Dilemma: I've not done any canyoneering in Arches. I've not been to Arches. I'm not sure I have much to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Very articulate and well presented.
Printable View
Dilemma: I've not done any canyoneering in Arches. I've not been to Arches. I'm not sure I have much to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Very articulate and well presented.
Bump,Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Did anyone go?
C. InquisitiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Felicia
30?? :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
I'm not sure that's a selling point and a group of 30 would be extremely rare.... just a personal thought....
Thanks for taking the time send Arches NP your comments. :2thumbs: And thanks for sharing your comments with the forum....
Anyone else care to share their comments? Maybe Rich or Matt?
In case it has not already been posted in this thread, here is a link to the Access Fund's position, which includes an editable letter: http://bit.ly/d1zZ7f
Thank you. You are a co-owner of Arches National Park. You should have A say. If nothing else, you could just say "I support the position of the Zion Canyoneering Coalition".Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicia
Tom
None, zero zip nada nyet. The ZCC does not have dues, and therefore has zero dues-paying members. We're just a herd of cats.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcwild
Tom
Between 2002 and 2007 membership in the ZCC Yahoo Group swelled to 70. How many people were committed enough to the cause to pony up the $5.00 dues back when dues were required for membership? How many cats in your herd now?Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
My point in asking is that it is impossible for one organization to represent the opinions of all canyoneers. The opinions are much too diverse. The ACA has well over 5,000 members now, but we don't pretend to represent all canyoneers when it comes to divisive issues like bolts, permits, commercial guiding, etc.
You have now posted your letter on Bogley and Yahoo Canyons, but not on the ACA forums (for personal reasons). Do the opinions of canyoneers who only frequent the ACA forums not matter? When anyone asks how the canyoneering community should address issue X, the input will not be representative unless the question is posted on every canyoneering forum (there are more than three). There is certainly some overlap in membership between the forums, but there are many who will participate in group A, but not B or C. Others who will participate in A and B, but not C. Etc. No worries. Diverse population. Diverse community. Diverse tastes in forums. But don't pretend to represent the entire canyoneering community without asking the entire canyoneering community for input. And that must include the thousands of other canyoneers who don't participate in any forums (in most cases, don't even know the forums exist). Their opinions matter, too. Difficult to reach them, I know, but important if anyone is to claim they care about their opinions.
There has also been a long-standing "vocal minority" issue in the canyoneering community. Opinions on any issue can be plotted on a bell curve with very vocal individuals on the two extreme ends of the spectrum and a usually silent majority in the middle. On some issues, the voices from one end of the spectrum are much louder than the voices on the other end. The volume of those voices and/or the number of letters written cannot be equated with validity of opinion.
Go ahead and submit your letter, but don't pretend that you represent THE canyoneering community. You don't.
For purposes of accuracy, suggest you change this phrase:
"The ZCC was formed in October 2002 as the voice for technical canyoneers when working with land managers when dealing with technical-canyoneering related issues."
From "... as the voice for ..." to "... as one of several voices for ..." or even more accurately to " ... as a voice for a small herd of cats ..."
Rich,
Out of curiosity what do you recommend for the new management plan in Arches?
Mark
Are you asking Rich, private citizen/canyoneer, or Rich, President of the ACA?Quote:
Originally Posted by moab mark
Depends.... how did you addressed your comments to the Park?Quote:
Originally Posted by rcwild
If you wrote as a representative of the ACA I would be interested in hearing the ACA's position, if they have a position on the issue....
If you wrote as private citizen Rich it would be nice to hear your personal thoughts on the issue....
:cool2:
x2Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Comments are being accepted until 11:59 PMT
The direct link to the comment form is: http://tinyurl.com/archescomments
OK, here is my submission:
Dear Arches Planning Team
I have not yet had the privilege of visiting Arches National Park, but as an active member of the canyoneering community I would like to present my comments regarding the Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan. My comments are limited to the Canyoneering portion of the Management Plan as I believe that Climbing is a distinct and separate wilderness activity.
Becoming aware of the Zion Canyoneering Coalition (ZCC) in 2005, I passively watched the development of the current Management Plan that is in place in Zion National Park. I believe that lessons can be learned from the development of the Zion Management Plan.
I have read, agree with, and support the current position that the ZCC has presented to this Arches Planning Team. I believe that the Arches Planning Team can capitalize on lessons learned from the past - please use a scientific method utilizing real data and document facts to develop an acceptable Management Plan. The ZCC has valuable experience that can assist the Planning Team.
I respectively request that the Planning Team allow the participation of the ZCC in the planning process. Please allow the time and resources to incorporate public participation in developing a management plan that will garner public support and public buy-in.
Sincerely,
Felicia ...
bump please submit anything right now.
example I am apposed to burdensome quotes because the queue lines start before sundown and last all night long, permitts are obtained during the best approach hiking time, etc. what ever you want but comment now.
I ended up submitting a 3 page letter.
I wanted to say thanks to everyone who submitted a letter to Arches NP..... if nothing else your submissions have shown that the canyoneering community is a sizable herd of cats, all moving in the same general direction, with a valuable and important voice.
Oops! Sorry I was out of town and missed the deadline...
First post on bogley. Despite my reservations, I just had to resurrect this thread.
I am a user of Shane's beta and find it to to be of immense value. Despite its "Circle of Friends" moniker, its an online guidebook-- no more, no less. I prefer to explore canyons with my friends and without the aide of a professional guide, not only for monetary reasons, but for personal satisfaction. Following written directions, a compass, and a topo map provides a certain level of satisfaction that I think most people here would understand. Faulting the purveyor of a guidebook is misplaced anger. Edward Abbey wrote about Arches and its hidden and lonely places in the 1960's....maybe we should blame him for "outing" the furnace and Drangonfly. All that can be hoped for is responsible management, but keeping secrets looks like an increasingly lost cause.
I also have been on a canyon adventure with Matt. I can attest that when he takes a dozen or more people through the Furnace in Arches that it has the impact of much fewer. Ghosting techniques, responsible rope pulls, crypto avoidance, and impact awareness are foremost in his operation. Matt is a subject matter expert on low impact desert travel. He was (is) an asset to Arches National Park. I have no doubt that Matt influenced the Moab Rondy participants in profound ways in how they view low impact canyoneering and environmental impacts on the park. Its too bad the park service doesn't view his operation with admiration instead of condemnation.
Knowing several of you on this forum I can assure you that you have more in common than you do differences.
Regards,
I had forgot about this. Has anyone heard any news?
Mark
If this works like other management plans I've been involved with the next thing you will see is the new rules carved in stone tablets when they cart them out for the final "comment period", which is really just the parks way of telling you this is how its going to be.... YMMV... or it could be different from my past experience.
So..........????
Anxious to hear. But I have to guess, it won't be talked about till Spring 2011.
IMPORTANT - Read This!!!
Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan for Arches
Here is your chance to view the proposals and comment. Please take a few minutes and do so.
Park Newsletter - This is the meat and potato's.
Submit Comments - This is where you go to let the park know what you think.
Please provide all comments by March 13, 2011.
:cool2:
I kind of like alternative D, although I suspect that is a non-starter with the Park Service :haha: Alternatives A and B are reasonable. Alternative C sucks in my opinion. It would lead to a situation that makes Zion's permit process look totally casual.
Just a wild ass guess by the tone of each alternative and having experience with these management plans before... I believe it is currently between A and B... and everything else is just a dog and pony show.
A is my first choice, because I believe it has the best chance of success.
D is my second choice, but I think it has zero chance of success or it would be my first choice.
B scares the crap out of me because this is EXACTLY how the permit system began in Zion "The park will implement a free self-issued climber and canyoneers registration as an effort to collect more information" For those that don't know the permit system in Zion was orginally establish to allow some contact between canyoneers and rangers. The Zion permits were free and volunteerly to begin with.
C totally blows
In a nut shell.....
Quote:
Alternative A
There are no established group limits for private rock climbing and canyoneering groups. No permits are required for climbers and canyoneerers outside the Fiery Furnace. Permits are required for all entry into the Fiery Furnace.
Alternative B
Group size limits for both rock climbing and canyoneering will beinitially established at 10 people per group. Group sizes may be adjusted (increased or decreased) based on monitored resource conditions and visitor experience. The NPS will continue to conduct research to determine the types, amount, frequency, and seasonality of rock climbing and canyoneering that occurs at Arches National Park. The park will implement a free self-issued climber and canyoneers registration as an effort to collect more information about climber numbers, routes, access points, and times when climbing is taking place. Trail counters will also be implemented to assist with use numbers. This self-registration system allows the park to maintain levels of backcountry use consistent with a high quality visitor experience, safety, and resource protection.
Alternative C
Group size for canyoneering will be initially established at five people per group. This number may be reduced for specific routes based on resource conditions. Group size for rock climbing will also be five people. This number will ensure that these groups remain small. A mandatory park-issued permit will be required and will be available at the VC desk or on-line. A daily use limit on sensitive resource routes will be set at 20 people.
Alternative D
There will be no restrictions on group size limits for either activity. Groups will be expected to self regulate themselves and to be informed of all route closures and park regulations prior to entering the park.
Looks like Desert Highlights may get their permit back. I'll bet they pick B. Lots of wiggle room.
A lot of folks in line that want a commercial permit to guide inside the park....Quote:
Originally Posted by moab mark
"The park will implement a free self-issued climber and canyoneers registration as an effort to collect more information"
Just thinking.... so I'm over in the Lost Springs section of Arches and need to register.... that's a 3 hour round trip in driving time, not to mention a lot of gas.
:cool2:
Both B and C have this little item:
Closures/Regulations
Arches National Park contains the world
Probably not but using Abbey Arch as the rappeling anchor in Lomatium Canyon would be a no no.:nono:
I stopped by the visitor center this week and talked with the ranger responsible for writing the management plan for a solid hour.
Among other things, she expressed some disappointment that, as of earlier this week, she has only received a couple dozen comments regarding the ABCD alternatives, and the comment period closes March 13th. She stated several times that comments tossed back and forth amongst us on the forums, canyon group, facebook, in bars, while getting our hair did, and so on, does no good for helping NPS craft public policy.
I also got the impression that perhaps a few of the comments that have come in do not specifically address the questions asked. After reading through this thread again, I certainly feel the discussion drifted into the weeds.
The bottom line is, if you dont tell NPS exactly what you think, NPS will make a policy without considering what you think.
Get your comments in!
BUMP
Please take a minute to read the alternatives and comment! It only takes a couple of minutes. My response is below to perhaps offer some guidance, you do not have to agree with me, but please take a minute to comment.
My comment was basically I liked Alternative A (no change to current management)
In the comment section I wrote the following:
Please - Do NOT institute any additional permit system (outside of the current Fiery Furnace permit). Obtaining permits is a burden and removes much of the joy found in visiting Arches NP. Self issued permits have a habit of becoming ranger issued permits, free permits have a habit of costing at a future date. Obtaining a permit becomes problematic as you must adjust your schedule to the Visitor Center hours. A change in plans (say changing objectives in Lost Springs) can involve several hours of lost time and driving long distances over poor dirt roads. I would prefer to see the rangers time, money and energy spent doing more beneficial work than issuing permits.
Park Newsletter - This is the meat and potato's.
Submit Comments - This is where you go to let the park know what you think.
Quote:
Alternative A
There are no established group limits for private rock climbing and canyoneering groups. No permits are required for climbers and canyoneerers outside the Fiery Furnace. Permits are required for all entry into the Fiery Furnace.
Alternative B
Group size limits for both rock climbing and canyoneering will beinitially established at 10 people per group. Group sizes may be adjusted (increased or decreased) based on monitored resource conditions and visitor experience. The NPS will continue to conduct research to determine the types, amount, frequency, and seasonality of rock climbing and canyoneering that occurs at Arches National Park. The park will implement a free self-issued climber and canyoneers registration as an effort to collect more information about climber numbers, routes, access points, and times when climbing is taking place. Trail counters will also be implemented to assist with use numbers. This self-registration system allows the park to maintain levels of backcountry use consistent with a high quality visitor experience, safety, and resource protection.
Alternative C
Group size for canyoneering will be initially established at five people per group. This number may be reduced for specific routes based on resource conditions. Group size for rock climbing will also be five people. This number will ensure that these groups remain small. A mandatory park-issued permit will be required and will be available at the VC desk or on-line. A daily use limit on sensitive resource routes will be set at 20 people.
Alternative D
There will be no restrictions on group size limits for either activity. Groups will be expected to self regulate themselves and to be informed of all route closures and park regulations prior to entering the park.
Thanks for the heads up Shane. Posted up.
/hug
Don't make me stop this forum and come back there!
PLEASE post a comment!
If noting elese a short one line response "I support Alternative A (no change to current management)" would be awesome and let the NPS know you don't want a permit system.
Post Comment Here!
+1
Done.
Thank you, Canyon Devil.Quote:
Originally Posted by canyondevil
I think it is worth pointing out that this is a preliminary round of alternatives and THIS IS A VERY GOOD SIGN. They don't have to do this, and they usually don't do this. Thus it is important that Canyoneers comment on this and get their voices heard. Personally, I'm commenting that something between A and B sounds most reasonable. "B" is a little heavy-handed, but "A" is probably a little bit light.
Tom
My two big concerns with B are...Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
1. Free self-issued climber and canyoneers registrations have a habit of becoming required and costing money.
2. If visiting the Lost Springs section of Arches stopping by the VC to pick up a permit is not practical.
Some things I like about B, like limiting group size to 10 (six would be better).
done. if somoeone needs someting to write about I basically wrote about the following:
Of the plans I favor and strongly suggest A or D. These plans will provide the best all around experience for all park visitors: climbers, canyoneers, hikers, and sight seers.
What I like about plan D the most is the educational aspect. I have found informing people leads to correct decisions that will minimize impact.
against the bureaucracy to establish new routes and replace hardware. Exploring the wilderness of our National Parks is one of the greatest treasures that must be preserved.
don't like the permits because opportunity costs from rangers resources could be aplied somewhere better.
I really have no problem with having permits only in the FF. I think it keeps the hoards of people out of there, which makes the place more special. Having to watch the same "tip-toe around the crypto" video over and over is kind of a pain in the ass, but if it is between that and having to hear a ton of kids screaming in the FF all day I dont mind. The casual family on their cross-american national park tour wont bother with the permit and that will leave the place to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Two days left - Here are my comments:
Question 1: Is one of the four preliminary alternatives (A-No Action, B-Active Management, C-Regulatory, D-Minimum Requirements) already close to your idea of the best way to manage climbing and canyoneering activities in Arches National Park? If so, which one, and how might you modify it to make it closer to your ideal?
I speak only to the management of Canyoneering in Arches National Park.
Some elements of B-Active Management are appropriate, while others are not appropriate at this time.
Elements of Alternative B:
Access Trails - check, all good.
Group Size Limits / Permits - A group size limit of 12 is standard in other NPS-managed units in Utah (Zion, GCNRA), and I would like to see that carried through here. If self-issued permits are implemented, please do so in such a manner that encumbers the visitor as little as possible. For instance, a kiosk at the entrance would be good. Activity that does not funnel through the main entrance (for instance, in the Lost Springs Area) should be specifically exempted from the permit requirement, as the four-hour drive around and back is onerous.
Hardware Replacement and Route Establishment - for canyoneering, there is very little new-route activity in Arches. Opposite to climbers, canyoneers really have no idea going in what will be required on a new route. The canyoneering ethic is to leave no trace, or as little as possible. Establishing new canyoneering routes is the VERY ESSENCE of the Free and Unconfined Recreation Experience that the Wilderness Act states is one of the defining characteristics of Wilderness. Defining anchor standards for canyoneering is extremely difficult. We believe the Park can establish, if needed, no-new-route areas and no-rappel areas (for instance, for visitor safety), but creating a system for approval of new canyoneering routes is antithetical to Wilderness Management at this time. Motorized Drills are prohibited in the Arches backcountry already, as is using named features or climbing upon them. The Park should discourage new bolting by individuals.
Visual Impacts - check, agreement on all points.
Commercial Use - We support commercial use of Arches backcountry for canyoneering, under the provisions of Desert Highlights previous CUA's, which have been in place for 11 years with few problems. Any changes to the provisions of the CUA should be based on sound science, rather than being arbitrary and capricious. Desert Highlights has a strong safety record, therefore requiring a greater guide to client ratio is unnecessarily burdensome. Requiring additional certification seems arbitrary and unnecessarily burdensome. We support a maximum of three CUA's for canyoneering, and a reasonable system for allocating them. If significant impact to resources is validated, CUA limits should be based upon evaluation of IMPACTS FROM THE CUA HOLDER, rather than from impacts from all users (eg. if the CUA Holder is not creating impacts, they should not be prohibited from using the resource because recreational users are creating impacts.
Monitoring - We support intelligent, scientific monitoring of impacts and visitor use patterns. We believe the methods of monitoring should be presented for review and comment, and subject to scientific scrutiny. (In many NPS units, monitoring is ad hoc and unsuitable for understanding the questions in play).
Closures/Regulations - We concur will all points.
Question 2: Which parts of any of the preliminary alternatives do you feel strongly should be included in the management of climbing and canyoneering?
See Above.
Question 3: Which parts of any of the preliminary alternatives do you feel strongly should not be included in the management of climbing and canyoneering?
Managing for Visitor Experience is a difficult proposition. Visitors have varying expectations, realistic and unrealistic. Managing for Visitor Experience at other National Park Units has tended to impose a specific set of Norms unjustified by science and legislation. Arches National Park should avoid falling into this trap.
Question 4: Do you have any other thoughts, ideas or comments regarding climbing and canyoneering activities in the park?
Thank you for seeking comments on possible management styles beyond that required by law. Canyoneering is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Park, and with Wilderness values, and should be managed to minimize impacts to Park Resources, rather than to meet an arbitrarily chosen set of norms.
Now, off to North Wash!!!
Tom :moses:
Any word on what the park decided?