate against these other companies. My buddies impressions could be way off base but he got the feeling from his phone call that this is what started the whole overhaul of the Parks Management Plan.

Scott P

07-23-2010, 11:00 AM

She stated that Desert Highlights had done an exemplary job over the years but they could not discriminate against these other companies.

I don't know the process and implications, but it seems like they actually can. Mount Rainier NP, Denali NP and Grand Teton NP all do this. Only a select few companies are allowed to guide some of the routes there.

rcwild

07-23-2010, 11:47 AM

I don't know the process and implications, but it seems like they actually can. Mount Rainier NP, Denali NP and Grand Teton NP all do this. Only a select few companies are allowed to guide some of the routes there.

They can if it is specified in their management plan. Sounds like Arches hasn't addressed it in theirs so they were left with no argument against allowing all other guide services that applied. Simpler for now to say no to everyone, including Matt.

moabmatt

07-23-2010, 01:40 PM

My buddy has used Matt's service several times and sent an email as well as a phone call to Cannon on Matt's behalf. By the response he got back I will be surprised if commercial guiding is reestablished in the Park. Her response was pretty final in regards to commercial guiding. She stated that several other companies had approached the Park about permits and this was not a path they wanted to go down. She stated that Desert Highlights had done an exemplary job over the years but they could not discriminate against these other companies. My buddies impressions could be way off base but he got the feeling from his phone call that this is what started the whole overhaul of the Parks Management Plan.

Kate's response was definitely "final" in that we would not be issued a permit this year. It wasn't implied that we would never have our permit reestablished in the future.

As for not being able to discriminate, the NPS is prohibited by law from issuing more CUAs than are consistent with the preservation and proper management of park resources and values. With this in mind, it is my opinion and that of those with whom I've consulted, that Kate does have the ability to limit the number of CUAs issued.

oldno7

07-23-2010, 04:20 PM

moabmatt

07-23-2010, 07:28 PM

I'm sure this is purely coincidental, heres a letter I received today.

Hello Kurt -

I understand that you have a permit for the School Institutional Trust
Lands Administration for a small area before the fee booth at Sand Flats
recreation Area. I am curious as to whether you may be operating on any BLM
lands within the Moab and/ or Monticello Field Offices?
Thanks!

Jennifer Jones- Outdoor Recreation Planner
Moab BLM, 82 East Dogwood, Moab, UT 84532
phone: 435-259-2136
fax: 435-259-2158

email: jljones@blm.gov

Of course my answer was the truth--No.

OH WHAT A FUN GAME THIS COULD BE(checking on canyoneer guides and instructors for land use permits in the areas they work)
I'm legal, I wonder if other Guides and instructors who post here are?

For the record, I inquired about you this winter. ;) And I'm not the only one. I know other companies regularly check, as well. It's nothing personal nor is it what I'd call a game; more like looking out for the best interest of your business. It's done in other industries and guiding is no exception.

It's pretty easy to pirate guide on public lands. With only a couple law enforcement rangers patrolling the 1.9 million acres that make up the Moab Field Office, this area is a haven for pirate guiding. Land managers often look to the legit guides to notify them of illegal guiding. Jennifer has asked me a couple times within the past year about you and I've mentioned that you're operating solely on SITLA land by the booth. I suspect she's asked others, too. What's suprising is that she's just now contacted you today.

One afternoon a couple years ago we were denied a daily permit to guide a trip into Lomatium Canyon because all 75 daily permits for the Fiery Furnace had been issued that day (there's a limit of 75 people per day in the Fiery Furnace). I called around and found that an unauthorized guide service had been issued ten permits for that day just a half an hour before us. This maxed out the limit and our group of six was denied entry that day because of this unauthorized group. Crazy thing was this group was not penalized and we were the ones who lost out on revenue (and, perhaps more importantly, our clients missed out on a great day in the Furnace)! Needless to say, as a result of this and the competitive legitimate businesses here, we all take illegal guiding seriously around here.

Kurt, you're a builder. I'm sure you wouldn't want an unauthorized builder stealing some of your potential contracts?

oldno7

07-23-2010, 07:50 PM

So, since we also teach in Colorado Springs and Cedar City, you would suggest checking into all others who operate in those areas?
I would be "looking out for the best interest of my business"?

oldno7

07-23-2010, 08:12 PM

I'll go a few rungs up the BLM ladder above Jennifer Tuesday and make certain this is BLM protocol. If it is, so be it. I have nothing to hide. If it is merely Moab local protocol(witch hunt) I hope she's prepared to answer to her bosses.
Of course I will only be checking for the "best interest of my business"

oldno7

07-23-2010, 08:19 PM

For the record, I inquired about you this winter. ;) And I'm not the only one. I know other companies regularly check, as well. It's nothing personal nor is it what I'd call a game; more like looking out for the best interest of your business. It's done in other industries and guiding is no exception.

It's pretty easy to pirate guide on public lands. With only a couple law enforcement rangers patrolling the 1.9 million acres that make up the Moab Field Office, this area is a haven for pirate guiding. Land managers often look to the legit guides to notify them of illegal guiding. Jennifer has asked me a couple times within the past year about you and I've mentioned that you're operating solely on SITLA land by the booth. I suspect she's asked others, too. What's suprising is that she's just now contacted you today.

One afternoon a couple years ago we were denied a daily permit to guide a trip into Lomatium Canyon because all 75 daily permits for the Fiery Furnace had been issued that day (there's a limit of 75 people per day in the Fiery Furnace). I called around and found that an unauthorized guide service had been issued ten permits for that day just a half an hour before us. This maxed out the limit and our group of six was denied entry that day because of this unauthorized group. Crazy thing was this group was not penalized and we were the ones who lost out on revenue (and, perhaps more importantly, our clients missed out on a great day in the Furnace)! Needless to say, as a result of this and the competitive legitimate businesses here, we all take illegal guiding seriously around here.

Kurt, you're a builder. I'm sure you wouldn't want an unauthorized builder stealing some of your potential contracts?

........................

rcwild

07-23-2010, 08:21 PM

Kurt,

I don't think you understand why Jennifer wrote to you. Please call her.

oldno7

07-23-2010, 08:31 PM

Kurt,

I don't think you understand why Jennifer wrote to you. Please call her.
Did that this afternoon. Like I said, if what she did is protocol, no harm no foul.

Iceaxe

07-24-2010, 12:02 PM

Arches seeks public input on new climbing management plan
Managers may widen ban that was stressed after a 2006 incident.
By Tom Wharton - The Salt Lake Tribune
Jul 24, 2010

Climber Dean Potter drew the wrath of environmentalists and many of his fellow climbers in May 2006 with his controversial “free solo” climb of Utah’s iconic Delicate Arch, but vague regulations prevented Arches National Park managers from ever prosecuting him.

Instead, they quickly clarified what they thought had been a well-understood rule prohibiting all rock climbing on any arch or natural bridge named on the United States Geological Survey 7.5 topographical maps. The rule also prohibits slacklining, or walking on a flat nylon webbing or rope anchored between rock formations, trees or any other natural feature.

Now park managers want to revisit — and possibly expand — the rule. They’re seeking public input as they begin development of a new Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan for Arches.

Managers recognize rock climbing and canyoneering as significant park activities, said Sabrina Henry, planning and compliance coordinator for the park.

The plan’s goal is to ensure it can continue with an assurance the park’s unique natural and cultural resources will be preserved and protected.

Canyoneering will get a particularly close look because of the increased popularity of the activity, which involves cross-country travel that requires the use of climbing gear to ascend and descend some challenging areas.

According to the project scope document issued earlier this month by Superintendent Kate Cannon, park managers will evaluate the effects of increased use, the development of new routes, the use of fixed hardware, the designation of climbing and canyoneering routes, the development of approach trails, the visual impacts and the effects of climbing and canyoneering on visitor safety and experience.

Commercial guiding will also be examined as well as the need for a possible permit system, group size limits and the policy on installing or replacing bolts, anchors and software.

The document says the management plan will do the following:

• Seek to involve the climbing community in shared stewardship of natural resources;

• Build a foundation of data (status of natural resources, climbing/canyoneering routes and use patterns, and visitor effects on resource values) as a basis for future decision making;

• Provide a framework for a climber education program;

• Provide a clear decision-making framework and action timetable;

• Initiate a continuing planning process that responds to new data and changes over time;

• Assure regular monitoring and use of resources.

The public has until Aug. 10 to comment on the project scope document. Managers also will schedule a public workshop in Moab during which interested parties can share information and ask questions about the planning process.

A second opportunity for public comment will follow the release of an environmental assessment as development of the plan proceeds.

Matt Moore, owner of Desert Highlights in Moab, had the lone commercial climbing permit inside Arches National Park for 11 years until it was pulled this year as part of the planning process. He didn’t like losing his permit, but supports the process itself.

He recognizes that growth in canyoneering makes it necessary for managers to do more planning.

Moore said he will wait to see which alternatives the management plan recommends before deciding whether he’ll support it.

ratagonia

07-24-2010, 12:10 PM

You're not trying to pull this back on-topic, are you? :cool2:

Tom :moses:

Iceaxe

07-24-2010, 12:13 PM

Guides and beta peddlers (websites and guidebooks) all make money from canyons. Public at large might complain about the profit motive, but many take advantage of the beta generated by the guides and beta peddlers. Who are the better stewards of the canyons? Guides? Beta peddlers? Recreational canyoneers?

What you (or anyone else) thinks in regards to beta peddlers is irrelevant. Beta Peddler's (websites and guidebooks) are protected and guaranteed the freedom to spray as much as they wish by the First Amendment. While guides in National Parks are at the whim of the superintendent. Fair or not.... that is the system we all must work in.

Iceaxe

07-24-2010, 12:31 PM

My personal beliefs are that commercial guiding should be eliminated from all National Parks...

Would you like to put forth a reason for that, Shane? Or, do you just hate America?
Tom :moses:

As I've said.... my views have nothing to do with guiding or Matt personally. I would like to see many of our National Parks managed as more of a wilderness setting. I'd like to see all commercial concessions removed...

Horsey rides, guiding, boat rides, t-shirt shacks should all be removed IMHO.... I would like to see the National Parks Service remove the part about "promoting" from their mission statement and focus more on preservation, conservation, regulation and management.....

How you manage to get un-American out of that I have no clue..... or are you just trying to paint me as the bad guy?

I have always considered the part about a National Park being required to promote its self as kind of a Catch-22 in the grand scheme of preservation.... this is also the main reason I usually oppose the creation of more National Parks and the reason I would hate to see the Swell become a NP.... It would be a really fun time following a giant motorhome out to the National Park Services new Hidden Splendor Campground, complete with 50 parking places, store, gas station, ranger station, yada, yada....

One last item.... are those of you supporting Matt keeping his Arches guiding permit (Tom, Rich, Ect) also supporting Moab Adventures recent request for a guiding permit? If not, why not? What is the difference? I'm just trying to understand all sides of this issue....

rcwild

07-24-2010, 06:52 PM

.... I would like to see the National Parks Service remove the part about "promoting" from their mission statement and focus more on preservation, conservation, regulation and management.

Hmmmm .... Kind of ironic. You are exercising your first amendment right to PROMOTE canyons within the national parks.

And ... it is so much easier to preserve and conserve when regulation and management includes permits and use limits.

jman

07-24-2010, 07:26 PM

Hmmmm .... Kind of ironic. You are exercising your first amendment right to PROMOTE canyons within the national parks.

And ... it is so much easier to preserve and conserve when regulation and management includes permits and use limits.

Maybe Shane was referring to just the development of cabins, lodges, big asphalt parking lots for RVs....etc. I think he could careless about the canyons itself - as publishing the beta for them goes. People want canyons, and secret ones will eventually become published.

I do agree with Rich that with a permit system, it's easier to preserve and conserve. (I just think of that infamous day of when the hundreds of boy scouts went through the subway in one day....:nono: That's a LOT of traffic).

jman

07-24-2010, 09:34 PM

btw, have you guys read some of the comments of KSL posters on the article (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=11706493). Wow.

to quote one person: "They're only hunks of sandstone eroded into wierd shapes......It' beyond me why people insist on worshiping them.....They don't have anything else to worship I suppose................."

darkmatter

07-25-2010, 08:21 AM

Hello all...first post on Bogley. Here's my comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan for Arches.

I am 47 years old, have considerable experience in various outdoor activities, and have visited numerous National Parks and other public lands. I value sustainability, and rationally limiting human impact on our environment, especially in special places such as Arches.

I have had the pleasure of going on a couple canyoneering outings in Arches with Matt Moore, and as a result, have a heightened sensitivity to environmental impacts and a better ability to avoid causing them. Matt explains impacts and how to avoid them in a tangible, meaningful way without coming across as preachy or extreme. For example, he demonstrates that "all-rock routes" are often possible, and not just possible, but fun.

Therefore, I believe that commercial guiding by people with the right expertise and values is a benefit to the environment and the public, by virtue not just of such guided trips being very low impact, but via the customers getting an education that pays dividends into the future.

It would be entirely appropriate to selectively approve guiding operations based on their proven ability to accomplish and promote low impact, rather than letting in anyone who wants to.

If a permit system is adopted for the public to pursue canyoneering in Arches, a similar principle could be adopted for that. A daily permit system, or any based strictly on numbers, is an onerous imposition on visitors, and of dubious effectiveness. Far better would be a license of indefinite duration issued to people who can show at least some evidence that they can pursue the desired activity safely and responsibly.

Iceaxe

07-26-2010, 09:03 AM

Hmmmm .... Kind of ironic. You are exercising your first amendment right to PROMOTE canyons within the national parks.

The irony depends on how you look at it I guess.... my thought is there are thousands of people around who now promote the National Parks. The state of Utah spends millions promoting the parks within its borders..... So there is no need for the Parks to spend their own coin and manpower promoting themselves.... I would prefer to see the money and manpower better spent.... and when I say better spent I don't mean building more multi-million dollar visitor centers.....

I also stated that I'd like my National Park experience to be less government intrusive.... which means few permits.... I would like to see many of our National Parks managed as more of a wilderness setting with all commercial concessions removed... I believe my comments are easier to understand when you look at the post as a whole and not try to dissect each sentence as a separate entity. My comments were based on what I thought was best for the Park and not me personally....

And ... it is so much easier to preserve and conserve when regulation and management includes permits and use limits.

True.... but I didn't know we were just looking for the EASY way.... if that's the case lets just fence the place off and allow no visitation.... or jack up the entrance fee to $1000 per person... that should keep out the riff-raff and create a nice slush.... err.... I mean operating budget....

Iceaxe

07-26-2010, 09:10 AM

renshiwo

07-26-2010, 11:02 AM

Boy - little Theo born Jan. 18th.

No official inside track. I do know the person responsible for writing the management plan is a local climber, so I think she will be very open to input and isn't looking to shut down opportunities in the park.

renshiwo

07-26-2010, 11:19 AM

Here is a press release concerning an upcoming public meeting in Moab:

"Arches National Park is developing a management plan to determine what impacts climbing, canyoneering, and associated activities, commercial and noncommercial, may have on the park, and to consider how the NPS should manage or possibly limit those activities. A public scoping workshop has been scheduled for Thursday August 5, 2010 at the Grand Center in Moab from 2-7pm where the public is encouraged to come and speak with park officials in an open house forum regarding the development of this management plan.
Despite regular use by climbers and canyoneering groups in Arches NP, climbing and canyoneering have remained largely unmanaged leaving climbers and canyoneers essentially self-regulated. The increase in activity is exceeding the park's ability to manage under current actions. Issues identified to date include effects on natural and cultural resources, increase in use levels, the development of new routes, use of fixed hardware, designation of climbing/canyoneering routes, development of approach trails, visual impacts and the effects of climbing/canyoneering on visitor safety and experiences.
A climbing/canyoneering management planning effort will consider a full range of alternatives to protect resources, visitors and visitor experience while providing for recreational climbing activities. The NPS is encouraging public participation throughout the NEPA process and is currently in the scoping phase of this project. The NPS invites the public to voice alternatives, comments, or concerns in this effort. These comments will be considered during preparation of the Environmental Assessment. Arches National Park will seek to involve as many individuals as possible who have an interest in or concerns about climbing activities at Arches."

Those of you who are local, this would be a great chance to learn more and give feedback.

Iceaxe

08-06-2010, 09:17 AM

Did anyone attend the public meeting on the management plan?

Matt? Rebecca? Anyone?

If so, it would be helpful to hear a short report..... thanks..

ratagonia

08-09-2010, 05:43 PM

The direct link to the comment form is: http://tinyurl.com/archescomments

Please please please provide at least some comments and ask to be involved in the process. My (extensive) comments to follow (next post).

Tom :moses:

ratagonia

08-09-2010, 05:45 PM

Zion Canyoneering Coalition aka Tom Jones comments on Arches Plan:

August 9, 2010

Arches National Park
Planning Team

ratagonia

08-09-2010, 05:46 PM

(Part 2)

GENERAL COMMENTS

Canyoneering is NOT Climbing

While it is perhaps appropriate to develop the management plan for both of these technical, Wilderness-appropriate activities at the same time, I hope it is clear that from a planning perspective, the differences between the sports (patterns of use, social impacts, physical impacts) are perhaps more important than their similarities. Canyoneers like climbers are drawn from a wide range of Americans, though the overlap between the two groups is small. Canyoneering can be done in small groups of one or two, but also easily adapts to groups of considerably large size, even twenty or thirty. Experienced veterans and first-time canyoneers will often be in the same group, and enjoy the same canyon in the same way at the same time. Families with children as young as six can be expected to canyoneer together.

Canyoneering occurs almost entirely in specific, well-documented places, following specific approaches and exits. Impacts from canyoneers are likely to be very specific in location and type, thus making it relatively simple for the land manager to manage the impacts. All popular locations are known, and are currently limited to nine routes. Exploration is not widespread, and may identify two or three additional “good routes” in the next couple of years; but is unlikely to cover more terrain than that.

Canyoneering generally takes place in terrain which is especially resistant to human impacts. Most canyoneering occurs in watercourses where the surface is renewed by flash floods on a regular basis, or on slickrock which is impact-resistant. There may be short social trails through vegetated terrain to get to a wash bottom or to a slickrock approach – social trails that can be managed to minimize physical impacts. In-canyon, rappels sometimes result in rope grooves and sling grooves that scar the Entrada sandstone. These are away from the routes travelled by casual Arches visitors, and usually only seen by canyoneers.

The Zion Canyoneering Coalition is an organization of canyoneers, and we have no comments on the climbing portion of the Technical Backcountry Management Plan.

Science-based Planning

The ZCC calls on the Arches Planning Team to develop a flexible management plan based on verifiable facts. The first part of the planning process then becomes figuring out what is actually going on, on the ground, such as by finding un-burdensome ways to measure actual use in the canyons, and objective ways of measuring physical impacts. Park statements indicate a need for this plan because “increased climbing and canyoneering use” is “straining the park’s ability to effectively manage those activities in Arches.” Does the Park have data to back up this claim?

We have seen National Park planning processes for canyoneering that have been based upon “feelings” and “personal observations” of Park personnel, and applied Park personnel norms rather than sport-participant norms to such items as target encounter rates and acceptable limits of change. We claim (ironically, without evidence) that the best management plan can only be developed with a strict devotion to actual verifiable facts, careful analysis of the data, and a reluctant application of burdens to the Park visitor.

The Planning Team should avoid surveys to justify burdens placed on Park visitors. Asking visitors what they want you to do is unlikely to produce good management plans, but it is easy to manipulate surveys to produce the results desired, and justify management actions that the prejudices of the Planning Team favor. The ZCC considers this a tactical error.

As an example: if asked, many recreational canyoneers would say there should not be commercial guiding on canyoneering routes, because it interferes with their access to the same routes. A move to quash commercial guiding based on this “opinion poll” would be misguided and counter to Park Goals. Commercial guiding clients are also visitors to the Park, but unlikely to be involved in and have a voice in the planning process. The planning team would do better to study the facts on the ground: are there actual conflicts between commercial and private canyoneers? Where and when? How can these conflicts be mitigated while imposing the least burden on both user groups?

Planning Issues Identified in the Scoping Document July 2010

The ZCC supports the stated goals of the CCMP, namely:

Protect and conserve the park’s natural and cultural resources and values, and the integrity of wilderness character for present and future generations.

Ensure that recreational uses and activities in the park are consistent with its authorizing legislation or proclamation and do not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values.

In addition to the authorizing legislation, the areas in question are managed under NPS policy as Wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. We would like to bring the Planning Team’s attention the defining characteristics of statutory Wilderness:

(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;

In many places, the Park Service has concentrated on minimizing social encounters in Wilderness to the exclusion of all other goals, focusing on a simple definition of “Solitude”. A more nuanced understanding of “Solitude” indicates that, for Wilderness travelers, it mainly focuses on the feeling of being an animal in the wild lands, free from the social and governmental constraints that enclose our daily lives in society. In this reading, the three attributes “solitude”, “primitive” and “unconfined” all point toward the same kind of Wilderness, a Wilderness that is substantially degraded by aggressive management actions and restraints on Visitor activites. We consider it consistent with the Wilderness Act that the Park manage visitor Wilderness activities with the least-burdensome actions that can achieve the desired result.

Unacceptable Impacts

A primary goal of this CCMP is to “ensure that recreational uses and activities in the park are consistent with its authorizing legislation or proclamation and do not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values.”

Management policies that emerge from this plan will result from how Park planners define what constitutes an “unacceptable impact.” This standard should be clearly outlined in the draft CCMP (with similar references in other NPS plans). The term “unacceptable impact” as a standard for land management raises many more questions than it answers:

Could an “appropriate use” also sometimes cause “unacceptable impacts”?
Does Arches have specific examples of an “unacceptable impact”?
What is the difference between an activity that causes "unacceptable impacts" and an activity that causes "impairment"?
How significant are “unacceptable impacts” when compared to “impairment”?
Can a significant impact be acceptable? Can an “unacceptable impact” not be significant?

Specifically, the ZCC is looking for a science-based analysis of what constitutes an unacceptable impact, rather than using the norms of Park staff without critical analysis.

“Unacceptable impacts” is context dependent. An extraordinary and popular canyoneering route will have a higher level of impact considered acceptable than an obscure and barely-used route. Impacts that are in plain site of casual Arches visitors must be taken more seriously than impacts deep in the backcountry, only seen by canyoneers.

Public Involvement

We hope that the Arches Planning Team is genuinely interested in working with the public to develop a plan that will protect the Park resources while degrading the visitor’s Wilderness experience as little as possible. Meeting the statutory requirements for public participation (two comment periods, of which this is one) has proven ineffective in the past to produce a plan with public buy-in. In the interest of producing a plan that is in alignment with Park values and current standards of the democratic process, we encourage the Planning Team to step beyond the statutory obligations and involve the public more fully in the process.

The Zion Canyoneering Coalition is interested in participating in the Planning process to the fullest extent possible.

We thank Arches National Park for the opportunity to provide Scoping Comments. We look forward to working with the Planning Team in developing a workable, equitable Canyoneering Plan for Arches National Park.

Tom Jones, chairman
Zion Canyoneering Coalition

ratagonia

08-09-2010, 06:01 PM

bump

rcwild

08-09-2010, 06:46 PM

How many dues-paying members in the ZCC?

Felicia

08-09-2010, 07:46 PM

How many dues-paying members in the ZCC?

Rich, why do you ask this question? Is your agenda constructive in nature or destructive?

Does the ACA have a position on this issue? Do you have a position on this issue? Is/has the ACA, or yourself, expressed your position to the Park? If so, would you care to share with Bogley?

moab mark

08-09-2010, 07:59 PM

As I understand tomorrow is the last day for comments.

Felicia

08-09-2010, 07:59 PM

The direct link to the comment form is: http://tinyurl.com/archescomments

Please please please provide at least some comments and ask to be involved in the process.

Dilemma: I've not done any canyoneering in Arches. I've not been to Arches. I'm not sure I have much to say.

My (extensive) comments to follow (next post).

Tom :moses:

Very articulate and well presented.

moab mark

08-09-2010, 08:01 PM

Did anyone attend the public meeting on the management plan?

Matt? Rebecca? Anyone?

If so, it would be helpful to hear a short report..... thanks..

Bump,

Did anyone go?

rcwild

08-09-2010, 08:30 PM

Rich, why do you ask this question? Is your agenda constructive in nature or destructive?

C. Inquisitive

Iceaxe

08-09-2010, 08:42 PM

Canyoneering can be done in small groups of one or two, but also easily adapts to groups of considerably large size, even twenty or thirty.

30?? :eek2:

I'm not sure that's a selling point and a group of 30 would be extremely rare.... just a personal thought....

Thanks for taking the time send Arches NP your comments. :2thumbs: And thanks for sharing your comments with the forum....

Anyone else care to share their comments? Maybe Rich or Matt?

rcwild

08-10-2010, 04:32 AM

In case it has not already been posted in this thread, here is a link to the Access Fund's position, which includes an editable letter: http://bit.ly/d1zZ7f

ratagonia

08-10-2010, 06:49 AM

Dilemma: I've not done any canyoneering in Arches. I've not been to Arches. I'm not sure I have much to say.

Very articulate and well presented.

Thank you. You are a co-owner of Arches National Park. You should have A say. If nothing else, you could just say "I support the position of the Zion Canyoneering Coalition".

Tom

ratagonia

08-10-2010, 06:51 AM

How many dues-paying members in the ZCC?

None, zero zip nada nyet. The ZCC does not have dues, and therefore has zero dues-paying members. We're just a herd of cats.

Tom

rcwild

08-10-2010, 07:44 AM

None, zero zip nada nyet. The ZCC does not have dues, and therefore has zero dues-paying members. We're just a herd of cats.

Between 2002 and 2007 membership in the ZCC Yahoo Group swelled to 70. How many people were committed enough to the cause to pony up the $5.00 dues back when dues were required for membership? How many cats in your herd now?

My point in asking is that it is impossible for one organization to represent the opinions of all canyoneers. The opinions are much too diverse. The ACA has well over 5,000 members now, but we don't pretend to represent all canyoneers when it comes to divisive issues like bolts, permits, commercial guiding, etc.

You have now posted your letter on Bogley and Yahoo Canyons, but not on the ACA forums (for personal reasons). Do the opinions of canyoneers who only frequent the ACA forums not matter? When anyone asks how the canyoneering community should address issue X, the input will not be representative unless the question is posted on every canyoneering forum (there are more than three). There is certainly some overlap in membership between the forums, but there are many who will participate in group A, but not B or C. Others who will participate in A and B, but not C. Etc. No worries. Diverse population. Diverse community. Diverse tastes in forums. But don't pretend to represent the entire canyoneering community without asking the entire canyoneering community for input. And that must include the thousands of other canyoneers who don't participate in any forums (in most cases, don't even know the forums exist). Their opinions matter, too. Difficult to reach them, I know, but important if anyone is to claim they care about their opinions.

There has also been a long-standing "vocal minority" issue in the canyoneering community. Opinions on any issue can be plotted on a bell curve with very vocal individuals on the two extreme ends of the spectrum and a usually silent majority in the middle. On some issues, the voices from one end of the spectrum are much louder than the voices on the other end. The volume of those voices and/or the number of letters written cannot be equated with validity of opinion.

Go ahead and submit your letter, but don't pretend that you represent THE canyoneering community. You don't.

For purposes of accuracy, suggest you change this phrase:

"The ZCC was formed in October 2002 as the voice for technical canyoneers when working with land managers when dealing with technical-canyoneering related issues."

From "... as the voice for ..." to "... as one of several voices for ..." or even more accurately to " ... as a voice for a small herd of cats ..."

moab mark

08-10-2010, 12:10 PM

Rich,

Out of curiosity what do you recommend for the new management plan in Arches?

Mark

rcwild

08-10-2010, 01:04 PM

Out of curiosity what do you recommend for the new management plan in Arches?

Are you asking Rich, private citizen/canyoneer, or Rich, President of the ACA?

Iceaxe

08-10-2010, 01:10 PM

Are you asking Rich, private citizen/canyoneer, or Rich, President of the ACA?

Depends.... how did you addressed your comments to the Park?

If you wrote as a representative of the ACA I would be interested in hearing the ACA's position, if they have a position on the issue....

If you wrote as private citizen Rich it would be nice to hear your personal thoughts on the issue....

:cool2:

moab mark

08-10-2010, 01:22 PM

Depends.... how did you addressed your comments to the Park?

If you wrote as a representative of the ACA I would be interested in hearing the ACA's position, if they have a position on the issue....

If you wrote as private citizen Rich it would be nice to hear your personal thoughts on the issue....

:cool2:

x2

Felicia

08-10-2010, 08:12 PM

Comments are being accepted until 11:59 PMT

The direct link to the comment form is: http://tinyurl.com/archescomments

OK, here is my submission:

Dear Arches Planning Team

I have not yet had the privilege of visiting Arches National Park, but as an active member of the canyoneering community I would like to present my comments regarding the Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan. My comments are limited to the Canyoneering portion of the Management Plan as I believe that Climbing is a distinct and separate wilderness activity.

Becoming aware of the Zion Canyoneering Coalition (ZCC) in 2005, I passively watched the development of the current Management Plan that is in place in Zion National Park. I believe that lessons can be learned from the development of the Zion Management Plan.

I have read, agree with, and support the current position that the ZCC has presented to this Arches Planning Team. I believe that the Arches Planning Team can capitalize on lessons learned from the past - please use a scientific method utilizing real data and document facts to develop an acceptable Management Plan. The ZCC has valuable experience that can assist the Planning Team.

I respectively request that the Planning Team allow the participation of the ZCC in the planning process. Please allow the time and resources to incorporate public participation in developing a management plan that will garner public support and public buy-in.

Sincerely,

Felicia ...

trackrunner

08-10-2010, 10:52 PM

bump please submit anything right now.

example I am apposed to burdensome quotes because the queue lines start before sundown and last all night long, permitts are obtained during the best approach hiking time, etc. what ever you want but comment now.

I ended up submitting a 3 page letter.

Iceaxe

08-11-2010, 08:06 AM

I wanted to say thanks to everyone who submitted a letter to Arches NP..... if nothing else your submissions have shown that the canyoneering community is a sizable herd of cats, all moving in the same general direction, with a valuable and important voice.

renshiwo

08-11-2010, 01:06 PM

Oops! Sorry I was out of town and missed the deadline...

dinosaur

09-08-2010, 02:36 PM

First post on bogley. Despite my reservations, I just had to resurrect this thread.

I am a user of Shane's beta and find it to to be of immense value. Despite its "Circle of Friends" moniker, its an online guidebook-- no more, no less. I prefer to explore canyons with my friends and without the aide of a professional guide, not only for monetary reasons, but for personal satisfaction. Following written directions, a compass, and a topo map provides a certain level of satisfaction that I think most people here would understand. Faulting the purveyor of a guidebook is misplaced anger. Edward Abbey wrote about Arches and its hidden and lonely places in the 1960's....maybe we should blame him for "outing" the furnace and Drangonfly. All that can be hoped for is responsible management, but keeping secrets looks like an increasingly lost cause.

I also have been on a canyon adventure with Matt. I can attest that when he takes a dozen or more people through the Furnace in Arches that it has the impact of much fewer. Ghosting techniques, responsible rope pulls, crypto avoidance, and impact awareness are foremost in his operation. Matt is a subject matter expert on low impact desert travel. He was (is) an asset to Arches National Park. I have no doubt that Matt influenced the Moab Rondy participants in profound ways in how they view low impact canyoneering and environmental impacts on the park. Its too bad the park service doesn't view his operation with admiration instead of condemnation.

Knowing several of you on this forum I can assure you that you have more in common than you do differences.

Regards,

moab mark

09-08-2010, 02:41 PM

I had forgot about this. Has anyone heard any news?

Mark

Iceaxe

09-08-2010, 04:19 PM

If this works like other management plans I've been involved with the next thing you will see is the new rules carved in stone tablets when they cart them out for the final "comment period", which is really just the parks way of telling you this is how its going to be.... YMMV... or it could be different from my past experience.

jman

11-03-2010, 10:34 PM

So..........????

Anxious to hear. But I have to guess, it won't be talked about till Spring 2011.

Iceaxe

02-11-2011, 03:58 PM

IMPORTANT - Read This!!!

Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan for Arches
Here is your chance to view the proposals and comment. Please take a few minutes and do so.

Park Newsletter (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=31985&docType=public&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=ARCH%5FAlternativesNewsletter%5FforPrint% 2Epdf&clientFilename=ARCH%5FAlternativesNewsletter%5Ffor Print%2Epdf) - This is the meat and potato's.

Submit Comments (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=39025) - This is where you go to let the park know what you think.

Please provide all comments by March 13, 2011.

:cool2:

nat

02-11-2011, 05:06 PM

I kind of like alternative D, although I suspect that is a non-starter with the Park Service :haha: Alternatives A and B are reasonable. Alternative C sucks in my opinion. It would lead to a situation that makes Zion's permit process look totally casual.

Iceaxe

02-11-2011, 05:44 PM

Just a wild ass guess by the tone of each alternative and having experience with these management plans before... I believe it is currently between A and B... and everything else is just a dog and pony show.

A is my first choice, because I believe it has the best chance of success.

D is my second choice, but I think it has zero chance of success or it would be my first choice.

B scares the crap out of me because this is EXACTLY how the permit system began in Zion "The park will implement a free self-issued climber and canyoneers registration as an effort to collect more information" For those that don't know the permit system in Zion was orginally establish to allow some contact between canyoneers and rangers. The Zion permits were free and volunteerly to begin with.

C totally blows

In a nut shell.....

Alternative A
There are no established group limits for private rock climbing and canyoneering groups. No permits are required for climbers and canyoneerers outside the Fiery Furnace. Permits are required for all entry into the Fiery Furnace.

Alternative B
Group size limits for both rock climbing and canyoneering will beinitially established at 10 people per group. Group sizes may be adjusted (increased or decreased) based on monitored resource conditions and visitor experience. The NPS will continue to conduct research to determine the types, amount, frequency, and seasonality of rock climbing and canyoneering that occurs at Arches National Park. The park will implement a free self-issued climber and canyoneers registration as an effort to collect more information about climber numbers, routes, access points, and times when climbing is taking place. Trail counters will also be implemented to assist with use numbers. This self-registration system allows the park to maintain levels of backcountry use consistent with a high quality visitor experience, safety, and resource protection.

Alternative C
Group size for canyoneering will be initially established at five people per group. This number may be reduced for specific routes based on resource conditions. Group size for rock climbing will also be five people. This number will ensure that these groups remain small. A mandatory park-issued permit will be required and will be available at the VC desk or on-line. A daily use limit on sensitive resource routes will be set at 20 people.

Alternative D
There will be no restrictions on group size limits for either activity. Groups will be expected to self regulate themselves and to be informed of all route closures and park regulations prior to entering the park.

moab mark

02-11-2011, 07:18 PM

Looks like Desert Highlights may get their permit back. I'll bet they pick B. Lots of wiggle room.

Iceaxe

02-11-2011, 08:20 PM

Looks like Desert Highlights may get their permit back.

A lot of folks in line that want a commercial permit to guide inside the park....

Iceaxe

02-13-2011, 09:45 AM

"The park will implement a free self-issued climber and canyoneers registration as an effort to collect more information"

Just thinking.... so I'm over in the Lost Springs section of Arches and need to register.... that's a 3 hour round trip in driving time, not to mention a lot of gas.

:cool2:

darkmatter

02-14-2011, 04:38 PM

Both B and C have this little item:

Closures/Regulations
Arches National Park contains the world

moab mark

02-14-2011, 04:43 PM

Probably not but using Abbey Arch as the rappeling anchor in Lomatium Canyon would be a no no.:nono:

Bubbles

03-04-2011, 11:43 PM

I stopped by the visitor center this week and talked with the ranger responsible for writing the management plan for a solid hour.

Among other things, she expressed some disappointment that, as of earlier this week, she has only received a couple dozen comments regarding the ABCD alternatives, and the comment period closes March 13th. She stated several times that comments tossed back and forth amongst us on the forums, canyon group, facebook, in bars, while getting our hair did, and so on, does no good for helping NPS craft public policy.

I also got the impression that perhaps a few of the comments that have come in do not specifically address the questions asked. After reading through this thread again, I certainly feel the discussion drifted into the weeds.

The bottom line is, if you dont tell NPS exactly what you think, NPS will make a policy without considering what you think.

Get your comments in!

Iceaxe

03-07-2011, 01:44 PM

BUMP

Please take a minute to read the alternatives and comment! It only takes a couple of minutes. My response is below to perhaps offer some guidance, you do not have to agree with me, but please take a minute to comment.

My comment was basically I liked Alternative A (no change to current management)

In the comment section I wrote the following:

Please - Do NOT institute any additional permit system (outside of the current Fiery Furnace permit). Obtaining permits is a burden and removes much of the joy found in visiting Arches NP. Self issued permits have a habit of becoming ranger issued permits, free permits have a habit of costing at a future date. Obtaining a permit becomes problematic as you must adjust your schedule to the Visitor Center hours. A change in plans (say changing objectives in Lost Springs) can involve several hours of lost time and driving long distances over poor dirt roads. I would prefer to see the rangers time, money and energy spent doing more beneficial work than issuing permits.

Park Newsletter (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=31985&docType=public&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=ARCH%5FAlternativesNewsletter%5FforPrint% 2Epdf&clientFilename=ARCH%5FAlternativesNewsletter%5Ffor Print%2Epdf) - This is the meat and potato's.

Submit Comments (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=39025) - This is where you go to let the park know what you think.

Alternative A
There are no established group limits for private rock climbing and canyoneering groups. No permits are required for climbers and canyoneerers outside the Fiery Furnace. Permits are required for all entry into the Fiery Furnace.

Alternative B
Group size limits for both rock climbing and canyoneering will beinitially established at 10 people per group. Group sizes may be adjusted (increased or decreased) based on monitored resource conditions and visitor experience. The NPS will continue to conduct research to determine the types, amount, frequency, and seasonality of rock climbing and canyoneering that occurs at Arches National Park. The park will implement a free self-issued climber and canyoneers registration as an effort to collect more information about climber numbers, routes, access points, and times when climbing is taking place. Trail counters will also be implemented to assist with use numbers. This self-registration system allows the park to maintain levels of backcountry use consistent with a high quality visitor experience, safety, and resource protection.

Alternative C
Group size for canyoneering will be initially established at five people per group. This number may be reduced for specific routes based on resource conditions. Group size for rock climbing will also be five people. This number will ensure that these groups remain small. A mandatory park-issued permit will be required and will be available at the VC desk or on-line. A daily use limit on sensitive resource routes will be set at 20 people.

Alternative D
There will be no restrictions on group size limits for either activity. Groups will be expected to self regulate themselves and to be informed of all route closures and park regulations prior to entering the park.

oval

03-07-2011, 05:27 PM

Thanks for the heads up Shane. Posted up.

/hug

Iceaxe

03-10-2011, 08:05 AM

Don't make me stop this forum and come back there!

PLEASE post a comment!

If noting elese a short one line response "I support Alternative A (no change to current management)" would be awesome and let the NPS know you don't want a permit system.

Post Comment Here! (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=39025)

ststephen

03-10-2011, 10:40 AM

canyondevil

03-10-2011, 11:00 AM

Done.

ratagonia

03-10-2011, 05:05 PM

Done.

Thank you, Canyon Devil.

I think it is worth pointing out that this is a preliminary round of alternatives and THIS IS A VERY GOOD SIGN. They don't have to do this, and they usually don't do this. Thus it is important that Canyoneers comment on this and get their voices heard. Personally, I'm commenting that something between A and B sounds most reasonable. "B" is a little heavy-handed, but "A" is probably a little bit light.

Tom

Iceaxe

03-10-2011, 05:20 PM

I'm commenting that something between A and B sounds most reasonable. "B" is a little heavy-handed, but "A" is probably a little bit light.

My two big concerns with B are...

1. Free self-issued climber and canyoneers registrations have a habit of becoming required and costing money.

2. If visiting the Lost Springs section of Arches stopping by the VC to pick up a permit is not practical.

Some things I like about B, like limiting group size to 10 (six would be better).

trackrunner

03-10-2011, 10:04 PM

done. if somoeone needs someting to write about I basically wrote about the following:

Of the plans I favor and strongly suggest A or D. These plans will provide the best all around experience for all park visitors: climbers, canyoneers, hikers, and sight seers.

What I like about plan D the most is the educational aspect. I have found informing people leads to correct decisions that will minimize impact.

against the bureaucracy to establish new routes and replace hardware. Exploring the wilderness of our National Parks is one of the greatest treasures that must be preserved.

don't like the permits because opportunity costs from rangers resources could be aplied somewhere better.

canyondevil

03-11-2011, 10:02 AM

D is my second choice, but I think it has zero chance of success or it would be my first choice.

I really have no problem with having permits only in the FF. I think it keeps the hoards of people out of there, which makes the place more special. Having to watch the same "tip-toe around the crypto" video over and over is kind of a pain in the ass, but if it is between that and having to hear a ton of kids screaming in the FF all day I dont mind. The casual family on their cross-american national park tour wont bother with the permit and that will leave the place to us.

ratagonia

03-11-2011, 10:24 PM

Two days left - Here are my comments:

Question 1: Is one of the four preliminary alternatives (A-No Action, B-Active Management, C-Regulatory, D-Minimum Requirements) already close to your idea of the best way to manage climbing and canyoneering activities in Arches National Park? If so, which one, and how might you modify it to make it closer to your ideal?

I speak only to the management of Canyoneering in Arches National Park.

Some elements of B-Active Management are appropriate, while others are not appropriate at this time.

Elements of Alternative B:

Access Trails - check, all good.

Group Size Limits / Permits - A group size limit of 12 is standard in other NPS-managed units in Utah (Zion, GCNRA), and I would like to see that carried through here. If self-issued permits are implemented, please do so in such a manner that encumbers the visitor as little as possible. For instance, a kiosk at the entrance would be good. Activity that does not funnel through the main entrance (for instance, in the Lost Springs Area) should be specifically exempted from the permit requirement, as the four-hour drive around and back is onerous.

Hardware Replacement and Route Establishment - for canyoneering, there is very little new-route activity in Arches. Opposite to climbers, canyoneers really have no idea going in what will be required on a new route. The canyoneering ethic is to leave no trace, or as little as possible. Establishing new canyoneering routes is the VERY ESSENCE of the Free and Unconfined Recreation Experience that the Wilderness Act states is one of the defining characteristics of Wilderness. Defining anchor standards for canyoneering is extremely difficult. We believe the Park can establish, if needed, no-new-route areas and no-rappel areas (for instance, for visitor safety), but creating a system for approval of new canyoneering routes is antithetical to Wilderness Management at this time. Motorized Drills are prohibited in the Arches backcountry already, as is using named features or climbing upon them. The Park should discourage new bolting by individuals.

Visual Impacts - check, agreement on all points.

Commercial Use - We support commercial use of Arches backcountry for canyoneering, under the provisions of Desert Highlights previous CUA's, which have been in place for 11 years with few problems. Any changes to the provisions of the CUA should be based on sound science, rather than being arbitrary and capricious. Desert Highlights has a strong safety record, therefore requiring a greater guide to client ratio is unnecessarily burdensome. Requiring additional certification seems arbitrary and unnecessarily burdensome. We support a maximum of three CUA's for canyoneering, and a reasonable system for allocating them. If significant impact to resources is validated, CUA limits should be based upon evaluation of IMPACTS FROM THE CUA HOLDER, rather than from impacts from all users (eg. if the CUA Holder is not creating impacts, they should not be prohibited from using the resource because recreational users are creating impacts.

Monitoring - We support intelligent, scientific monitoring of impacts and visitor use patterns. We believe the methods of monitoring should be presented for review and comment, and subject to scientific scrutiny. (In many NPS units, monitoring is ad hoc and unsuitable for understanding the questions in play).

Closures/Regulations - We concur will all points.

Question 2: Which parts of any of the preliminary alternatives do you feel strongly should be included in the management of climbing and canyoneering?

See Above.

Question 3: Which parts of any of the preliminary alternatives do you feel strongly should not be included in the management of climbing and canyoneering?

Managing for Visitor Experience is a difficult proposition. Visitors have varying expectations, realistic and unrealistic. Managing for Visitor Experience at other National Park Units has tended to impose a specific set of Norms unjustified by science and legislation. Arches National Park should avoid falling into this trap.

Question 4: Do you have any other thoughts, ideas or comments regarding climbing and canyoneering activities in the park?

Thank you for seeking comments on possible management styles beyond that required by law. Canyoneering is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Park, and with Wilderness values, and should be managed to minimize impacts to Park Resources, rather than to meet an arbitrarily chosen set of norms.

Now, off to North Wash!!!

Tom :moses: