Deer Creek Now Closed to Canyoneering

The Park Service has released a new compendium that has closed the Tapeats narrows of Deer Creek to all canyoneering related activities. This comes on the heels of another incident where a rope was left hanging in the falls for about a month.

Pretty disappointing precedent, to be sure.

This is from Rich Rudow -

The closure of Deer Creek feels like a stake in the heart. We've spent the last
three years trying to work with the NPS to keep it open. dNally removed bolts
that some people felt were offensive and others removed ropes left behind in the
180 final falls rappel on two occasions in the last few years. Deer Creek is
one of the finest slots on the entire Colorado Plateau. Closing Deer Creek is
akin to closing Heaps in Zion. Would you stand for a Heaps closure? Would you
get more involved in the community if you could impact these decisions?

Todd Martin and I spent our day yesterday removing 600' of rope left behind in
Garden Creek Canyon in Grand Canyon. We were joined by the Canyon District
Ranger. I descended Garden Creek with a group two months ago. Since then, not
only did 600' of rope get left behind, but there was red webbing on anchor two
where black webbing was already installed and there was 50' of neon orange
webbing near the exit. Black is the only legal webbing color in Grand Canyon.
No exceptions. Some NPS rangers recognize our efforts to self police and clean
up our own mess, while others see us see us making a mess of canyons that were
otherwise pristine, even if we do "fix it" after the fact. We have got to clean
up our act. I'm appealing to entire community to get involved and act
responsibly. The pivotal regulations governing slots in Grand Canyon are being
decided now. The resulting regulatory regime will last for the next 20 years.
Your actions now will determine if your kids ever get a chance to see the slots
in Grand Canyon. The current rules governing canyoneering in Grand Canyon can
be viewed here: http://tinyurl.com/3tlfuy8

Finally, some canyons require advanced skills to do safely. Heaps, Deer Creek,
and Garden Creek are great examples. Heaps is very intense on the exit
sequence. Deer Creek is the same way with the added complexity of loud roaring
water. Garden Creek requires a mid wall transfer in a waterfall at the 400'
rappel if you choose to not carry 800' of rope. All of us need to consider if
we have the skills to do these canyons. Most importantly, do we have the skills
to get through the canyon without trashing the place (or requiring a rescue) if
something goes wrong? They're easy and great fun, until they're not. They can
turn on you in an instant.

What can you do? American Canyoneering was recently formed to address access
issues. The interim Board has put the organizational framework in place and the
organization is prepared to get involved with land managers to fight for our
access. We're prepared to fight enormously hard to reopen Deer Creek as part of
the Backcountry Management Plan process that is going on now. Become a member
and support the cause.
http://www.americancanyoneers.org/forum/index.php



Thanks,

Rich

A sad thing... thanks Dan.

Tom

More information today on the closure at Deer Creek Falls. I believe this will be one of the first issues tackled by the American Canyoneers board - please join, speak up and help fight for canyoneering access in Grand Canyon. The BCMP is under review as we speak, and if this is any indication, we are going to have some battles ahead.

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW

IN REPLY REFER TO:
8/14/12
N1623 (GRCA 8226 x 8213)

Dear :

Thank you for your interest in the restrictions we have recently enacted within
the water course of Deer Creek. As you know, the Grand Canyon National Park
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Georgia]Superintendent

Also, posted on GCPBA's website - http://gcpba.org/2012/06/23/gcpba-ri...to-visitation/

And here is my response to the letter, as posted on the GCPBA board. Thanks for the private boaters for their current work to understand this issue more fully.

I tried to keep this brief, I swear... I apologize for the wall of text, but
here are a few of my thoughts.

1 - I am still not clear on what the religious significance is of Deer Creek,
or the narrows in particular. I recognize the area is sacred to the tribes, but
I don't know WHY. What are the exceptional qualities of the actual slot, and
why is the only part of the TCP that is being restricted, even though it has the
smallest actual impact on the resource as a whole? Without understanding this,
it's hard to understand the park's justification. I cannot understand, given
the explanation in this document, how technical canyoneering is desecrating the
area, especially when compared to the long list of other impacts listed. This
justification seems very incomplete.

2 – Here is a list of all the impacts on the Deer Creek area, as referenced by
the document.

"There are modern intrusions into the landscape, including trails, campsites,
and a toilet, these intrusions constitute a small enough area not to make Deer
Creek ineligible for inclusion on the National Register."

Yet in it's justification to close the narrows, it states "With an increase in
adventure sports such as rappelling, elements of the Deer Creek TCP are being
disturbed. If unchecked these disturbances will diminish the National Register
eligibility of the Deer Creek area as a TCP. " These disturbances are tiny
compared to the modern intrusions listed above (trails, campsites, toilets).
Further, here is a list of all the impacts mentioned in the document.

1 - Heavy trailing was evident throughout the TCP
2 - Severe deterioration of the river bank due to high levels of boat and
tourist activity. Trailing and visitor-related impacts are present both at the
base of the falls near the river and Deer Creek Valley"
3 - Purposeful vandalism (graffiti) and inadvertent damage to the rock art panel
were reported.
4 - Monitors repeatedly recorded visitors rappelling and climbing in the gorge
[narrows].
5 - Tourists have been observed jumping into the water
6 - Individuals were also observed picking, discarding, and trampling plants for
no apparent reason.
7 - Rocks, both large and small, were also being thrown about.
(8) - Surprisingly absent is mention of the throne room, which I find puzzling.
(EDITED TO ADD - Not mentioned in the document)
(9) - Helicopters are required to offload the human waste from the area once or twice per year

Here are the impacts specific to technical canyoneering.
1 - Plant disturbance from rappelling.
2 - Climbing hardware. Installation and abandonment of climbing hardware affect
the elements of integrity of setting, materials, and feeling.

In regards to technical canyoneering impact 1 -
This is a legitimate concern. But impacts from rappelling pale in comparison to
the impact of a flash flood. The vegetation has demonstrated an ability to
grows back quickly. Though careful rappelling will result in little to no
impact to the vegetation.

In regards to technical canyoneering impact 2 -
There is no climbing hardware visible to any visitor to Deer Creek, unless they
are actually in the slot making a technical descent requiring ropes. No bolts
can be seen from the rim. No bolts can be seen from the base of the falls. The
only time climbing gear (and even here, it is NEVER hardware) can be seen is
when people are actually rappelling the falls, or when a rope has been
carelessly left behind. This is hardly an "impact," especially when compared to
the other impacts to the area.

It is hard to understand how the impact on the vegetation in the falls is
significant enough to justify closure. Nor do I understand the concerns about
the bolts that were placed there 30 years ago. Contrast this with other impacts
in the TCP, and these are very small. Using this justification, it is easy to
see that this closure could extend to all activities at Deer Creek. Which leads
me to point number 3.

3 – Slippery slope. This whole document reads as a justification to shut down
the entire Deer Creek TCP. The impacts to the area as a whole, as referenced in
the document, show there is a lot of impact from activities that go well beyond
the technical canyoneering in the narrows. In fact, it's pretty easy to argue
that canyoneering is the least impact of all the impacts mentioned.

4 – And perhaps the most significant and maddening detail of this whole
situation is the fact this all happened behind closed doors, with no dialog
between the public, the tribes, and the park service.

Perhaps closing the narrows because of these impacts is justified. I'm not
going to argue that my personal desire to enjoy this area should trump the
religious beliefs of the tribes. But I jut don't see a reasonable justification
after reading this document. There is nothing in here that explains how the
narrows are any more significant than any other part of the TCP. And I
certainly don't support the way this closure was enacted.

I am somewhat saddened to see the boaters and climbers now suffering the same pain as those of us in the offroading community. Are you actually surprised by this?

Of late, the USFS and BLM (or any other Gubmt agency) will use any excuse to exclude us from parks, trails and recreation spots that have until this point been open for 50+ years without serious negative impact to the land.

Unless you have wings and can produce no foot prints, other areas (like the pending San Rafael closures) will be upon us. God forbid that we should put a human print on sand and it should last for say.. 3 weeks before the next wind/rain storm wipe it clean.

Sent from my ThinkPad Tablet using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

I am somewhat saddened to see the boaters and climbers now suffering the same pain as those of us in the offroading community.

---

Actually many areas have been closed to climbers for many years/decades. Although I'm sad to see it close, it's nothing new.

As an example, when Salt Creek in Canyonlands closed to motor vehicles, many hiking areas were closed as well (more routes than were closed to motor vehicles). It isn't accurate to think that the only closures until as of recently were to off road vehicles; many hiking and climbing routes have been closed.

Unlike several of the off-road closures (please note I said "several", not all) though, most of the climbing closures weren't due to abuse (which doesn't mean that climbers can't be abusive-they can).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott P

Actually many areas have been closed to climbers for many years/decades. Although I'm sad to see it close, it's nothing new.

As an example, when Salt Creek in Canyonlands closed to motor vehicles, many hiking areas were closed as well (more routes than were closed to motor vehicles). It isn't accurate to think that the only closures until as of recently were to off road vehicles; many hiking and climbing routes have been closed.

Unlike several of the off-road closures (please note I said "several", not all) though, most of the climbing closures weren't due to abuse (which doesn't mean that climbers can't be abusive-they can).

---

If you were to go back to the context of "this" thread--canyoneering, I think you would have to agree that "trash" played a likely, huge role in the implementation of the Deer Cr. closure. So in context to what you stated, I think this could be called "abuse".

If not kept in tight check(self regulating/monitoring), this scene could continue to play out in the GC.

I need to clarify that my GC canyoneering experience is zero. So maybe I'm out of line here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

If you were to go back to the context of "this" thread--canyoneering, I think you would have to agree that "trash" played a likely, huge role in the implementation of the Deer Cr. closure. So in context to what you stated, I think this could be called "abuse".

If not kept in tight check(self regulating/monitoring), this scene could continue to play out in the GC.

I need to clarify that my GC canyoneering experience is zero. So maybe I'm out of line here.

---

i agree about the "abuse" it seems clear this is a result of careless people leaving a rope behind.

my hope is this won't play out in other areas in GC. Deer Creek is very unique, in that it is very accessible to river runners and hikers alike, and it sees huge crowds at an obvious slot canyon right at river level that aren't really present pretty anywhere else. It's an icon of the GC. It also has religious significance to the tribes. I won't get into the hypocrisy of such a claim, but it's safe to say it was very offensive to the tribes for that rope to be left, or for people to be in there at all. However, it's not on tribal lands. So whether or not the closure is justified is debatable. Especially considering how the process happened.

Most canyons in GC are not accessible to people who aren't "canyoneers." DC is unique, it attracts lots of people, (30,000 a year), and there's really no barrier to entry. People can float in, grab some ropes, and be in the technical section in 30 minutes, regardless of their previous experience in slots. Unfortunately, it's also one of the most dangerous - as it is heavy class C, and the final sequence can catch rookies very unaware - which is why the rope was left in the first place. For whatever that's worth.

Strangely enough, there is a long section of insanely beautiful narrows before the rappels, and those are also closed now. In this stretch, there is NO IMPACT at all from humans. So the closure of even the non technical section is completely unjustified.

Which leads to a final conclusion - this is a closure based on the religious beliefs of a tribe, on land they don't own, without so much as discussing it with the public, asking for comment, or seeking alternative solutions.

I heard from a paiute member all water is sacred to his people. makes sense their ancestors lived in the desert and would appreciate the life water sources provide. he placed dc & the colorado river in the same category, and said what is done is done & never will be the same so he no longer cared. Will river running will be closed soon by the park? I doubt that it ever will. one sided over reaction from the park, sounds like it more and more.

Seems like a total over-reaction on the part of the NPS.

Quote:

---

If you were to go back to the context of "this" thread--canyoneering, I think you would have to agree that "trash" played a likely, huge role in the implementation of the Deer Cr. closure. So in context to what you stated, I think this could be called "abuse".

---

Someone did leave a rope behind in there. Certainly abuse. Luckily another party removed it.

I believe the bolts that are in there were placed decades ago and can't be seen from above or below. The technical part of the canyon is filled wall to wall with water, so little impact there. There is actually much (human) impact around Deer Creek, but probably not much in the technical section.

My own guess is that the real reason for the closure isn't really because of tribal sacredness or impact, but for the same reason that it's hard to get a permit for Kolob Creek. Because Deer Creek is accessible, they are probably worried that someone unprepared is going to get killed in there. It's easier for them to find excused to close it than to keep it open and have someone inexperienced go in there, get killed and the families sue them.

I don't know if leaving a rope behind counts as "abuse" when considering it real impacts, which are solely aesthetic (which I fully recognize is an important aspect of experience).

I see abuse as largely defined by intent of action, at least in this case. From what I have gleaned, the rope was left behind due to other issues not out of malice. Second, the boating and canyoneering community responded rather promptly and self-policed itself. That level of cooperation by the community should be enough to prevent further legal measures like this from being implemented.

If we were talking short-term closure with open door meetings with the recreation community to create a plausible solution to the limited problems in that drainage then I would thoroughly understand. That does not seem to be the case here.

Phillip---

Wait....Did you hear that?.....

I think I heard your mom calling:haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

Phillip---

Wait....Did you hear that?.....

I think I heard your mom calling:haha:

---

huh?

To clarify....I don't see this as abuse by users but I could understand that to be the case being made against the NPS if that was your original intent. I was responding to Scott P.

Will be sad not to be able to show this one to my friends next May when we raft/float the canyon again. This was going to be one of the few feasible canyons for us.

The NPS has excused and dealt with tons of such incidents with rafters in the past:

Dory Stuck in Dubendorf Rapid
Dory Stuck in Havasupai
Commercial Motor-rig Aided by Rescue
Double Wrap

It seems inconsistent to me that the NPS would accept such incidents, which often pose serious physical hazards to other boatmen, yet would be able to call a stuck rope "abuse". I am not asking for greater closure for boatmen but greater allowance for mistakes for canyoneers in the backcountry, especially when we saw such a swift community response to what amount to trash removal. As the above stories highlight, the NPS actually will help remove boating trash if called to help. Seems like there is a precedent for them being extremely lenient in regards to unintended consequences of backcountry travel yet it seems applied in an uneven manner.

So, to me it, it seems inaccurate and unproductive for us as canyoneers to use or accept the implications of the word "abuse" in regards to what has happened in Deer Creek.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

Phillip---

Wait....Did you hear that?.....

I think I heard your mom calling:haha:

---

Thank you, Kurt, for demonstrating what actual "abuse" looks like.

Carry on ---

Tom

i also agree that the religious reason are complete garbage. If the water is sacred that is all fine but the tribe dosen't access the water in the canyon anyways. if the plants are sacared when do they go down there to look at them. Its a slot canyon that gets wiped clean multiple time a year. I guess if you have canyoneering parties taking big craps in the canyon and scratching their names in the wall i can understand that but come on. All of this closure of canyons is complete bull. Even goose creek, open the canyon up 4 months out of the year and close it the rest of the year, I promise you it will be back to a WILD canyon by the time it opens up again.

My religious point of view is GOD created this world for us to enjoy it and to take care of it. Not to have one people or goverment of people closing it down and telling us what to do with the land GOD gave us. I HATE the BLM, and somewhat dissagree with what the NPS has turned into. I do agree that it has been good to some degree to set aside these amazing places to preserve their natural state BUT only for the purpose of us to go enjoy.

very sad, and i don't even go to the GC to go canyoneering .

Howdy folks, I posted the original email that went to the Superintendent at Grand Canyon objecting to the Deer Creek closure and his response back to us here. The original letter backed the position taken by several other organizations and their letters are also attached:

http://www.americancanyoneers.org/fo...php?f=8&t=2331

Best Regards,

Rich Rudow

[QUOTE] Vandalism diminishes elements of integrity of setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling.
 Social trails disturb material contexts, damage archaeological materials and artifacts, harden soil, disturb plant populations, and encourage water erosion. These disturbances diminish elements of integrity of setting, materials, and feeling.
 Plant disturbance from rappelling. Though the narrows gorge is not vegetated, the face of the falls is. Visitor

It's terrible that Deer Creek got closed but Land Management Agencies have to deal with all of us, including those that do destory and have no respect. I don't feel that most of the people participating in these online forums are the ones out vandalising the land, we're just the ones who get the short end of the stick. Really sucks and sadly things like this will continue until everyone in the world has a great land ethic. Best not let other Agencies close canyons due to similar issues...ropes caught, trash, placing more bolts, etc.!:nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deathcricket

If they consider this a holy place and some people tore it up, closing it seems like a good thing and makes perfect sense to me. *shrug* Not sure what the huge mystery is. I'd get pissed seeing rope grooves and my holy hanging gardens getting torn up too. It's pretty obvious they were being disrespected.

---

Deathcricket, you make a fair point here. But there are some nuances that are really important in the Deer Creek matter. First, most of the impacts you mention above are not from canyoneering. Roughly 30,000 people/year visit Deer Creek from rafts (mostly) and from backpacking from the North Rim. My guess is that the slot sees 100 full descents/year, 200 tops. We are the smallest user group by far. The NPS didn't close Deer Creek, they only closed a tiny piece - the slot. So the impacts listed above will continue unabated. In other words, the NPS tossed us (canyoneers) under the bus to try to pacify the tribes. We're the sacrificial lamb. As far as canyoneering impacts, I can assure you that there are none of note. Here's why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cej8hTIMWL4

I've been to Deer Creek many times and I've witnessed flash flooding. It's a crazy place! Nothing is left when it's over. No plants, no bolts (sometimes), and a totally different channel to the Colorado River. In fact, I've seen tons of rock that fell above the slot swept away in a single flood. People have left ropes, and we've gone in to remove them - no big deal. We've been self policing Deer Creek for about 4 years because the tribes were sensitive about the area. Frankly, as a community we need to self police more often.

Here's the thing: the tribes believe that all of Deer Creek is sacred and they want it all closed. The WHOLE thing. The slot is a tiny part of the real estate at issue. The NPS responded by closing the slot because they thought we were too small a user group to do much about it. The tribes said "thanks! ... now when are you going to close the rest?" As a result, the boaters and backpackers are generally supporting us. They see the slippery slope. We are not powerless to get this reversed if canyoneers get even modestly involved.

I'm one of the canyoneers just elected by all of you to the American Canyoneers board. My focus on the board are access issues, like Deer Creek. I've spoken to Access Fund and Outdoor Alliance about their experience with land managers when tribal religious rights are involved. I've learned that the NPS did not follow the law, under the National Historic Property Act, section 106, with this closure process. Essentially, it must involve a public process. I've learned that the reason for the closure (a "Traditional Cultural Property) declaration under NHPA was completely misapplied in the Deer Creek case and would be subject to challenge. In short, we believe that the NPS is on very thin ice, and with dialog, they might reconsider their position. But if we do nothing and shrug it's over, and we haven't held our land managers accountable to managing those lands for the benefit of all Americans. Of course, if canyoneers get the reputation for being unorganized and easy to roll over we can expect more closures in other places.

Grand Canyon is not the only place with issues. Certainly Death Valley and Arches have actions underway that require our involvement ASAP. Just about every other canyoneering destination has some kind of access issue too. The goal of American Canyoneers is to try to keep these places open for all of us.

I'll post more on the general access challenges under a dedicated thread shortly. It would be great to hear some feedback from the Bogley crowd on how we can better keep our playgrounds open. In the mean time, we're gearing up to fight for our rights at Deer Creek and we have a lot of help from the far larger Grand Canyon organizations on this issue. There will be a time soon when a call to action will come out to comment. If members of our community are willing to invest 5 minutes to comment, we might be pleasantly surprised by the result.

Best Regards,

Rich Rudow

Thanks for detailed reply, Rich.

Keep us in the loop and I am sure many of us will comment when needed.

I think the NPS is on thin ice in multiple ways on this one and its good to have people holding them accountable.

Phillip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superstition

Deathcricket, you make a fair point here. But there are some nuances that are really important in the Deer Creek matter. First, most of the impacts you mention above are not from canyoneering. Roughly 30,000 people/year visit Deer Creek from rafts (mostly) and from backpacking from the North Rim. My guess is that the slot sees 100 full descents/year, 200 tops. We are the smallest user group by far. The NPS didn't close Deer Creek, they only closed a tiny piece - the slot. So the impacts listed above will continue unabated. In other words, the NPS tossed us (canyoneers) under the bus to try to pacify the tribes. We're the sacrificial lamb. As far as canyoneering impacts, I can assure you that there are none of note. Here's why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cej8hTIMWL4

I've been to Deer Creek many times and I've witnessed flash flooding. It's a crazy place! Nothing is left when it's over. No plants, no bolts (sometimes), and a totally different channel to the Colorado River. In fact, I've seen tons of rock that fell above the slot swept away in a single flood. People have left ropes, and we've gone in to remove them - no big deal. We've been self policing Deer Creek for about 4 years because the tribes were sensitive about the area. Frankly, as a community we need to self police more often.

Here's the thing: the tribes believe that all of Deer Creek is sacred and they want it all closed. The WHOLE thing. The slot is a tiny part of the real estate at issue. The NPS responded by closing the slot because they thought we were too small a user group to do much about it. The tribes said "thanks! ... now when are you going to close the rest?" As a result, the boaters and backpackers are generally supporting us. They see the slippery slope. We are not powerless to get this reversed if canyoneers get even modestly involved.

I'm one of the canyoneers just elected by all of you to the American Canyoneers board. My focus on the board are access issues, like Deer Creek. I've spoken to Access Fund and Outdoor Alliance about their experience with land managers when tribal religious rights are involved. I've learned that the NPS did not follow the law, under the National Historic Property Act, section 106, with this closure process. Essentially, it must involve a public process. I've learned that the reason for the closure (a "Traditional Cultural Property) declaration under NHPA was completely misapplied in the Deer Creek case and would be subject to challenge. In short, we believe that the NPS is on very thin ice, and with dialog, they might reconsider their position. But if we do nothing and shrug it's over, and we haven't held our land managers accountable to managing those lands for the benefit of all Americans. Of course, if canyoneers get the reputation for being unorganized and easy to roll over we can expect more closures in other places.

Grand Canyon is not the only place with issues. Certainly Death Valley and Arches have actions underway that require our involvement ASAP. Just about every other canyoneering destination has some kind of access issue too. The goal of American Canyoneers is to try to keep these places open for all of us.

I'll post more on the general access challenges under a dedicated thread shortly. It would be great to hear some feedback from the Bogley crowd on how we can better keep our playgrounds open. In the mean time, we're gearing up to fight for our rights at Deer Creek and we have a lot of help from the far larger Grand Canyon organizations on this issue. There will be a time soon when a call to action will come out to comment. If members of our community are willing to invest 5 minutes to comment, we might be pleasantly surprised by the result.

Best Regards,

Rich Rudow

---

Very cool vid of the flashflood. Wow...

I'm not familiar with the area. So I went ahead and googled Deer Creek falls and I got this pic.
Attachment 57865

If this not the area that the complaint of rapellers destroying the vegetation comes from?

Don't get me wrong though and take my comments as discouraging. I'm all for policing our own and managing our resources properly. i hope you get some traction on the "due process" argument. We can't close stuff just because someone finds a rock holy or a bush. But if we are going in there and doing damage like the argument suggests then it's a legit argument IMO.

DeathCricket, that is the place. I've rappelled those falls many times and it's quite easy to avoid damaging the vegetation. I'm sure that someone hasn't been as careful though and educating canyoneers about the sensitive places in slots is a worthwhile effort. But when floods hit the vegetation is blasted by boulders, gravel, grit, logs, etc. It grows back very fast, unlike the other impacts mentioned that have nothing to do with he slot. It's very similar to other slots where people should be mindful of their impacts. But in the end, the vegetation damage claim is simply subterfuge to close the slot in deference to the tribe's religious beliefs. I'm not against an accommodation for the tribes beliefs, but the NPS never opened the issue up for public discussion to consider trade offs that weren't so unilateral (as they are required to do by law). In a similar case at Devils Tower the NPS was able to strike a balance between the tribes and climbers. At Deer Creek they never made an effort. How come? Same agency right?

It's an incredible slot and I wish more canyoneers had a chance to experience it. Here are a few photos from last trip through Deer Creek in March (photos 53 to 69 only):

https://picasaweb.google.com/103150781226238429325/2012RaftTripPhotos#


Regards,

Rich Rudow

Do you honestly look at that photo and think, "wow, rappelling probably destroys the vegetation there?" I drew in on the photo you linked where the rappel path actually is. You'll see near the top there are two places you have to step over vegetation. It's incredibly easy. The rest is essentially foliage free. I'm very suspicious, given the flimsy arguments in this letter, that vegetation is truly getting destroyed. With any thought or care, you can easily avoid any impact at all.

Attachment 57866

For comparisons sake, this is roughly the Grand Canyon equivalent to shutting down Mystery in Zion because it has a waterfall with vegetation on it that's being destroyed by canyoneers. It's simply not significant, especially when compared to all of the other impacts to the area in general. Of all the impacts, it's easy to argue that canyoneering is the LEAST impactful activity of all the activities that takes place in the area. How loud would you complain if Mystery got shut down for an argument this flimsy?

But even if there was a significant impact - shutting this place down simply because of religious reasons is asinine, and illegal. There are multiple workable compromises to allow the Pauite to have unimpeded access to the area at special times. Remember though, this is not native land, this is NPS land. This is OUR land. Yet this document makes no mention of any compromise or any other solutions. They simply shut it down, with no discussion period. On the basis of religion. Without even explaining a legitimate reason other than "they observed damage to plants one time."

The hypocrisy of the tribes laying claim to this area as "sacred" while continuing to develop every other stretch of land they actually own further shows the hypocritical nature of the claim. Western Grand Canyon has been completely overrun by jetboats and helicopters. The Navajo are proposing building a tram down to the confluence of the the LCR near the most sacred site in the Hopi religion.

The bottom line is the justification provided in this letter at the very least hypocritical, and very likely illegal.

Another look at the rappel -
Attachment 57867

I would highlight cultural is different than religious but that isn't an issue legally right now.

If I had to guess, the NPS intentionally made a reactionary decision that impacted a very small user group in order to garner favor with the tribes due to the proposed developments you have mentioned. The NPS has little control or leeway over what happens on the tribal land but it will greatly impact how the canyon is experienced within the park (and therefor how it will be managed). I have a gut feeling that Deer Creek is a sacraficial lamb for bigger issues. They need leverage to prevent such significant infrastructure from being developed in places such as LCR.

A guess really, but considering the mood in the region in seems a fair assumption. It doesn't make their decision any more legitimate.

Its even a greater shock considering how much trespassing happens by boaters into places like Havasupai canyon (we only have a legal right to limited access) and all the other lands in which rafters hike without appropriate permits on river left. Of all the groups, the canyoneers seem the most diligent about jumping through all the hoops, not just NPS.

The claims of abuse and impact just don't hold much water in the context of all activities within the entire NPS GC system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs

Do you honestly look at that photo and think, "wow, rappelling probably destroys the vegetation there?" I drew in on the photo you linked where the rappel path actually is. You'll see near the top there are two places you have to step over vegetation. It's incredibly easy. The rest is essentially foliage free. I'm very suspicious, given the flimsy arguments in this letter, that vegetation is truly getting destroyed. With any thought or care, you can easily avoid any impact at all.

---

I find it funny that you admit you have to "step over" vegetation in one sentence, then dismiss the point that others (who are less considerate) don't just trample it out of carelessness. I simply was stating that I see lots of vegetation and it's not the smooth sandblasted rock face the previous statements would have us believe. Further while you as a conscious, considerate person probably stay close to the waterway, others might not. As a stunt rapeller, I could probably kick half those bushes in the teeth on my way down. And lastly, it's well known as a "previously brainwashed Mormon" (feel free to correct my words if poorly chosen) that you despise most religions and show little respect for peoples belief systems. At least based on your previous statements over the years here, I don't know you. But I don't think that makes the opposing point any less valid is all. This place is obviously sacred to the tribe, and from the looks of it, it would be sacred to me, should I ever visit it.

A better solution IMO is to work with the tribe, acknowledge that their beliefs are important to them and we also find the canyon precious and want to preserve it for everyone to enjoy. Acknowledge that the hanging bush gardens will not be damaged by us rapping the falls and that we leave no traces. And that we will educate our people to respect their holy place and not screw it up. Maybe read and sign a note on the permits like we already do in Zion. Like Behuinin for instance, the rangers say to not rap off the right side on the 2nd to last rap (when getting a permit), ropes get stuck. A simple "take care to not thrash the plants on your way down and ruin the view, we are on thin ice with the tribe" and a "don't throw boulders off the cliff" would probably be enough to completely stop the behavior. And i don't think i ever stated it was impossible to rap this without harming a single leaf. I'm simply stating that I'm sure people were observed not respecting this holy place, which probably gave them the excuse they were looking for.

Once you dismiss the tribes point of view and belittle it because it's not the same value system you have, you draw a line that is hard to cross in negotiations. I think Superstition's argument about legal due process not being followed is a very good one, and have said so in previous statements. Your argument that they do respect nature here when it suits them, but then don't in other areas seems pretty weak to me and I don't think would get much traction because it attacks their belief system. I think the key to winning this battle would be having a coherent argument. They have "observers" documenting canyoneers disrespecting their holy canyon. We have to get around that without being offensive and find a solution. It' just can't be dismissed as casually as you are doing. *shrug*

The problem with that approach is it gives the NPS leeway when its requirements sound explicit. We aren't required to succomb to that expectation immediately, the NPS was required to provide a public input process. They skipped an important step and hence the responses. Working with the tribe is several steps away. The canyoneering community has already gone above and beyond with regards to the GC and should be applauded for their herculean efforts. We haven't seen such proactive efforts in the community before (largely because of timing and our community maturing).

I was turned off by his religious remarks on the subject as well....but it should be pointed out that the tribal issue is another special interest like us. They should not be treated with any privilege outside the law, which seems to have happened.

In this case it seems like they were granted favors at the cost to the canyoneering community.

did you not read the original letter or my response? you'll see no mention of rope grooves. or what you call "holy hanging gardens" being destroyed it says "plants were torn out." the rest of the impacts listed are not in the gorge, or from technical canyoneering. i encourage you to read the whole thing.

These points are all addressed in my response. But i'll review again. You will notice i said this very clearly:

Quote:

---

I'm not going to argue that my personal desire to enjoy this area should trump the religious beliefs of the tribes.

---

To expand, I have no problem respecting their beliefs, they can believe whatever they'd like, right up until their demands of respect infringe my rights. Period. This particular situation has nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs. It has to do with a hasty closure on public lands for religious reasons. I don't believe the closure is legal.

Further, there has been no attempt to come to a compromise on this situation from the park service, no attempt to speak with canyoneers, river runners, or the public. In fact, many parties have been active in trying to have a dialog with the tribes and park concerning the closure. They've essentially said "it's not up for discussion." Perhaps you have some ideas on how we can proceed?

I also stated quite clearly in my original letter that the impact to the vegetation is a legitimate concern.

Quote:

---

In regards to technical canyoneering impact 1 -
This is a legitimate concern. But impacts from rappelling pale in comparison to
the impact of a flash flood. The vegetation has demonstrated an ability to
grows back quickly. Though careful rappelling will result in little to no
impact to the vegetation.

---

I don't think anyone should be tearing the place up, obviously. Does it justify the closure? No. A little education on this place is VERY easy. Every boat that launches at Lee's ferry has to be checked out. It's very easy to ask people to be careful here. Every hike that goes there has to have a permit. It's very easy to inform hikers how to treat the slot when they get their permit. It's very easy to enforce - there is always a crowd at Deer Creek. If you behave poorly, someone will see it.

You characterized what is happening this way

Quote:

---

"I'd get pissed seeing rope grooves and my holy hanging gardens getting torn up too. It's pretty obvious they were being disrespected.

---

There are no rope grooves. Where'd you get that idea? And there are no holy hanging gardens in the rappel line. As shown by the photo I posted and the photo you linked. There is some vegetation at the top of the rappel, but it's easily avoided.

Further - the letter does not make any mention of WHY the narrows are sacred to the tribe. How can I respect their beliefs if I don't know why it's sacred? You said it perfectly, if you went there too, it'd probably be sacred to you as well. Does that mean we should shut it down to protect your belief system, because you saw a photo on the internet and called it sacred?

The federal government can not use religion as a justification for a closure. If there were cultural resources at risk, it would be something to consider. But there aren't. There are no cultural resources present in the slot to protect at all. It's a flash flood causeway. It's completely cleaned out on a regular basis. All the plants are destroyed. And it always comes back. The area is visited by 30,000 people a year. The only reason this very narrow stretch is closed is because a tribe is claiming it as such. There are literally no cultural resources present, period. We have a US constitution that addresses these types of policies, and it's called the establishment clause in the first amendment.

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

---

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with this particular issue, nor have I framed my arguments from that perspective. I've simply stated that it is not an appropriate justification. I'm perfectly happy to work with the tribe to give them time so they can observe whatever religious rites they'd like at the site. Perhaps we should have a month where it's shut down to all visitation so the tribes can observe their beliefs. Or any of a number of other compromises. But that's just the thing. For whatever reason, the park refuses to engage us, the tribes refuse to engage us, and these discussions happened behind closed doors. I'm sure there are compromises that can be made. But in order to make a compromise, you have to be able to engage the parties involved. So far, the feds and the tribes don't want to play ball. I'd love to hear your suggestions on how to proceed.

To be clear, you do realize this is federal land, not indian land, correct? This was shut down without any due process, on the basis of protecting a religious site for the native tribes, and the justification was that plants were being damaged. I have responded to each of those issues.

Your response is essentially to say that "if they say the plants are being destroyed, it must be true." i responded with photos that show that plants are not significantly harmed, and rich provided photos of a flash flood. Look at the photos, do you really see an impact there that justifies this closure? Does the impact to the plants degrade the place as to destroy the potential for the place to be considered a TCP? To believe that, in light of all the other non-canyoneering impacts, is simply laughable.

I get where you are coming from though. you have a great internet persona to protect, the good old boys here on bogley probably enjoy it. You simply love to argue, to put up a show. It doesn't matter the topic, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. You just love to see people react. You are a classic internet troll. And unfortunately, bogley is just a sandbox to stir up your LOLz.

relevant

This is cross post from the Grand Canyon Rafting Yahoo Group, the Grand Canyon Hikers Yahoo Group, and the Canyons Yahoo Group: RRFW is River Runners For Wilderness and they have adopted a similar position as American Canyoneers on the Deer Creek closure. They did a great job with this post providing a lot of backup information that's worth exploring if you're more interested in the issue.

I would certainly encourage anyone here to comment on this action (NPS contact below). You can also comment to me (rich_rudow@trimble.com), on Bogley here, and/or on AmericanCanyoneers.org . I intend to collect any comments that have not been submitted directly to the NPS and will convey the comments during the September 10 NPS call.

Regards,

Rich


RRFW Riverwire - Your comments needed on DeerCreek Narrows Closure
August 17, 2012

Deer Creek Narrows from the “Patio” to the bottom of the spectacular Deer
Creek Falls has been closed to all visitation by Grand Canyon National
Park
Superintendent David Uberuaga. The Narrows section is where Deer Creek has
carved a tight slot canyon exiting far above the Colorado River.

The closure was made without stakeholder or public input, and is
considered
to be a non-negotiable action. The National Park Service received a number
of unsolicited comments and concerns about the closure, and is now
officially taking comments on the action.

In support of the closure, Superintendent Uberuaga has released an open
letter and other descriptive documents to interested and affected parties
in
advance of a September 10 teleconference to discuss the action. The pdf
files may be downloaded and viewed at the RRFW website:

Deer Creek Background Information http://tinyurl.com/cqd6o3l

Deer Creek closure letter from GC http://tinyurl.com/c5bmkcn

Deer Creek closure photos http://tinyurl.com/c3keaug

The Background Information provided by the NPS describes visitor impacts to
the entire Deer Creek canyon area including heavy trailing, deterioration of
the river bank from boat landings and tourist activity, graffiti, and damage
to vegetation and rock art. Other impacts not listed include emergency
helicopter evacuations, large stone slabs being rearranged at Deer Spring,
and helicopter maintenance flights servicing the Deer Creek Valley
backpacker and river runner toilet.

However, none of these impacts apply to the Narrows themselves, only to
surrounding areas which remain open and unaffected by the closure. Within
the Narrows, plants, foot tracks and rocks are regularly and violently
removed by natural flash flood flows, making any human impacts
indiscernible.
The document also describes at length the designation of the area as a
Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) by area Native American tribes which,
among other considerations, claim the area as sacred to spiritual and
religious traditions. According to the Park’s own description, depending
on
the site, a TCP finding does not necessarily require visitor restriction,
closure or even preservation.

RRFW has learned that at least part of the motive for the restriction may
have been climbing equipment that was abandoned at the top of Deer Creek
Falls. Members of the canyoneering community removed the equipment at
their
own cost and risk.

“Good climbing and canyoneering practices and respect for natural areas
require self-policing,” notes Jo Johnson, Co-Director of River Runners for
Wilderness. “Regulations to specifically protect against damage from
anchor
hardware make sense, but a year round closure of the entire portion is an
extreme reaction.”

Hiking through some of the Narrows does not require special equipment
although a rope as a hand line offers hikers more security. Each year a
few
visitors, including canyoneers, rappel down the falls, but the vast majority
of hikers in the slot canyon simply turn around and retrace their steps back
to the “Patio”, leaving no trace of their presence there.

“Visits to the Narrows portion of Deer Creek Canyon are often spiritual and
transcendent experiences, treasured by thousands over the many decades since
river running began” observed Johnson, who is a climber and river runner.
She also noted “Personally, I feel that it is possibly the most hallowed
of
the many special experiences afforded visitors to Grand Canyon.”

RRFW urges readers to examine the documents carefully and make your opinions
known to the Superintendent’s office by sending an email to Laurie Parish at
laurie_parish@nps.gov

Please also cc RRFW at Riverwire@rrfw.org

Besides including your broader observations, if you have a personal
connection to the Narrows, mention that as well.

For a deeper look at canyoneering in Grand Canyon, see a video trailer here:
http://www.lastofthegreatunknown.com/

This action was taken by the National Park Service (NPS) in the 2012
Compendium of Designations, Closures, Use and Activity Restrictions,
Permit
Requirements and Other Regulations.

The 2012 Compendium is posted online here:
http://rrfw.org/sites/default/files/...endium2012.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
RIVERWIRE is a free service to the community of river lovers from River
Runners for Wilderness. To join, send an e-mail address to
riverwire@rrfw.org and we'll add itto the RRFW RIVERWIRE e-mail alerts list.
Join RRFW's listserver to stay abreast of and participate in the latest
river issues. It's as easy as sending a blank e-mail to
Rafting_Grand_Canyon-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Check out RRFW's Rafting Grand Canyon Wiki for free information on
Do-It-Yourself Grand Canyon rafting info
http://www.rrfw.org/RaftingGrandCanyon/Main_Page
Check out new items and donate at the RRFW Store! RRFW is a non-profit
project of Living Rivers. https://www.rrfw.org/store

Visit us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/RRFW.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

Rich,

Thanks for championing this issues and for keeping us in the loop.

:2thumbs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs

Your response is essentially to say that "if they say the plants are being destroyed, it must be true." i responded with photos that show that plants are not significantly harmed, and rich provided photos of a flash flood. Look at the photos, do you really see an impact there that justifies this closure? Does the impact to the plants degrade the place as to destroy the potential for the place to be considered a TCP? To believe that, in light of all the other non-canyoneering impacts, is simply laughable.

---

Once again you kinda missed the point. Or I didn't type it right. Let me restate and see if this helps you comprehend. Perhaps you are to overwhelmed by my internet persona and upset or something.

Just because nature flashes and "destroys" the canyon by natural means, doesn't mean we are allowed to. It's like arguing that carving your name in the sandstone is ok because it will erode by natural means eventually. Natural causes are one thing, human impact is completely another. Any human damage that can be observed and quantified is to them a valid reason. instead it would be more effective to argue that we will instead minimize our already minimal impact and discontinue the following activities, as listed by them. Human impact is considered a desecration, acts of god and nature don't impact the "sacredness" of a site.

And honestly I barely read your whiny letter. I was more responding the the American Canyoneers link, which was much more interesting to me. I even quoted it with my original statement. This part....

[QUOTE] Vandalism diminishes elements of integrity of setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling.
 Social trails disturb material contexts, damage archaeological materials and artifacts, harden soil, disturb plant populations, and encourage water erosion. These disturbances diminish elements of integrity of setting, materials, and feeling.
 Plant disturbance from rappelling. Though the narrows gorge is not vegetated, the face of the falls is. Visitor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superstition

This is cross post from the Grand Canyon Rafting Yahoo Group, the Grand Canyon Hikers Yahoo Group, and the Canyons Yahoo Group: RRFW is River Runners For Wilderness and they have adopted a similar position as American Canyoneers on the Deer Creek closure. They did a great job with this post providing a lot of backup information that's worth exploring if you're more interested in the issue.

I would certainly encourage anyone here to comment on this action (NPS contact below). You can also comment to me (rich_rudow@trimble.com), on Bogley here, and/or on AmericanCanyoneers.org . I intend to collect any comments that have not been submitted directly to the NPS and will convey the comments during the September 10 NPS call.

Regards,

Rich

---

Glad to see this is gaining traction with multiple user groups.

The NPS should not feel like it can so blatantly ignore procedure and stakeholders when deciding policy that impacts our experiences (which they are ordered to protect as much as the resource).

The park service in this case has (had) the potential to coordinate a respectful and productive gathering of multiple stakeholders to hammer out a solution. Its action instead has been to leave our group's leadership out in the dark and without influence.

Hopefully a letter writing campaign is all we need to remind them that we won't be ignored so easily.

Phillip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superstition

Certainly Death Valley and Arches have actions underway that require our involvement ASAP.

---

Which area(s) in DV have been or are in danger of being closed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Candace66

Which area(s) in DV have been or are in danger of being closed?

---

see new thread - DV Wilderness Mgmt Plan up for comments.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

see new thread - DV Wilderness Mgmt Plan up for comments.

Tom

---

Thx...headed over there now.

I'm proud to support in any way I can to re-open it or keep it open. But in the end when the govt just does what they want no matter how asinine it it (like they've done in Zion) then I'll do what I do in Zion. Poach. I'm not really that concerned, Sound selfish, I know, but if i decide to do Deer Creek I'm going to do it. I'll slip in like a NINJA and sneak back out. I'm all for the correct channels and trying to get it to work but in the end when they shove it up my ass anyways I'm going to descend it.

I have been against poaching in the past and I am against it in principle at this point in the process with Deer Creek. However, I was struck by the thoughtfulness of this article on outsideonline.com:

[QUOTE]BREAKING THE RULES: DOING RIGHT MEANS SOMETIMES IGNORING THE LAW

Dare to live a moral life—and encourage your kids to do the same—but remember that moral decisions aren't always clear-cut[/QUOTE]

My resolution was shaken a bit by the sincerity and basis of his argument.

Which leads me to wander.....what is the chance and merit of a mass poaching of the closed canyon if/when they decide this is permanent and legitimate? I think its obviously a few steps away but ....

Other recreationists have done so, with little consequence and lots of attention to the cause.