PDA

View Full Version : Poaching permitted or closed canyons



CarpeyBiggs
05-08-2011, 06:30 PM
the obvious question... how'd you get access to kaibito and peach???

you might consider some in the grand canyon too. silver grotto is one that comes to mind, but it takes a packraft to exit (as many of them do...)

akavalun
05-08-2011, 06:37 PM
Thanks Carpey. I went and talked to the family that lives next to Peach and they said I could go see the canyon. Kaibito...I just risked it. I know, I know...I probably shouldn't....:twisted: I only did the hiking portions, nothing technical. I've seen Neon, including the Golden Cathedral. I'll have to look up what the triborough entry is.....

CarpeyBiggs
05-08-2011, 07:19 PM
Kaibito...I just risked it. :twisted:

uh... yeah, not cool. thanks for doing your part to make sure that the access stays closed.

akavalun
05-08-2011, 07:41 PM
I never said it was the right thing to go into Kaibito, but in my defense, I went with other people who go there quite frequently, never went on my own. I honestly don't think any of those canyons will ever be opened up again, so if you want to see them, you just have to take the chance. In any event, this wasn't a thread about hiking morals. Thanks for all the info so far!

CarpeyBiggs
05-08-2011, 08:57 PM
I never said it was the right thing to go into Kaibito, but in my defense, I went with other people who go there quite frequently, never went on my own. I honestly don't think any of those canyons will ever be opened up again, so if you want to see them, you just have to take the chance. In any event, this wasn't a thread about hiking morals. Thanks for all the info so far!

hiking morals? no, this is way more simple than discussing morals. this is about black and white legality. the canyons are closed, end of story. and it's very disappointing to hear you feel this way. there's a reason those canyons might not be opened up again, and this is a pretty good illustration why. the fact you are going with other people who frequent the place is even worse. might be time for a new crew?

the navajo have a lot of land with great canyon potential on it, not just in the kaibito chapter. access is far from guaranteed on any of it. as long as they feel people are disrespecting their rules and their land by illegally accessing parts of it, it's very hard to disagree with their decision to close it. if you can't realize that your decision negatively impacts access for everyone else, you need open your eyes and quit being so damn selfish.

akavalun
05-09-2011, 06:32 AM
I'm not disagreeing with you Carpey, but I haven't been back in those rez. canyons in years. I've actually been interested in seeing Pinon Falls, and Pinon canyon, and I have navajo friend who is gonna take me in to those. So yes, I will go about things the right way. I appreciate your information, but if you wanted to discuss this matter, you should have done it in a PM, not by hijacking the thread.

CarpeyBiggs
05-09-2011, 09:31 AM
i'll be happy to split the thread if you feel it's not pertinent.

however, it was you who publicly stated you had been into canyons the community knows to be off-limits, not anyone else. you also publicly admitted illegal means to accessing them. not sure i follow why you shouldn't be publicly reminded those actions are illegal, potentially harmful to the canyoneering community and navajo tribe, and incredibly shortsighted.

the reason it is pertinent is because it's not prudent to put out a list of the most photogenic slots, and then list places that are closed as destinations. it only further complicates the issue. others should not get the idea they are worth "risking." they simply aren't.

Iceaxe
05-09-2011, 10:22 AM
Mod Hat ON - I split the thread - Mod hat OFF



others should not get the idea they are worth "risking." they simply aren't.

That is YOUR opinion..... risk vs reward is a personal thing.... or at least it is to me.

I believe most of us have poached canyons for various reasons and usually we have a self serving reason of why we should be excluded from the rules....

Come to think of it, doesn't your latest work Into the Great Unknown violate a few rules? Did you have a commercial filming permit? Do you have rafting permits for your pack raft/float toys?

And I'm sure no one in this group has ever done Hog Heaven, Too Wet, kaibito, Pinion, Peach, anything is Zion without a permit, yada, yada....

Not saying poaching is right or wrong.... just saying my idea of risk vs reward probably doesn't agree with yours...

CarpeyBiggs
05-09-2011, 10:41 AM
no, the last of the great unknown doesn't violate ANY rules. we've been working with the park very closely to make sure we meet all their criteria. we had a ranger with us for most of the filming on the river trip (which is entirely non-commercial in nature, hence needs no commercial filming permit, as per the park's rules) and we have secured a commercial filming permit for all the rest. if you are asking about the PFD and packrafting issue, feel free to read the replies already on the yahoo groups that explain it fully.

as for the zion stuff, you are probably right. most people have poached a canyon, myself included. i caved because i was the "new guy" and didn't fully realize what was going on. that was 2007. haven't done any poaching since, nor will i condone those who do, whatever their reasons.

ratagonia
05-09-2011, 10:51 AM
That is YOUR opinion..... risk vs reward is a personal thing.... or at least it is to me.



In this case, the rewards go to the individual. The risk is partly to the individual, and partly to the community.

Therefore it is not an individual choice - your choices effect the community.

no man is an island blah blah blah

There are a few cases where your actions have no effect on the community. None come to mind at the moment, but I am sure there are some. :cool2:

Tom :moses:

Scott Card
05-09-2011, 10:59 AM
2007... Has it been that long? :haha:

Question. Do you really think Zion is ever going to loosen up? I know a few that are willing to pay the ticket rather than deal with the stupid/ illogical/ ill-conceived rules of the permit system.

(An aside: I wonder if by me making these types of posts is the reason I never win the Lottery in Zion. Am I still on a list? Hmmmm. :haha: Maybe I need to start saying that we should all just be quiet and let the rangers be our mothers, then maybe I could get a Subway permit one of these years. )

Iceaxe
05-09-2011, 11:07 AM
So pack rafts are legal in the Grand Canyon? Meaning I can do a slot from the top, float down the river to an escape, and hike back out the top? Interesting.... I thought a canyoneer just get nailed for doing that. So exactly what rule did he break?

CarpeyBiggs
05-09-2011, 11:15 AM
So pack rafts are legal in the Grand Canyon? Meaning I can do a slot from the top, float down the river to an escape, and hike back out the top? Interesting....

well, we all know YOU wouldn't do it. grand canyon is awfully far away.. :lol8:

but yes, packrafting in the ditch is legal.

bshwakr
05-09-2011, 11:17 AM
Why do you have to bring me into this? One of those canyons I had a permit, just not landowner permission. The other is almost a mile outside the park and I had a narrows permit when I entered the park! Harsh bro.

CarpeyBiggs
05-09-2011, 11:19 AM
2007... Has it been that long? :haha:

seriously. i don't think i'm getting enough team mapleton time anymore...

Scott Card
05-09-2011, 11:24 AM
seriously. i don't think i'm getting enough team mapleton time anymore... We can never find you. Always off to some remote location you are and filming some crazy adventure to boot. :2thumbs:

CarpeyBiggs
05-09-2011, 11:28 AM
Why do you have to bring me into this? One of those canyons I had a permit, just not landowner permission. The other is almost a mile outside the park and I had a narrows permit when I entered the park! Harsh bro.

hahaha. i knew you'd show up!

scott is referencing a trip i did with him in 2007, when we had a permit, just for a different canyon. the canyon i will refuse to do is "eye of the needle" because of the trespassing issues. the other ones are probably legal, as far as the law permits. the gray area for a lot of the zion stuff is pretty big, and i really don't have much to offer for insight. i think the line is pretty well drawn though when you cross the limits of the law. ethical lines are harder to pin down. everyone can let their moral compass decide on the ethics of some of them...

however, in the case of the kaibito slots, i'm pretty charged up about all the people who seem to think it's cool to poach those canyons, even though they are very clearly off limits. seems like it is pretty common, and i can't see how it does anything to improve the situation.

ratagonia
05-09-2011, 11:34 AM
So pack rafts are legal in the Grand Canyon? Meaning I can do a slot from the top, float down the river to an escape, and hike back out the top? Interesting.... I thought a canyoneer just get nailed for doing that. So exactly what rule did he break?

Current rules allow packrafting off a backcountry permit up to 5 miles on the Big River. The particular adventure in question involved packrafting a bit further than that to get to the next available exit. The individual in question was ticketed. The rangers apologized when ticketing, saying they did not want to, but were overruled. The guy who overruled them admitted to said canyoneer that the rule was not very good. The rule is under re-consideration as we speak.

Tom :moses:

ratagonia
05-09-2011, 11:35 AM
2007... Has it been that long? :haha:

Question. Do you really think Zion is ever going to loosen up? I know a few that are willing to pay the ticket rather than deal with the stupid/ illogical/ ill-conceived rules of the permit system.

(An aside: I wonder if by me making these types of posts is the reason I never win the Lottery in Zion. Am I still on a list? Hmmmm. :haha: Maybe I need to start saying that we should all just be quiet and let the rangers be our mothers, then maybe I could get a Subway permit one of these years. )

It is all politics, Scott. Who's your congressman? The plan is up for review in another 10 years or so.

Tom

MSchasch
05-09-2011, 11:51 AM
Closed or off limits canyons are automatically cooler and better than the couple of other legal canyons available in utah/arizona.

Canyoneers are inherent dissenters.

spinesnaper
05-09-2011, 11:57 AM
:popcorn:

bshwakr
05-09-2011, 12:02 PM
__

darkmatter
05-09-2011, 12:28 PM
I'm curious what the rules actually are on the Navajo res, for both closed areas and not-closed ones. Are there areas (canyons or not) where you can just go and hike? Are the closed areas equally as closed to residents as outsiders? Who is entitled to give permission? What are the penalties?

I see that there is a lot of lake shoreline that is apparently reservation land. What about that?

My priorities are not pissing off locals, and not getting prosecuted, over being strictly by-the-book. I figure anytime I defy some authoritarian, without causing any actual harm, and get away with it, I'm doing my patriotic duty. :haha:

CarpeyBiggs
05-09-2011, 12:32 PM
http://www.navajonationparks.org/permits.htm

Scott Card
05-09-2011, 02:37 PM
It wasn't you. I had nothing to do with this conversation and Shane brought those canyons up....for his own purposes possibly.

There are several reasons I'm not on the park's Sh!t-list....one is that I cover my butt. If I do an overnighter in the backcountry, I get a permit. If I do a frontcountry canyon, I get a permit. If a the majority of the drainage is inside the park and technical, I get a permit.

Here's the 'however'...However, the permit system is neither convenient nor private. In other words, rangers might have a tendency to tell their local climbing buddy about said canyon that someone descended. So, I am very literal when getting my permits. If I enter the North Fork via a technical section that is outside the park, my permit will be for the North Fork. Show me in the rules where its says I have to give the Park service Apple-like location tracking for my every move outside their jurisdiction!

K I am of the same mind set as you. I have never been cited and I try to get permits for the proper drainages I drop into. But for what ever reason I swear there is a black mark on my record in Zion. Maybe I am dreaming. :ne_nau: If I am on a list, I certainly don't deserve to be.

ratagonia
05-09-2011, 02:42 PM
I am of the same mind set as you. I have never been cited and I try to get permits for the proper drainages I drop into. But for what ever reason I swear there is a black mark on my record in Zion. Maybe I am dreaming. :ne_nau: If I am on a list, I certainly don't deserve to be.

I seem to be on the list, too, Scott. But maybe I deserve to be... :lol8::naughty::crazy:

Scandalous things Tom does:

- Take friend-of-friend foreigners canyoneering
- Tell the NPS what I think about the permit system
- Tell the NPS my opinion SHOULD count, vis a vis the permit system
- attempt to stir others to voice their opinions vis a vis the permit system
- oh, and drive my jalopy through the park at all hours...

Tom :moses:

Scott Card
05-09-2011, 03:07 PM
So its your fault. Probably that Zion Canyon Coalition I donated to and joined. :haha:

oldno7
05-09-2011, 03:25 PM
So its your fault. Probably that Zion Canyon Coalition I donated to and joined. :haha:

Bunch of dang activist!!! The sooner you recognize your government is here to help and protect you from all things bad, the easier your lifes will be.

restrac2000
05-09-2011, 03:37 PM
Most of the Navajo land is open to access. Some are closed to both hiking and technical descents, no matter the access point. We have access to 20 feet above the Highwater line on the lake and then nothing else is entitled.

As for the patriotic duty of crossing onto Navajo land....you definitely tap into a strong American tradition. But its best to consider the Navajo land not simply private but a sovereign nation.

The nation didn't care too much about access on most of its land until people poached it and got hurt. Doing the same will only prevent any chance of future access.


I'm curious what the rules actually are on the Navajo res, for both closed areas and not-closed ones. Are there areas (canyons or not) where you can just go and hike? Are the closed areas equally as closed to residents as outsiders? Who is entitled to give permission? What are the penalties?

I see that there is a lot of lake shoreline that is apparently reservation land. What about that?

My priorities are not pissing off locals, and not getting prosecuted, over being strictly by-the-book. I figure anytime I defy some authoritarian, without causing any actual harm, and get away with it, I'm doing my patriotic duty. :haha:

Scopulus
05-09-2011, 09:01 PM
...your government is here to help and protect you from all things bad...
...especially from ourselves.:nono:

darkmatter
05-09-2011, 09:23 PM
As for the patriotic duty of crossing onto Navajo land....you definitely tap into a strong American tradition. But its best to consider the Navajo land not simply private but a sovereign nation.


I can't tell if you misunderstand me, or are distorting what I said for polemic effect. If the populace largely has a "keep out" attitude, I'd certainly honor that. That is not my impression, however.


The nation didn't care too much about access on most of its land until people poached it and got hurt. Doing the same will only prevent any chance of future access.
So there were incidents, and some official(s) took the lazy way out with a blanket prohibition, rather than a more focused solution. I am not convinced that limply complying with such is effective.

I certainly favor the approach of engaging the locals and following their wishes. Individually, I mean...with people who actually live near the sites. The website actually encourages the practice of asking to park at a residence, and possibly paying a small fee. Seems like a great idea.

ratagonia
05-09-2011, 09:34 PM
I can't tell if you misunderstand me, or are distorting what I said for polemic effect. If the populace largely has a "keep out" attitude, I'd certainly honor that. That is not my impression, however.

So there were incidents, and some official(s) took the lazy way out with a blanket prohibition, rather than a more focused solution. I am not convinced that limply complying with such is effective.

I certainly favor the approach of engaging the locals and following their wishes. Individually, I mean...with people who actually live near the sites. The website actually encourages the practice of asking to park at a residence, and possibly paying a small fee. Seems like a great idea.

You mean...

You think the Navajo Nation does not have jurisdiction over Navajo Nation lands? That the individual people you meet are the one who make the rules?

So, at my house, the National rules do not apply? I can impose whatever rules I so choose, regardless of whatever national, state or local laws are in effect???

Thanks for clearing that up, DarkBrainMatter.

Tom :moses:

CarpeyBiggs
05-09-2011, 09:45 PM
really? is the website really that unclear?

AREAS CLOSED TO HIKING
Recently, the Kaibeto Chapter community has prohibited hiking and camping in the entire area of Upper Kaibeto, Navajo Canyon, Choal Canyon, (Kaibeto Creek), Peach Wash, and Butterfly Canyon. Also, the area around the Inscription House community and Tsegi Canyon, (Dowozhiebeto and Long Canyons) are closed. These Closures are due to trespassing across residential areas, NO PERMITS, DISTRUBING LIVESTOCK, LITTERING, AND THE POSSIBLE DISTRUBANCE OF FRAGILE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RUINS
that pretty much sums it up well. the navajo have dealt with a lot of people misunderstanding their culture, and being very disrespectful. as far as i can tell, having people randomly show up to locals houses and ask for permission to enter their lands is exactly what they want avoided. in fact, in order to get a permit out there, you pretty much have to demonstrate that you will be nowhere near the places where people live or graze animals, or the permit is likely to be denied. having strangers roll up to your house and ask to do a canyon? seems a bit far fetched.

i would love to see these places accessible, but the nation is completely justified in their policies.


So there were incidents, and some official(s) took the lazy way out with a blanket prohibition, rather than a more focused solution.

seems like a pretty focused solution to me. they closed a small part of the kaibeto chapter (which is a small part of the reservation, due to problems.) the nation doesn't have the time, money, or employees to deal with issues of trespassing, SAR, looting, etc... if there was enough interest to make it worth it financially to them, i think they might consider it, like antelope. my solution would be something like this - pay to get some navajo guides trained, perhaps by community donation, and then have them available for hire as guides for those who are willing to see the canyons. don't want to pay for a guide? don't see the canyon.

edited to add: in order to access navajo canyons, you are required to have a permit. even if a local allows you access, the odds of getting a permit into closed areas are pretty much nil. and just because a local allows you to cross the land, doesn't mean they have a complete understanding of their chapter's policies. in other words, stop poaching, and use more productive methods to acquire access.

James_B_Wads2000
05-09-2011, 10:13 PM
Hey Dan, what's the weather like up there on your high-horse? :)

If I wasn't stuck in this wheelchair I'd be planing a trip down Kaibeto Creek right now. My canyonaro buddies and I would practice on the Eye of the Needle and Goose Creek!



James

Scott Card
05-09-2011, 10:49 PM
James, What you doing up in the Canyoneering forum. :fishing:???? Don't take the bait Dan. :haha: Wheel chair? What did we miss? You alright?

restrac2000
05-09-2011, 11:26 PM
I can't tell if you misunderstand me, or are distorting what I said for polemic effect. If the populace largely has a "keep out" attitude, I'd certainly honor that. That is not my impression, however.

I was shocked by the tongue in cheap "patriotism" joke. We don't get apply our own rules on Navajo land. But you mentioning doing so has a strong, vibrant history with us anglos. Guess we feel entitled to their lands on macro and micro levels as a culture.


So there were incidents, and some official(s) took the lazy way out with a blanket prohibition, rather than a more focused solution. I am not convinced that limply complying with such is effective.

I certainly favor the approach of engaging the locals and following their wishes. Individually, I mean...with people who actually live near the sites. The website actually encourages the practice of asking to park at a residence, and possibly paying a small fee. Seems like a great idea.

Its not about being "effective". Its about following the laws of a sovereign nation. They have a public system of land management, unique but similar in purpose to our own. As Tom mentioned, we don't get to role up at a Utah's home and ask permission to descend Kolob? Heck, do you stay out of the Escalante region per most "locals" request.

To your entire response, you can rationalize poaching and bribing (that is what paying someone off to look the other way with rules larger than them is at its simplest) but it still boils down to a simple, black and white legal issue. Your concept of working with the locals is an oversimplification of native law and culture and seems inherently designed to rationalize poaching. This may be a hypothetical what-if scenario but the logic is the same. Win-win for you. A possible loss for the community. But we all get to decide individually on this one.

Phillip

PS...nice use of polemic!

restrac2000
05-09-2011, 11:37 PM
Not sure snipping this thread off the original was needed. Seems fair and related to the original topic. Self-policing as a community is a needed part of "cooperation" with policy. Without it we are more likely to lead to higher levels of compliance based policy; we definitely don't need any more of that as a community. There are actually people working behind the scenes to try to open Navajo lands to more access. There are tons of people descending technical canyons on Navajo land legally. But that can all be outweighed by a few publicly noted poaching.

stefan
05-10-2011, 12:07 AM
So there were incidents, and some official(s) took the lazy way out with a blanket prohibition, rather than a more focused solution.

I am not convinced that simply complying with such is effective.

I certainly favor the approach of engaging the locals and following their wishes.
Individually, I mean...with people who actually live near the sites. The website actually encourages the practice of asking to park at a residence, and possibly paying a small fee. Seems like a great idea.


so if the kaibeto chapter closed the canyons are you trying to suggest that it's reasonable to circumvent that by merely asking a family that lives nearby the canyon if it's okay and basing it entirely on that single response, rather than the collective decision of the chapter? and that this is your reading of the suggestion of the website which has more to do with parking and walking on the land in the immediate vicinity of some of the locals rather than entering a unequivocally closed canyon?

if there are viable ways of obtaining permission to enter the canyon, are you suggesting one shouldn't try in earnest to determine how to obtain permission in a way that's in accordance with the chapter?

or are you just try to feel out whether they are serious about their policies?

they collectively closed the canyons. and they are serious about their policies.

i agree with phillip, "non-Navajos" should respect them as a sovereign nation.

stefan
05-10-2011, 12:17 AM
So there were incidents, and some official(s) took the lazy way out with a blanket prohibition, rather than a more focused solution.


right ... because they're here to serve your recreational needs :wink:.

i heard awhile back from someone at the navajo parks and rec. that during an earlier time when the canyons were closed but they were considering the possibilities and issues of reopening them, a group decided to poach one of the closed canyons on christmas eve and needed rescuing, bringing out many of the locals to deal with it. it was after this final straw that the kaibeto chapter decided to keep the canyons closed indefinitely.

stefan
05-10-2011, 12:34 AM
a couple questions ...


I honestly don't think any of those canyons will ever be opened up again, so if you want to see them, you just have to take the chance.


are you trying to promote and broadcast this perspective on a webforum?


In any event, this wasn't a thread about hiking morals.

and then be dismissive of folks who have concerns about the problematic nature of doing so?

by the way ... trying to commandeer the flow of discussion on a webforum is like herding canyoneers, i mean, cats. hard to close pandora's box once you've opened it, but you apparently felt the need to mention the canyons so ...

Scott P
05-10-2011, 05:23 AM
The website actually encourages the practice of asking to park at a residence, and possibly paying a small fee. Seems like a great idea.


There are many reasons the canyons were closed, but this is apparently one of them.

See this old post on the canyons group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/message/9226

I am often asked how good I think chances are of more Navajo canyons
opening. Currently, the answer is "not very".

The original reason for some specific closures had to do with the
number of rescues. I think the ACA could have helped with this issue
by inviting tribal rangers to participate in rescue courses.

Unfortunately, I learned earlier this year that two additional issues
have created more concerns and resulted in many more closures.

1) People being inconsiderate of tribal members' homes. The first
canyon I ever did using Kelsey's guidebook is called Chaol. The
description reads "...drive to mile marker X, turn left to Owen
Yazzie's house, then turn right..." I remember wondering how many
people might knock on the door to make sure they have the right
house. Turns out, quite a few. As the result of numerous people
cutting across yards, being too loud as they pass by homes, etc. any
canyon that is not directly accessible from a public road is CLOSED.
This only leaves Waterholes, Antelope and a few of the Marble Canyon
tributaries open.

NOTE: Don't try and turn this one into an excuse for Kelsey bashing.
I didn't read anything in his guidebook that suggested people should
knock on doors, drive offroad across yards, etc. Common sense and
common courtesy should have dictated peoples' actions.

2) A few selfish people who believe they have the right to ignore the
rules and trespass on Navajo land without a permit. I'm not sure if
anything upsets Native Americans more than people who don't respect
their right to govern and control their own land. They DO have the
right to open or close canyons, impose restrictions, require guides,
charge for permits, etc. Tell them they don't have the right to close
them and they are even more likely to do so. People who knowingly
ignore the rules are being selfish and are jeopardizing future access
for the entire canyoneering community.

I don't think the situation is entirely hopeless. If canyoneers can
prove that they are responsible and respectful, perhaps someday ...

Although I disagree with Rich on several issues, the information above is good.

Another reason for the closures is because of people having no permits.

Anyway, I have been told that the Navajos sometime do give out permits for lower Kaibito Creek (non-technical), even though the website says it's officially closed. It wouldn't hurt asking the permit office (rather than at a local home). If you explain where you are parking and your route, it apparently is possible at times.


I believe most of us have poached canyons for various reasons and usually we have a self serving reason of why we should be excluded from the rules....


I've never poached a canyon with two possible exceptions. One was when the NPS screwed up my permit. Another one was on the Hualapai Reservation. We went to get a permit and the office was closed. We were told to drop by on our way out. On the way out it was closed again, so I sent a letter and never recieved a reply back. Years later, the internet said (there was no interenet during the time period when we went) that hiking permits haven't been issued since about a year before we did our hike (it's been opened up again), so if this can be counted as poaching, it was accidental.

I haven't done that many canyons on the Navajo Reservation, but I have done some. Most of the time (every time for me), the Navajos are friendly people. Despite what some guidebooks/sources seem to say, I've found that the Navajos I have met are aware that you are supposed to have a permit to hike on the reservation. Once when we did Silver Grotto and were waiting for a car shuttle, a Navajo came over to us and asked us if we were aware that we were on private land. I told them we had a permit and he was very kind after learning that we did and told us not to let anyone else give us flack (and one did). When we did Aztec Creek and it's environs, I was unable to get an advanced permit (I didn't know if I could go until it was too late to go through the mail system) and it was out of the way to get a permit in person. The trip leader (goofball on Bogley) made a phone call, and was told that I could get my "permit" after the hike if I would send them the number of days I went, where and sent the fee. In some ways the Navajos are more accomodating then the NPS or non-reservation private lands.

bshwakr
05-10-2011, 08:54 AM
__

restrac2000
05-10-2011, 09:18 AM
What is the current situation surrounding that Oak drainage? I thought we lost any rational for access with the latest (2010?) law about water rights.

I still hate the idea of folks using a loophole to cut across someone's private land. Hard not to be in their shoes on this one.

I have friends in Moab who have this very issue. Except, its a motorized right of way. Can't fundamentally support that either.

Phillip

bshwakr
05-10-2011, 09:22 AM
__

restrac2000
05-10-2011, 09:42 AM
Its a shame; that law is overly restrictive and ignores so much honorable American history. I would really love to show my wife and friends that drainage. Its my favorite in the area but I haven't been since I realized/assumed the legality of the situation (way back to 2005 I think). Was more ignorant about my decisions then. It was one of the 2 trips I poached or trespassed; I think. Did a lot of trips back in the day as a participant and never asked many questions; that said, none seem to be questionable except the two.

We have powerful ways of rationalizing our decisions. I just try to limit mine to running my cataraft through massive hydraulics now instead of those decisions that impact others.

Phillip

darkmatter
05-10-2011, 02:56 PM
Wow, seems I touched a nerve somehow.

1. "You are disrespecting the Navajo." Not. I am an equal opportunity anti-authoritarian. I tend to be skeptical of the moral legitimacy of bureaucratic edicts regardless of the particular organization the bureaucrat belongs to.

2. "You are trying to legitimize your own poaching." I have never done a canyon on reservation land, and probably never will. There is plenty of undiscovered country, for me, closer to home.

3. "You think locals can override rules from above/afar." I am more questioning than asserting. Still unanswered is whether the closures apply to the Navajo themselves. Next question would be "what about guests", and what would qualify one as a "guest"?

4. "The closures are reasonable." What?? Everybody has their panties in a stone knot over Subway being closed, probably for only a few weeks. These closures are in their second decade. Could we have some consistency, please?

5. "Asking to park at a residence (with payment) is the sort of thing that led to the ban." The examples cited are different things entirely. The advice really is right there in black and white at http://www.navajonationparks.org/permits.htm

restrac2000
05-10-2011, 04:01 PM
Wow, seems I touched a nerve somehow.

1. "You are disrespecting the Navajo." Not. I am an equal opportunity anti-authoritarian. I tend to be skeptical of the moral legitimacy of bureaucratic edicts regardless of the particular organization the bureaucrat belongs to.

Not a moral issue from what I understand. I understand the hypothetical nature of you comments but there is no legal question of legitimacy with the Navajo land and permitting.



3. "You think locals can override rules from above/afar." I am more questioning than asserting. Still unanswered is whether the closures apply to the Navajo themselves. Next question would be "what about guests", and what would qualify one as a "guest"?

Not sure how the Navajo regulate technical access to canyons amongst themselves. Never seemed to matter to me since I have never none a Navajo on the reservation who canyoneers. Those questions don't seem to apply to any of us in this context. Not sure how you would find answers.



"The closures are reasonable." What?? Everybody has their panties in a stone knot over Subway being closed, probably for only a few weeks. These closures are in their second decade. Could we have some consistency, please?

There isn't any problem here with consistency because they are fundamentally two different issues. The Subway is regulated by the federal government for which most of us are citizens. They hold it in trust for us. There is also the question of legal precedent and justification for the closure of that resource; really not sure if that will ever be answered because it seems there can be way too much leniency for "authoritarian" measures such as this in the laws that regulate the NPS.

Navajo Lands on the other hand are not managed in trust for us. We are not citizens of the reservation. We have no entitlement to their lands. We have no rights to access, except for motorized right-of-ways. Seems that is were we have to differentiate. Hence, why most of us, philosophically at least, think the Navajo's closing these lands is "reasonable" while holding the opinion that the Subway should not be closed because the park considers it too dangerous.


5. "Asking to park at a residence (with payment) is the sort of thing that led to the ban." The examples cited are different things entirely. The advice really is right there in black and white at http://www.navajonationparks.org/permits.htm

From your previous post I think it is fair to conclude that you were arguing (no matter how hypothetically) that you disagreed with the permit system. It also seems fair to conclude that you thought you could bypass said system by offering money to individuals at the various trailheads, or to those who lived nearby. That would simply be illegal:

"All areas on the Navajo Nation are closed to non-Navajos unless you have a valid camping, hiking or backcountry permit issued by the Navajo Parks and Recreation Department or other duly delegated tribal authority. Failure to have a permit is considered Trespassing on a Federal Indian Reservation."

That is what seems black and white. But maybe we are all just talking past each other.

Phillip

darkmatter
05-10-2011, 04:41 PM
I don't have a problem with the permit system.

It is the closures I have an issue with; that they are not in anyone's best interest, that there are better ways to, in the future, mitigate against problems such as those that occurred in the past. And that whatever the "community" has been doing about them to date has not been effective.

CarpeyBiggs
05-10-2011, 04:45 PM
that they are not in anyone's best interest

you mean, your best interest?

restrac2000
05-10-2011, 05:00 PM
Sorry, have a lot of time on my hands today ...

The current closures may not benefit non-native canyoneers but it obviously does benefit the Navajos. Their interest matters and disqualify the statement that the closure is "not in anyone's interest". It benefits them culturally and financially. It may not be the "best" solution for them but that is their prerogative. We can respectfully provide constructive criticism to them (not sure who that would be sent to) but assuming its our problem to solves smacks of the same American self-interest that dominated native relations for centuries.

Just because we don't have the desired outcome doesn't mean we have been effective. There are a lot of people behind the scenes working diplomatically to either prevent more closures or open negotiations to changes. We have likely been effective as a community. Folks have gone out of their way to make sure their permits are accurate. These types of conversations prevented my selfish alter ego from exploring lands on the south of lake powell on my recent kayaking trip.

There are MANY canyons on the Navajo land that have not been closed yet. We have been effective at preventing worse measures. These canyons could be closed whenever the Navajo decide. I like to think people are more thoughtful in the canyoneering community than before.

All game for different approaches. We can try harder, I get that. We can self-police and educate. The ACA has tried working with their folks in the past as a show of mutual respect. But I don't think talking about patriotic duty to poach canyons makes things better. I don't think calling into the question the "moral authority" of the permitting agency of the Navajo Nation is productive or even respectful of them or their rights.

This may simply come down to the fact that its not always about "us"......

Phillip

Iceaxe
05-10-2011, 05:42 PM
Current rules allow packrafting off a backcountry permit up to 5 miles on the Big River. The particular adventure in question involved packrafting a bit further than that to get to the next available exit.

Thanks Tom :2thumbs: That is exactly the information I was looking for.



Why do you have to bring me into this?

I actually wasn't even thinking of you when I wrote that post. But I guess if the shoe fits. :haha:




This may simply come down to the fact that its not always about "us"......

As for the Indian's and their reoccurring problems with whitey.... maybe the Indian's will learn to fight better next time. :lol8:

Bo_Beck
05-11-2011, 07:41 AM
Simple instructions.

ratagonia
05-11-2011, 08:35 AM
1. "You are disrespecting the Navajo." Not. I am an equal opportunity anti-authoritarian. I tend to be skeptical of the moral legitimacy of bureaucratic edicts regardless of the particular organization the bureaucrat belongs to.


I think you mean you are not being prejudicially disrespectful of the Navajo, but spread your disrespect around.

Otherwise, I think Phillip nailed it. :2thumbs:

Tom

Scott Card
05-11-2011, 02:41 PM
Simple instructions.
:lol8: Nice Bo.

ratagonia
05-11-2011, 03:05 PM
:lol8: Nice Bo.

:2thumbs:

How the gators made that sign, I will never know...

T

Scott Card
05-11-2011, 03:14 PM
44231

Gators spell better but I think animals do stuff when we aren't lookin.

Iceaxe
05-11-2011, 04:05 PM
Enough of this... you're all interrupting my latest endeavor, I'm trying to put together a care package of blankets to send to the Indians.

darkmatter
05-11-2011, 04:15 PM
I appreciate your considerate replies, Philip. It's a refreshing contrast to the junk on this thread that is not worth responding to.


Sorry, have a lot of time on my hands today ...

The current closures may not benefit non-native canyoneers but it obviously does benefit the Navajos. Their interest matters and disqualify the statement that the closure is "not in anyone's interest". It benefits them culturally and financially. It may not be the "best" solution for them but that is their prerogative. We can respectfully provide constructive criticism to them (not sure who that would be sent to) but assuming its our problem to solves smacks of the same American self-interest that dominated native relations for centuries.

It is not at all obvious to me how anti-tourism policies could be beneficial to the Navajo.





All game for different approaches. We can try harder, I get that. We can self-police and educate. The ACA has tried working with their folks in the past as a show of mutual respect. But I don't think talking about patriotic duty to poach canyons makes things better. I don't think calling into the question the "moral authority" of the permitting agency of the Navajo Nation is productive or even respectful of them or their rights.

Everyone should constantly question the moral authority of the governing class, especially those that don't have an electorate to answer to. And I don't see why such criticism need be reserved only to one's own government.

For the record, I have not arrived at a position as to whether poaching these particular canyons is just, or politic, or practical. Those offering only insults and invective have certainly not been convincing.

Scott Card
05-11-2011, 04:32 PM
It's a refreshing contrast to the junk on this thread that is not worth responding to.

I resemble...wait strike that. I RESENT your statement!




:haha:

ratagonia
05-11-2011, 04:44 PM
It is not at all obvious to me how anti-tourism policies could be beneficial to the Navajo.

You lack imagination.

Maybe they want to be LEFT THE FRAK ALONE for a change. :angryfire:

Perhaps you have no appreciation for the history. May I recommend: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Navajo-Raymond-Friday-Locke/dp/0876875002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305157516&sr=8-1

Tom :moses:

stefan
05-11-2011, 06:08 PM
I appreciate your considerate replies, Philip. It's a refreshing contrast to the junk on this thread that is not worth responding to.


dishing out a little attitude but aren't receptive to it?

by the way, some of us do care very much what ideas, attitudes, and perspectives are discussed and promoted on a public webforum, especially when they can have bad effects or reflect badly on the canyoneering community as a whole.

and sometimes snarky responses are part of the bogley culture, i hear. (i can see you've engaged in this elsewhere on the forum)



It is not at all obvious to me how anti-tourism policies could be beneficial to the Navajo.

a major issue is that they are completely responsible for SAR on their land. so one major benefit is that, if the canyons that create this issue are closed and people don't poach and get in trouble, they effectively eliminate this problem. can you really not see it from their side on this point? (i'm not saying they've made the best choice)




Everyone should constantly question the moral authority of the governing class, especially those that don't have an electorate to answer to. And I don't see why such criticism need be reserved only to one's own government.

everyone's different, but i can imagine 400+ years of american history has some folks being a little more sensitive to the idea of ignoring the wishes of native americans on the marginalized land we've allowed them to retain. (but that wasn't your fault, right?)

oldno7
06-01-2011, 08:05 AM
There was a very large group this weekend doing Anasazi and Moepitz. Members admitted knowing nothing of permits. They were from Boulder Co. I believe.
They had some large scale problems, but that is another story.

Scott Card
06-01-2011, 12:59 PM
They had some large scale problems, but that is another story. :popcorn: