Weird. I'm all for conservation but I suddenly find the idea of the Swell or North Wash becoming N.M. or N.P. much less appealing.
Printable View
Weird. I'm all for conservation but I suddenly find the idea of the Swell or North Wash becoming N.M. or N.P. much less appealing.
My sentiments exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don
__
1) Hunting is allowed in Katmai National preserve as well as Denali. There is precedence.
Snowmobiles are used in Yellowstone as well as Teton National park they are only allowed through a guide concession. (commercial use)
Makes atv's in Arches seem reasonable. Not a lot of tourist in the grand ride donkeys, they do however ride mules.
2) commercial use is not necessarily considered development. Commercial use is an entity that stands to profit from using public lands. In this case Desert Highlights in Arches NP
I would guess if someone were to propose a lodge at fiery furnace(development) the park service would consider.( but I obviously don't know this)
For those interested in opening a Hunting concession in Arches:
[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][B]TITLE 36
__
Kurt,Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Currently, Arches NP would most definitely not consider a request for a lodge at the Fiery Furnace, nor entertain the use of ATVs in the park. While these developments and activities are allowed in other NPS units, keep in mind that each park is established with certain goals and policies that are outlined through their respective management plans. I said "currently" because these management plans are updated on a regular basis, typically 10 to 20 year intervals. If a future administration updates the management plan such that it deems that kind of development and use appropriate then so be it. I gotta say, the chance of any future administrators of Arches deeming such development and use appropriate is extremely slim. It's just simply not what the park was set aside for.
Commercial entities are not discouraged in NPS units, so long as the service is deemed necessary and appropriate. The Park Service recognizes that many businesses offer services that are very beneficial to the various park units. The NPS works with these businesses simply because the NPS doesn't want to, or can't, provide these services on their own. We all have to make a living and, whether you like it or not, the NPS finds nothing wrong with a small business owner making a living in a park unit providing a service deemed necessary and appropriate by the NPS.
You asked what benefit we provide to visitors in "your" park? Well, "your" park is "their" park, too. Hopefully the comments of your peers on this site will help convince you of the benefits we provide. If you still have doubts, I invite you to read the many comments and testimonials on our website from the park's visitors that have used us as their guide. I can even forward you a few hundred emails these and other visitors recently sent to Kate Cannon relating the benefits of our services they used in the park. If you're still having doubts after that then I even invite you to ask the employees of Arches, from the seasonal rangers all the way up to Kate Cannon herself, of the benefits we bring to the park's visitors and - ultimately - to the park itself. You'll find they have nothing but positive things to say about our service.
As for hosting a couple of Rondy trips into the park and the associated impacts, well, I'll let those who were on those trips answer that. Of course, I doubt many of them frequent this forum, so you may not hear much, but what you will hear I can assure you will be very positive. And if Rich Carlson - who's undoubtedly spent more time with more guides than all of us combined and who joined me on a Rondy trip into the park - states that I'm the most environmentally concientious guide he knows, well that should help ease your doubt. If it doesn't, then I'm not sure what will - short of personally hiking with me or any of the other Desert Highlights guides (who are, in my opinion even more concientious than I).
That said, I really would love to hike with you sometime. As Rich mentioned, you and I have a lot in common and we'd get along well if only given the chance. As fun as it may be for us to have someone to bash on an faceless, impersonal internet forum, I'd really like to move on and bury the hatchet with you. I hope you'll take me up on that offer while you're in Moab and reciprocate the offer if I'm in your neck of the woods.
Cheers,
Matt
RIF Matt
I never said "your" park as in mine. I stated "our" park as in everyones.(see post #22)
It's funny how you hosted a Rondy trip through Fiery Furnace this year and all your co-horts will confirm that it was low impact.
I did the same thing last year at a Rondy I put on(BTW, I coined the term Moab Rondy, glad to see you using it) and you said we destroyed the Fiery Furnace. Despite MY cohorts telling you we had a very low impact.
Best wishes on your future use of the park.
edit: you'll also notice in that post where I stated I was willing to listen to your side.
Quote:
My personal beliefs are that commercial guiding should be eliminated from all National Parks...
But haven’t you yourself been on guided trips in the National Parks? Was it a bad experience?
Anyway, I’m not against guiding in National Parks as long as they leave the place clean (and it seems to me that Matt does) and don’t hog all the permits.
For example, river guiding in the Grand Canyon is extremely unfair. The commercial groups (of which all charge thousands of dollars for their services) take so many permits in that private boaters are nearly squeezed out. I’m not against guiding the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, but someone in a private party and someone on a commercial trip should have the same waiting list and the same chances of getting a permit. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
I can see how the same thing can happen in Zion NP with Pine Creek or the Subway, for example. I would be very against these canyons being guided, even if the quotas were raised.
On the other hand, in the Arches NP canyons, there hasn’t been any competition since about the only ones doing the canyons were the guiding companies and a very select few (such as Steve Ramras) and probably a handful of others.
The “canyons” in Arches seem to be ideal for guiding. I haven’t been to the technical ones at Lost Springs, but the other ones that are well known aren’t really canyons at all and are marginal at best. Most people that would be interested in them are only people whom haven’t seen a good canyon. Even Dragonfly, one of the best canyons in Arches (and still fun) would be considered very marginal if it were in places like Zion, Escalante and the Paria.
For experienced canyoneers (or experienced non-technical hikers), the canyons in Arches/Moab are nothing special (except for maybe the features in Fiery Furnace) and very short. Still for someone whom hasn’t rappelled or isn’t experienced in canyoneering, they would be a thrill (which is why they are perfect for guiding). The awesome part of Arches is the arches themselves and the rock towers, plus the awesome viewpoints (which is the best part about places like Tierdrop).
In my opinion, publishing the canyons in Arches is probably the main reason for increased restrictions. It is not limited to the internet or Arches. Virginia Park and Jasper Canyon were both closed right after Kelsey’s book came out with beta on the routes. Same goes for some of the canyons on the Navajo Nation.
From a legal standpoint, I agree with Shane that it is perfectly legal to post the beta on the Arches canyons, but from a principle standpoint, I would side mostly with Matt on this one.
I think the canyons in Arches are perfectly suitable and desirable for guiding (if done discreetly and clean). IMHO, they are not very ideal for an experienced canyoneer (at least the ones I have done).
There are thousands of other canyons out there that can be published, so I don’t know if placed like Tierdrop really need to be.
My buddy has used Matt's service several times and sent an email as well as a phone call to Cannon on Matt's behalf. By the response he got back I will be surprised if commercial guiding is reestablished in the Park. Her response was pretty final in regards to commercial guiding. She stated that several other companies had approached the Park about permits and this was not a path they wanted to go down. She stated that Desert Highlights had done an exemplary job over the years but they could not discriminate against these other companies. My buddies impressions could be way off base but he got the feeling from his phone call that this is what started the whole overhaul of the Parks Management Plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by moabmatt
I don't know the process and implications, but it seems like they actually can. Mount Rainier NP, Denali NP and Grand Teton NP all do this. Only a select few companies are allowed to guide some of the routes there.Quote:
She stated that Desert Highlights had done an exemplary job over the years but they could not discriminate against these other companies.
They can if it is specified in their management plan. Sounds like Arches hasn't addressed it in theirs so they were left with no argument against allowing all other guide services that applied. Simpler for now to say no to everyone, including Matt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
Kate's response was definitely "final" in that we would not be issued a permit this year. It wasn't implied that we would never have our permit reestablished in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by moab mark
As for not being able to discriminate, the NPS is prohibited by law from issuing more CUAs than are consistent with the preservation and proper management of park resources and values. With this in mind, it is my opinion and that of those with whom I've consulted, that Kate does have the ability to limit the number of CUAs issued.
I'm sure this is purely coincidental, heres a letter I received today.
Hello Kurt -
I understand that you have a permit for the School Institutional Trust
Lands Administration for a small area before the fee booth at Sand Flats
recreation Area. I am curious as to whether you may be operating on any BLM
lands within the Moab and/ or Monticello Field Offices?
Thanks!
Jennifer Jones- Outdoor Recreation Planner
Moab BLM, 82 East Dogwood, Moab, UT 84532
phone: 435-259-2136
fax: 435-259-2158
email: jljones@blm.gov
Of course my answer was the truth--No.
OH WHAT A FUN GAME THIS COULD BE(checking on canyoneer guides and instructors for land use permits in the areas they work)
I'm legal, I wonder if other Guides and instructors who post here are?
For the record, I inquired about you this winter. ;) And I'm not the only one. I know other companies regularly check, as well. It's nothing personal nor is it what I'd call a game; more like looking out for the best interest of your business. It's done in other industries and guiding is no exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
It's pretty easy to pirate guide on public lands. With only a couple law enforcement rangers patrolling the 1.9 million acres that make up the Moab Field Office, this area is a haven for pirate guiding. Land managers often look to the legit guides to notify them of illegal guiding. Jennifer has asked me a couple times within the past year about you and I've mentioned that you're operating solely on SITLA land by the booth. I suspect she's asked others, too. What's suprising is that she's just now contacted you today.
One afternoon a couple years ago we were denied a daily permit to guide a trip into Lomatium Canyon because all 75 daily permits for the Fiery Furnace had been issued that day (there's a limit of 75 people per day in the Fiery Furnace). I called around and found that an unauthorized guide service had been issued ten permits for that day just a half an hour before us. This maxed out the limit and our group of six was denied entry that day because of this unauthorized group. Crazy thing was this group was not penalized and we were the ones who lost out on revenue (and, perhaps more importantly, our clients missed out on a great day in the Furnace)! Needless to say, as a result of this and the competitive legitimate businesses here, we all take illegal guiding seriously around here.
Kurt, you're a builder. I'm sure you wouldn't want an unauthorized builder stealing some of your potential contracts?
So, since we also teach in Colorado Springs and Cedar City, you would suggest checking into all others who operate in those areas?
I would be "looking out for the best interest of my business"?
I'll go a few rungs up the BLM ladder above Jennifer Tuesday and make certain this is BLM protocol. If it is, so be it. I have nothing to hide. If it is merely Moab local protocol(witch hunt) I hope she's prepared to answer to her bosses.
Of course I will only be checking for the "best interest of my business"
........................Quote:
Originally Posted by moabmatt
Kurt,
I don't think you understand why Jennifer wrote to you. Please call her.
Did that this afternoon. Like I said, if what she did is protocol, no harm no foul.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcwild
Arches seeks public input on new climbing management plan
Managers may widen ban that was stressed after a 2006 incident.
By Tom Wharton - The Salt Lake Tribune
Jul 24, 2010
Climber Dean Potter drew the wrath of environmentalists and many of his fellow climbers in May 2006 with his controversial “free solo” climb of Utah’s iconic Delicate Arch, but vague regulations prevented Arches National Park managers from ever prosecuting him.
Instead, they quickly clarified what they thought had been a well-understood rule prohibiting all rock climbing on any arch or natural bridge named on the United States Geological Survey 7.5 topographical maps. The rule also prohibits slacklining, or walking on a flat nylon webbing or rope anchored between rock formations, trees or any other natural feature.
Now park managers want to revisit — and possibly expand — the rule. They’re seeking public input as they begin development of a new Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan for Arches.
Managers recognize rock climbing and canyoneering as significant park activities, said Sabrina Henry, planning and compliance coordinator for the park.
The plan’s goal is to ensure it can continue with an assurance the park’s unique natural and cultural resources will be preserved and protected.
Canyoneering will get a particularly close look because of the increased popularity of the activity, which involves cross-country travel that requires the use of climbing gear to ascend and descend some challenging areas.
According to the project scope document issued earlier this month by Superintendent Kate Cannon, park managers will evaluate the effects of increased use, the development of new routes, the use of fixed hardware, the designation of climbing and canyoneering routes, the development of approach trails, the visual impacts and the effects of climbing and canyoneering on visitor safety and experience.
Commercial guiding will also be examined as well as the need for a possible permit system, group size limits and the policy on installing or replacing bolts, anchors and software.
The document says the management plan will do the following:
• Seek to involve the climbing community in shared stewardship of natural resources;
• Build a foundation of data (status of natural resources, climbing/canyoneering routes and use patterns, and visitor effects on resource values) as a basis for future decision making;
• Provide a framework for a climber education program;
• Provide a clear decision-making framework and action timetable;
• Initiate a continuing planning process that responds to new data and changes over time;
• Assure regular monitoring and use of resources.
The public has until Aug. 10 to comment on the project scope document. Managers also will schedule a public workshop in Moab during which interested parties can share information and ask questions about the planning process.
A second opportunity for public comment will follow the release of an environmental assessment as development of the plan proceeds.
Matt Moore, owner of Desert Highlights in Moab, had the lone commercial climbing permit inside Arches National Park for 11 years until it was pulled this year as part of the planning process. He didn’t like losing his permit, but supports the process itself.
He recognizes that growth in canyoneering makes it necessary for managers to do more planning.
Moore said he will wait to see which alternatives the management plan recommends before deciding whether he’ll support it.
You're not trying to pull this back on-topic, are you? :cool2:
Tom :moses:
What you (or anyone else) thinks in regards to beta peddlers is irrelevant. Beta Peddler's (websites and guidebooks) are protected and guaranteed the freedom to spray as much as they wish by the First Amendment. While guides in National Parks are at the whim of the superintendent. Fair or not.... that is the system we all must work in.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcwild
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
As I've said.... my views have nothing to do with guiding or Matt personally. I would like to see many of our National Parks managed as more of a wilderness setting. I'd like to see all commercial concessions removed...Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Horsey rides, guiding, boat rides, t-shirt shacks should all be removed IMHO.... I would like to see the National Parks Service remove the part about "promoting" from their mission statement and focus more on preservation, conservation, regulation and management.....
How you manage to get un-American out of that I have no clue..... or are you just trying to paint me as the bad guy?
I have always considered the part about a National Park being required to promote its self as kind of a Catch-22 in the grand scheme of preservation.... this is also the main reason I usually oppose the creation of more National Parks and the reason I would hate to see the Swell become a NP.... It would be a really fun time following a giant motorhome out to the National Park Services new Hidden Splendor Campground, complete with 50 parking places, store, gas station, ranger station, yada, yada....
One last item.... are those of you supporting Matt keeping his Arches guiding permit (Tom, Rich, Ect) also supporting Moab Adventures recent request for a guiding permit? If not, why not? What is the difference? I'm just trying to understand all sides of this issue....
Hmmmm .... Kind of ironic. You are exercising your first amendment right to PROMOTE canyons within the national parks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
And ... it is so much easier to preserve and conserve when regulation and management includes permits and use limits.
Maybe Shane was referring to just the development of cabins, lodges, big asphalt parking lots for RVs....etc. I think he could careless about the canyons itself - as publishing the beta for them goes. People want canyons, and secret ones will eventually become published.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcwild
I do agree with Rich that with a permit system, it's easier to preserve and conserve. (I just think of that infamous day of when the hundreds of boy scouts went through the subway in one day....:nono: That's a LOT of traffic).
btw, have you guys read some of the comments of KSL posters on the article. Wow.
to quote one person: "They're only hunks of sandstone eroded into wierd shapes......It' beyond me why people insist on worshiping them.....They don't have anything else to worship I suppose................."
Hello all...first post on Bogley. Here's my comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan for Arches.
I am 47 years old, have considerable experience in various outdoor activities, and have visited numerous National Parks and other public lands. I value sustainability, and rationally limiting human impact on our environment, especially in special places such as Arches.
I have had the pleasure of going on a couple canyoneering outings in Arches with Matt Moore, and as a result, have a heightened sensitivity to environmental impacts and a better ability to avoid causing them. Matt explains impacts and how to avoid them in a tangible, meaningful way without coming across as preachy or extreme. For example, he demonstrates that "all-rock routes" are often possible, and not just possible, but fun.
Therefore, I believe that commercial guiding by people with the right expertise and values is a benefit to the environment and the public, by virtue not just of such guided trips being very low impact, but via the customers getting an education that pays dividends into the future.
It would be entirely appropriate to selectively approve guiding operations based on their proven ability to accomplish and promote low impact, rather than letting in anyone who wants to.
If a permit system is adopted for the public to pursue canyoneering in Arches, a similar principle could be adopted for that. A daily permit system, or any based strictly on numbers, is an onerous imposition on visitors, and of dubious effectiveness. Far better would be a license of indefinite duration issued to people who can show at least some evidence that they can pursue the desired activity safely and responsibly.
The irony depends on how you look at it I guess.... my thought is there are thousands of people around who now promote the National Parks. The state of Utah spends millions promoting the parks within its borders..... So there is no need for the Parks to spend their own coin and manpower promoting themselves.... I would prefer to see the money and manpower better spent.... and when I say better spent I don't mean building more multi-million dollar visitor centers.....Quote:
Originally Posted by rcwild
I also stated that I'd like my National Park experience to be less government intrusive.... which means few permits.... I would like to see many of our National Parks managed as more of a wilderness setting with all commercial concessions removed... I believe my comments are easier to understand when you look at the post as a whole and not try to dissect each sentence as a separate entity. My comments were based on what I thought was best for the Park and not me personally....
True.... but I didn't know we were just looking for the EASY way.... if that's the case lets just fence the place off and allow no visitation.... or jack up the entrance fee to $1000 per person... that should keep out the riff-raff and create a nice slush.... err.... I mean operating budget....Quote:
Originally Posted by rcwild
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkmatter
Nice well thought out and easy to understand comments.... :2thumbs:
And for the record.... I'm not fueling this thread with the intent of recruiting anyone to supporting my personal thoughts or ideas... I just hope that some of you take the time to send the park your comments. I think it's important that the park hears form the canyoneering community.
:cool2:
Boy - little Theo born Jan. 18th.
No official inside track. I do know the person responsible for writing the management plan is a local climber, so I think she will be very open to input and isn't looking to shut down opportunities in the park.
Here is a press release concerning an upcoming public meeting in Moab:
"Arches National Park is developing a management plan to determine what impacts climbing, canyoneering, and associated activities, commercial and noncommercial, may have on the park, and to consider how the NPS should manage or possibly limit those activities. A public scoping workshop has been scheduled for Thursday August 5, 2010 at the Grand Center in Moab from 2-7pm where the public is encouraged to come and speak with park officials in an open house forum regarding the development of this management plan.
Despite regular use by climbers and canyoneering groups in Arches NP, climbing and canyoneering have remained largely unmanaged leaving climbers and canyoneers essentially self-regulated. The increase in activity is exceeding the park's ability to manage under current actions. Issues identified to date include effects on natural and cultural resources, increase in use levels, the development of new routes, use of fixed hardware, designation of climbing/canyoneering routes, development of approach trails, visual impacts and the effects of climbing/canyoneering on visitor safety and experiences.
A climbing/canyoneering management planning effort will consider a full range of alternatives to protect resources, visitors and visitor experience while providing for recreational climbing activities. The NPS is encouraging public participation throughout the NEPA process and is currently in the scoping phase of this project. The NPS invites the public to voice alternatives, comments, or concerns in this effort. These comments will be considered during preparation of the Environmental Assessment. Arches National Park will seek to involve as many individuals as possible who have an interest in or concerns about climbing activities at Arches."
Those of you who are local, this would be a great chance to learn more and give feedback.
Did anyone attend the public meeting on the management plan?
Matt? Rebecca? Anyone?
If so, it would be helpful to hear a short report..... thanks..
The direct link to the comment form is: http://tinyurl.com/archescomments
Please please please provide at least some comments and ask to be involved in the process. My (extensive) comments to follow (next post).
Tom :moses:
Zion Canyoneering Coalition aka Tom Jones comments on Arches Plan:
August 9, 2010
Arches National Park
Planning Team
(Part 2)
GENERAL COMMENTS
Canyoneering is NOT Climbing
While it is perhaps appropriate to develop the management plan for both of these technical, Wilderness-appropriate activities at the same time, I hope it is clear that from a planning perspective, the differences between the sports (patterns of use, social impacts, physical impacts) are perhaps more important than their similarities. Canyoneers like climbers are drawn from a wide range of Americans, though the overlap between the two groups is small. Canyoneering can be done in small groups of one or two, but also easily adapts to groups of considerably large size, even twenty or thirty. Experienced veterans and first-time canyoneers will often be in the same group, and enjoy the same canyon in the same way at the same time. Families with children as young as six can be expected to canyoneer together.
Canyoneering occurs almost entirely in specific, well-documented places, following specific approaches and exits. Impacts from canyoneers are likely to be very specific in location and type, thus making it relatively simple for the land manager to manage the impacts. All popular locations are known, and are currently limited to nine routes. Exploration is not widespread, and may identify two or three additional “good routes” in the next couple of years; but is unlikely to cover more terrain than that.
Canyoneering generally takes place in terrain which is especially resistant to human impacts. Most canyoneering occurs in watercourses where the surface is renewed by flash floods on a regular basis, or on slickrock which is impact-resistant. There may be short social trails through vegetated terrain to get to a wash bottom or to a slickrock approach – social trails that can be managed to minimize physical impacts. In-canyon, rappels sometimes result in rope grooves and sling grooves that scar the Entrada sandstone. These are away from the routes travelled by casual Arches visitors, and usually only seen by canyoneers.
The Zion Canyoneering Coalition is an organization of canyoneers, and we have no comments on the climbing portion of the Technical Backcountry Management Plan.
Science-based Planning
The ZCC calls on the Arches Planning Team to develop a flexible management plan based on verifiable facts. The first part of the planning process then becomes figuring out what is actually going on, on the ground, such as by finding un-burdensome ways to measure actual use in the canyons, and objective ways of measuring physical impacts. Park statements indicate a need for this plan because “increased climbing and canyoneering use” is “straining the park’s ability to effectively manage those activities in Arches.” Does the Park have data to back up this claim?
We have seen National Park planning processes for canyoneering that have been based upon “feelings” and “personal observations” of Park personnel, and applied Park personnel norms rather than sport-participant norms to such items as target encounter rates and acceptable limits of change. We claim (ironically, without evidence) that the best management plan can only be developed with a strict devotion to actual verifiable facts, careful analysis of the data, and a reluctant application of burdens to the Park visitor.
The Planning Team should avoid surveys to justify burdens placed on Park visitors. Asking visitors what they want you to do is unlikely to produce good management plans, but it is easy to manipulate surveys to produce the results desired, and justify management actions that the prejudices of the Planning Team favor. The ZCC considers this a tactical error.
As an example: if asked, many recreational canyoneers would say there should not be commercial guiding on canyoneering routes, because it interferes with their access to the same routes. A move to quash commercial guiding based on this “opinion poll” would be misguided and counter to Park Goals. Commercial guiding clients are also visitors to the Park, but unlikely to be involved in and have a voice in the planning process. The planning team would do better to study the facts on the ground: are there actual conflicts between commercial and private canyoneers? Where and when? How can these conflicts be mitigated while imposing the least burden on both user groups?
Planning Issues Identified in the Scoping Document July 2010
The ZCC supports the stated goals of the CCMP, namely:
Protect and conserve the park’s natural and cultural resources and values, and the integrity of wilderness character for present and future generations.
Ensure that recreational uses and activities in the park are consistent with its authorizing legislation or proclamation and do not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values.
In addition to the authorizing legislation, the areas in question are managed under NPS policy as Wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. We would like to bring the Planning Team’s attention the defining characteristics of statutory Wilderness:
(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;
In many places, the Park Service has concentrated on minimizing social encounters in Wilderness to the exclusion of all other goals, focusing on a simple definition of “Solitude”. A more nuanced understanding of “Solitude” indicates that, for Wilderness travelers, it mainly focuses on the feeling of being an animal in the wild lands, free from the social and governmental constraints that enclose our daily lives in society. In this reading, the three attributes “solitude”, “primitive” and “unconfined” all point toward the same kind of Wilderness, a Wilderness that is substantially degraded by aggressive management actions and restraints on Visitor activites. We consider it consistent with the Wilderness Act that the Park manage visitor Wilderness activities with the least-burdensome actions that can achieve the desired result.
Unacceptable Impacts
A primary goal of this CCMP is to “ensure that recreational uses and activities in the park are consistent with its authorizing legislation or proclamation and do not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values.”
Management policies that emerge from this plan will result from how Park planners define what constitutes an “unacceptable impact.” This standard should be clearly outlined in the draft CCMP (with similar references in other NPS plans). The term “unacceptable impact” as a standard for land management raises many more questions than it answers:
Could an “appropriate use” also sometimes cause “unacceptable impacts”?
Does Arches have specific examples of an “unacceptable impact”?
What is the difference between an activity that causes "unacceptable impacts" and an activity that causes "impairment"?
How significant are “unacceptable impacts” when compared to “impairment”?
Can a significant impact be acceptable? Can an “unacceptable impact” not be significant?
Specifically, the ZCC is looking for a science-based analysis of what constitutes an unacceptable impact, rather than using the norms of Park staff without critical analysis.
“Unacceptable impacts” is context dependent. An extraordinary and popular canyoneering route will have a higher level of impact considered acceptable than an obscure and barely-used route. Impacts that are in plain site of casual Arches visitors must be taken more seriously than impacts deep in the backcountry, only seen by canyoneers.
Public Involvement
We hope that the Arches Planning Team is genuinely interested in working with the public to develop a plan that will protect the Park resources while degrading the visitor’s Wilderness experience as little as possible. Meeting the statutory requirements for public participation (two comment periods, of which this is one) has proven ineffective in the past to produce a plan with public buy-in. In the interest of producing a plan that is in alignment with Park values and current standards of the democratic process, we encourage the Planning Team to step beyond the statutory obligations and involve the public more fully in the process.
The Zion Canyoneering Coalition is interested in participating in the Planning process to the fullest extent possible.
We thank Arches National Park for the opportunity to provide Scoping Comments. We look forward to working with the Planning Team in developing a workable, equitable Canyoneering Plan for Arches National Park.
Tom Jones, chairman
Zion Canyoneering Coalition
bump
How many dues-paying members in the ZCC?
Rich, why do you ask this question? Is your agenda constructive in nature or destructive?Quote:
Originally Posted by rcwild
Does the ACA have a position on this issue? Do you have a position on this issue? Is/has the ACA, or yourself, expressed your position to the Park? If so, would you care to share with Bogley?
As I understand tomorrow is the last day for comments.