Arches NP Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan

Matt,

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

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



Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moab mark

Matt,

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

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



Mark

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

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

---

Kurt,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

Kurt,

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




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

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

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

---

I've never claimed to not make an impact, I'm more realistic than that. Matt on the other hand has stated he has no impact on the canyons, and that large groups are a serious detriment to the park.(paraphrased from arguments on your site last year)
There are definite lines and differences between inside vs. outside the park. I teach in an area that is destined to become condominiums. That probably can't be said anywhere inside the park.
As I said, I'm open to Matts pitch on how he can benefit the park with his service. Until I hear otherwise, I'll stick with my first assessment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Tom :moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

Kurt,

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Tom :moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

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

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

Tom :moses:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

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

---

Touche :haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

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

---

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

Tom :moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

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

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

---

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

Tom :moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trackrunner

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

---

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

Tom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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