Keyhole Pinecreek

[moab mark]

We hit Keyhole Pinecreek yesterday. Both Canyons are tip top full of nice clean water. Went thru with a big group of Noobs and they had a great time. Gopro may follow.

Mark

[Bootboy]

Excellent news. I'm combo-ing the two on Saturday. I hope the water remains reasonably clean.

[moab mark]

Parking for pinecreek is a pain. They are not letting you turn left into the parking lot when coming back from keyhole. Should be very difficult Saturday. But other then that should be great. The swimming hole at the end is crystal clear and deep.

[Aj84737]

The parking lot on the right side of the road when you are coming back from keyhole is the place to park it's only maybe 100 yards longer of a walk and there is more space. Also if you park in the other lot you can't turn left out of it to go back through the tunnel. You have to turn right then turn around at the 2nd lot anyways.

[moab mark]

Usually no spots in that one when we get there. The parking for pinecreek has been and will continue to be a mess till they tell us to take a hike.

[Iceaxe]

Whatever you do don't bitch about the pine creek parking.... the parks solution will be to close pine creek.....

And I'm serious about this. I've seen the parks problem solving skills in action before.

Sent using Tapatalk

[chabidiah]

Whatever you do don't bitch about the pine creek parking.... the parks solution will be to close pine creek.....

And I'm serious about this. I've seen the parks problem solving skills in action before.

Sent using Tapatalk
It does seem that their attitude would suggest that they are doing us a favor by allowing us to be there.:nono:

[Bootboy]

Maybe I'll snag my permits and do pine creek first, coming up from the tunnel. Make a right, park, return to car after thumbing, turn right again, and proceed to keyhole. Not ideal, but what ever... I'll just see how big of a zoo it is.

The no-left-turn business is ridiculous. If safety is the issue, they should let you turn left. Instead, you have to make u-ies, which in my mind is more dangerous. I don't make the rules though....

A side note; what's the consensus on doing keyhole twice in one day? Frowned upon? You have a permit and I know the point is to control numbers, but say not all the permits were taken for that day, would it be unethical to run keyhole twice? Just puttin it out there.

[ratagonia]

Maybe I'll snag my permits and do pine creek first, coming up from the tunnel. Make a right, park, return to car after thumbing, turn right again, and proceed to keyhole. Not ideal, but what ever... I'll just see how big of a zoo it is.

The no-left-turn business is ridiculous. If safety is the issue, they should let you turn left. Instead, you have to make u-ies, which in my mind is more dangerous. I don't make the rules though....

A side note; what's the consensus on doing keyhole twice in one day? Frowned upon? You have a permit and I know the point is to control numbers, but say not all the permits were taken for that day, would it be unethical to run keyhole twice? Just puttin it out there.

Soooooooo sad. You might have to walk an extra 100 feet. Oh MY GOSH the Park is STEALING OUR RIGHTS!!!

(Oh, right, I have to give a :roflol: so you know I am being sarcastic.)

I think the coning off was an excellent choice. It has reduced the chaos substantially in a place that was very chaotic. Good Job Park! (Not sarcastic.)

For some reason I lack empathy for the TREMENDOUS inconvenience this is for you. :roflol: (the TREMENDOUS is sarcastic, the rest is not)

Do Keyhole first. Drive down to Pine Creek and park before you get to the tunnel area, in the larger parking lot. Walk 2 minutes to the bridge.

Keyhole twice? No problem. Heck, do Pine Creek twice - that's fun too, especially at this water level.

Tom

[Iceaxe]

Keyhole twice? No problem. Heck, do Pine Creek twice - that's fun too, especially at this water level.

LOL...

You do know that is not in the true spirit of the permit don't ya?

I personally have no problem with doing laps....

I also have no problem with the coned parking if it helps keep pine creek open to a high number of permits.


Sent using Tapatalk

[Mountaineer]

Usually no spots in that one when we get there. The parking for pinecreek has been and will continue to be a mess till they tell us to take a hike.

Was in Zion a couple of weeks ago, and the lot was empty every time. Getting a shuttle ride seemed to not be a problem, and the rangers were very friendly and helpful once we explained what we were up to. We did get there around 6 am or so though.

[ratagonia]

LOL...

You do know that is not in the true spirit of the permit don't ya?

I personally have no problem with doing laps....

I also have no problem with the coned parking if it helps keep pine creek open to a high number of permits.


Sent using Tapatalk

There is no rule against it.

The rules are what count.

Tom

[shagdeuce]

I feel a "how many Keyhole laps can you do in a day" challenge coming on...

Then again...that might cause the Park to change the permit verbiage...

[Iceaxe]

There is no rule against it.

The rules are what count.

My point exactly.... there is no rule stating where the Subway actually begins or exactly what access your permit covers (das boot or Russel gulch)..... thanks for clarifying that situation for us.

Sent using Tapatalk

[moab mark]

Years ago when we only had 5 harnesses and 15 Scouts I looped Pine Creek 3 times in one day. That was a long day. The only complaint I have on the parking is when I show up from Keyhole about One with my whole tribe in their Wetsuits with sweat running down our faces and Granny and Grandpa and their tribe just took the last spot to park in the upper lot and are headed out on the overlook hike.:angryfire: I do agree with Tom the cones do seem to help with the traffic flow. Now just get rid of Grandpa and Granny and their Motorhome and it would all go much smoother.

[moab mark]

My point exactly.... there is no rule stating where the Subway actually begins or exactly what access your permit covers (das boot or Russel gulch)..... thanks for clarifying that situation for us.

Sent using Tapatalk

My wife asked the other day when traveling from Keyhole to Pine Creek why do we even need a permit. There are no signs anywhere stating that we do? She looked thru all the info they give you when you come into the park and it doesn't talk about needing permits anywhere? The only sign I have ever seen is the one at Subway?

[Iceaxe]

Some friends of mine up climbed keyhole.... they didn't get a permit cause the rules state "using a rope", which they didn't do.

Sent using Tapatalk

[ratagonia]

Some friends of mine up climbed keyhole.... they didn't get a permit cause the rules state "using a rope", which they didn't do.


The rules say: A canyon in which a rope is usually used.

I think you could do well making the case of up-climbing. But that would be logic, something that bureaucracy have little tolerance for.

Tom

[Iceaxe]

The rules say: A canyon in which a rope is usually used.

From the Zion website "A permit is required for all technical canyoneering trips."

http://www.nps.gov/zion/planyourvisit/canyoneering.htm

I couldn't find a statement specifying ropes.

While I agree going up or down makes no difference (both are canyoneering). Technically it's not technical if you use no gear.... or at least that would be my take.

FWIW: The Narrows, Subway and Orderville are specifically named as needing a permit so you couldn't use the same arguement.

[ratagonia]

The actual rules are:

A permit is required for the following activities:

- Any through day hike of any tributary of the North Fork of the Virgin River, regardless of direction of travel.

- Any hike along any portion of the Subway route from the Northgate Peaks Trail to the Left Fork Trailhead, regardless of direction of travel, to include all portions of the Left Fork of North Creek drainage between Russell Gulch and the Left Fork Trailhead exit trail.

- Any hike within any canyon in the park which normally involves the use of rope, webbing, or other device for descent or ascent.

- All travel above Big Spring in the North Fork of the Virgin River.



The actual, technical rules are in the Superintendent's Compendium:

http://www.nps.gov/zion/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm

Perhaps they should hand a copy of the compendium to all members of the public as they come in the gate????

Tom

[jman]

Well this hasn't been confusing! Hehe

Shane: "the rules state..."

Tom: "the rules say..."

Shane: the rules "from the website say...":

Tom: "the actual rules..."

Tom: "the actual, technical rules say..."


What's next: "the actual, actual, for reals, rules are:".... Hehe

[ratagonia]

If there is one thing clear, it is that Tom's relationship to the rules is tighter than Shane's relationship to the rules.

T :moses:

[Iceaxe]

If there is one thing clear, it is that Tom's relationship to the rules is tighter than Shane's relationship to the rules.

Which brings us full circle to.... lappi ng canyons is not in the spirit of the permit.

I simply maintain that if it doesn't say you can't then it is legal....

While Tom appears to interpret every rule and canyon differently.

Just my two cent.

Sent using Tapatalk

[ratagonia]

Which brings us full circle to.... lapping canyons is not in the spirit of the permit.

I simply maintain that if it doesn't say you can't then it is legal....

While Tom appears to interpret every rule and canyon differently.

Just my two cents.



What do you mean, friend Shane?

I interpret every rule as it is written.

If they wanted to prohibit lapping canyons, they could. Let's not encourage them.

Perhaps you are referring to our previous spat about Russell Gulch and Das Boot, vs. the Subway. That is also written down, in the Backcountry Plan, as map showing the zones. My apologies for not digging it out, but it is there, if you wish to dig it out. My thoughts are that you would prefer to not know the rule, to maintain your level of plausible deniability.

Jus' sayin'...

Da rules is da rules.

Carry on.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Actually, turned out to be easy. It is on this page:

http://www.archive.canyoneeringusa.com/zcc/process.htm

So here is the map, clarifying the definition of the regular subway, which is in the Primitive Zone:

Enjoy.

Tom

[moab mark]

See that fine connector trail on that there map. The supposed leader who took me thru subway the first time got confused and we hiked the connector trail back to the road. The whole time he kept saying "this does look familiar but it sure seems like we should be gettting to the subway section soon" when we started seeing cars we then determined that he had blown it. After we hitched a ride back up to the start we then started all over again. The 9 12 year olds that were with us were dragging tail when it came time to hike up and out.

[Iceaxe]

So here is the map, clarifying the definition of the regular subway, which is in the Primitive Zone:

Nice map... but I don't see where it clarify's the difference between the Das Boot entrance or either of the Russel Gulch entrances to the Subway. In fact, I don't even see Das Boot labeled on the map (or Russel Gulch).

That the routes are in the primitive zone has never been in question... that a Subway permit identifies a particualr trail you must follow to enter or exit is.

You have a habit of interpitating the rules to match your sence of ethics, and then expecting everyone else to agree.... I just figure if it's not written anywhere I can't do it, then it must be OK. Which seem's like a much simplier approach... YMMV...

[ratagonia]

Nice map... but I don't see where it clarify's the difference between the Das Boot entrance or either of the Russel Gulch entrances to the Subway. In fact, I don't even see Das Boot labeled on the map (or Russel Gulch).[/COLOR]

That the routes are in the primitive zone has never been in question... that a Subway permit identifies a particualr trail you must follow to enter or exit is.

You have a habit of interpitating the rules to match your sence of ethics, and then expecting everyone else to agree.... I just figure if it's not written anywhere I can't do it, then it must be OK. Which seem's like a much simplier approach... YMMV...

Seriously?

As a master of snark once said:

"I can explain it to you, Shane; but I can't understand it for you."

Tom

[Bootboy]

This thread took a massive shit.

[Taylor]

Sorry but this is from the compendium, sec 1.5 (a)(2)(i):

"A permit allows a group to travel through the canyon one time. An additional permit is required for an additional trip."

Evidently lapping is not allowed.

[ratagonia]

Sorry but this is from the compendium, sec 1.5 (a)(2)(i):

"A permit allows a group to travel through the canyon one time. An additional permit is required for an additional trip."

Evidently lapping is not allowed.

There you go, guess I should read the entire compendium.

Tom

[mtn_dude]

Sorry but this is from the compendium, sec 1.5 (a)(2)(i):

"A permit allows a group to travel through the canyon one time. An additional permit is required for an additional trip."

Evidently lapping is not allowed.

dang i liked plausible denial...oh well