ZAC is really branching out

[Brian in SLC]

you guys miss one detail... ZAC isn't guiding on lake powell NRA. they are on navajo land.

Aha...that rules out a bunch of terrain...

Ha ha.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Aha...that rules out a bunch of terrain...

Ha ha.

reading is fundamental... it's right there on the website.

[EvergreenDean]

I know you took a course from Steve, I'm just merely pointing out that you made a "blanket" statement that is misleading.
Stating everyone will need life insurance if not with ZAC. There are a lot of capable folks on here and some--not so much.
My statement had a huge dressing of sarcasm piled on top of it. But I think you saw the light.

Edit: Actually I'd love to do some canyons with you some day-----do you know anything about the Lake Powell area?

Sounds great...yeah, I regretted my quick overstated post for sure. I know enough to get back there, and I could find these again. Just need veteran help...I'm not quite there yet. The pot holes techniques were all new to me. Can one get a permit for this are on a private trip?

[moab mark]

No permit needed. Just boat and skills. Oh and beta. Don't forget the beta.

[rcwild]

No permit needed. Just boat and skills. Oh and beta. Don't forget the beta.

Not true if on Navajo land.

[moab mark]

Not true if on Navajo land.

Rich,

Enlighten me.

Mark

[trackrunner]

I believe you need a hiking permit on Navajo land?

[moab mark]

I believe you need a hiking permit on Navajo land?

Other then antelope canyon we have always been under the impression from the water it was not being enforced. Coming in over land was a different matter. If someone actually has documentation of the official rules I would like to see it. The park services site states antelope canyon and hiking by land to rainbow bridge needs a permit. But that's all it mentions.

[rcwild]

Other then antelope canyon we have always been under the impression from the water it was not being enforced. Coming in over land was a different matter. If someone actually has documentation of the official rules I would like to see it. The park services site states antelope canyon and hiking by land to rainbow bridge needs a permit. But that's all it mentions.

Recreating on Navajo land requires a permit. Probably not being enforced because they only have 26-27 rangers for the entire reservation. Just because you won't get caught doesn't make it right. The Navajo are very hospitable people, up to the point they feel we are taking advantage or disrespecting them or their land.

Don't look at the park service website for Navajo regulations or ask someone to show you documentation. Contact the nation.

http://www.navajonationparks.org/permits.htm

Read under "Areas Closed to Hiking". The reasons they cite for the closures all refer to canyoneers.

[shaggy125]

yup, $5 per person, per day to hike on the res. I think it's if you are one mile from high water mark you are supposed to have a permit? Something like that.

[n00basaurus_rex]

Manifest Destiny!

[Don]

Read under "Areas Closed to Hiking". The reasons they cite for the closures all refer to canyoneers.

"AREAS CLOSED TO HIKING
Recently, the Kaibeto Chapter community has prohibited hiking and camping in the entire area of Upper Kaibeto, Navajo Canyon, Choal Canyon, (Kaibeto Creek), Peach Wash, and Butterfly Canyon. Also, the area around the Inscription House community and Tsegi Canyon, (Dowozhiebeto and Long Canyons) are closed. These Closures are due to trespassing across residential areas, NO PERMITS, DISTRUBING LIVESTOCK, LITTERING, AND THE POSSIBLE DISTRUBANCE OF FRAGILE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RUINS"

I see canyons mentioned but not canyoneers. I see littering and distrubance [sic] of livestock or archaeological sites but no reference to canyoneers. Any chance your reading into things?

[moabmatt]

Yes, the permits are public record and should list the location of the Lake Powell canyons ZAC is guiding.....

The first time I learned about several of Desert Highlights routes was from someone that took a look at Desert Highlights NPS file. The rival guide deal could be a problem... from what I'm told the reason that Desert Highlights did not get their Arches NP permit renewed was because several rival guide companies were also requesting permits and the new Super decided it was easier to ban commercial guiding inside the park then it was to deal with all the permit requests.

From day one we've always kept a lid on the locations where we guide. Many have asked and we've always politely declined to reveal the locations. As a result we've been called names and labeled elitist. We've kept secrets not to be viewed as elitists, but to protect our livelihood. The past few years we've especially bemoaned the publishing of the canyons that we've spent years scouting and establishing. Armed with this published beta, hordes of folks, including owners of "rival companies," have flooded these canyons and caused not only significant environmental damage, but alarm from those land managers who sign our permits.



If you scan these forums you'll find many prophetic posts from me the past couple years pleading to keep these canyons off the beta sites since our relationships with land managers are unpredictable at best. Well, our worst nightmare has come true. After eleven years of guiding exemplary trips in Arches, the National Park Service pulled our permit this year, not because we were causing environmental impacts, but because they're concerned about the influx of people going into these canyons, including people armed with your beta who want to guide in the park. When asked to explain her decision to pull our permit, Superintendant Kate Cannon specifically told me that it's just easier for her to limit a commercial group in the park than a private group. WTF? That's not the right answer! Especially when we've done no wrong and almost 70% of our revenue came from guiding trips in the Park!



Yes, we are still guiding trips outside the park, but published beta is still negatively affecting us. The impacts, both environmental and social, come on like a light switch after the publication of beta. It's pretty shocking to witness. For example, we enjoyed total solitude for years in relatively obscure canyons like Granary and Pleiades - canyons we spent tons of time looking for and establishing. We specifically look to obscure areas to enjoy solitude. As soon as beta was published last year it became commonplace to wait while large groups - literally holding printouts of Shane's beta - tie up the rappels. New social trails have sprouted up all over in the overland hike between the second to last and last rap in Granary. I just talked with the BLM today and they're now imposing group size limits on commercially guided trips, but - not surprisingly - not on private groups. Ironically this was in part due to a complaint from a guide service that they had to wait two hours for a huge private group to get through the first rap in Medieval Chamber. What's a land manager to do? Well, as Kate Cannon so eloquently put it, it's easier to limit commercial groups than private groups. Ouch...



So when Jonathan spends weeks, months and years sniffing out and establishing obscure, quality canyon trips for his clients I don't blame him one bit for wanting to keep those canyons under the beta radar. I spent years doing the same thing, tried to protect my investment and create incredible experiences for my clients and was rewarded by having my income cut almost 70%. And it's not like I was making a ton of money to begin with... If anyone wants to consider us elitist for not disclosing locations, first put yourself in our shoes. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again, Shane; I like you a lot, you're fun to hang out with, I've enjoyed my time in canyons with you and hope to enjoy more with you in the future, but remember that I need permission from land managers to make money - you do not. Please remember that the next time you publish another route we've spent years establishing.

Regarding permits being public info... They are public record, to an extent. For the very reasons I've mentioned above (fears of increased environmental and social impacts from groups other than the group issued the permit) they do not generally give out that information. They will give out that info if a member of the public has reason to believe that by issuing a permit unacceptable impacts will occur. Even then you'll need to file a FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act). Keep in mind that in issuing the original permit the land managers will have already conducted a NEPA review and determined that no adverse impacts will result. So you have to have a damn convincing case of adverse impacts to get access to that info. Merely having a desire to know the location so you can hike the route without doing your own legwork is not reason enough.

[rcwild]

I see canyons mentioned but not canyoneers. I see littering and distrubance [sic] of livestock or archaeological sites but no reference to canyoneers. Any chance your reading into things?

No, Don, there's not.

I've done quite a bit of work with the Navajo Nation, including training some of their rangers and guides, and I've met quite a few of the residents who complained about the "hikers with ropes" who crossed their land and disturbed their sheep. One of Kelsey's guidebooks gave directions to a canyon near LeChee as "... turn left at mile marker XX, drive past Owen Yazzee's house and turn right ..." When I read that I wondered how many people (canyoneers) would knock on the door and ask if it was Owen Yazzee's house. Answer: a lot.

A few years ago, Navajo rangers invited the ACA to hold a rendezvous that could include some closed canyons. We were considering it until a group of well-known canyoneers started bragging about poaching canyons on the rez. Decided against the rendezvous.

[EvergreenDean]

So when Jonathan spends weeks, months and years sniffing out and establishing obscure, quality canyon trips for his clients I don't blame him one bit for wanting to keep those canyons under the beta radar.

Well put. You said what I meant, but much more concisely. No one wants to hear that from a noob like me...

[Iceaxe]

As soon as beta was published last year it became commonplace to wait while large groups - literally holding printouts of Shane's beta - tie up the rappels.

Pretty fair assessment.... but I have two questions....

1. So what's the difference between a private group having to wait for a commercially guide group to pass.... and... a commercially guided group having to wait for a private group to pass?

2. So what's the difference between private groups following routes pioneered by commercial companies.... and.... commercial companies guiding routes pioneered by privateer's?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I fail to see where sniping at privateer's is helping your cause? Because from a land managers point of view the last group that will be regulated or shut out is the private parties.... And the easiest group to regulate or shut out is a commercial venture....

Anyhoo.... Best I can tell the land is public and belongs to all of us..... and instead of sniping at each other the canyon community would be much better serviced if everyone learned to share and tried to work together......

Just my 2 cents...

[rcwild]

We are all guilty; all responsible for contributing to the impacts in canyons, whether commercial guide, beta peddler or recreational canyoneer sharing beta with friends. Only real difference is that some of us are honest with ourselves about it while others still pretend that the "other guy" is more guilty.

[Iceaxe]

whether commercial guide, beta peddler or recreational canyoneer sharing beta with friends.

True Dat!

Except you left out the instructor's clogging routes with newly minted noob's.

Jonathan actually has a nice Catch 22 thing going.... he teaches folks how to become canyoneers.... and the first thing every canyoneer wants is more beta....

Here is how I see it.... Matt and Jonathan are not going to stop guiding canyons, Rich is not going to stop teaching, and the beta peddler is not going to stop peddling...... so it's in everyones best interest to work together as much as possible.... and it's really in our best interest to work it out among the community and not start bitching to land managers... that can only end up bad for everyone. Because right now canyoneering is not even on the radar screen of most land managers, the last thing we want as a group is to put a target on canyoneers.....

[Don]

So when Jonathan spends weeks, months and years sniffing out and establishing obscure, quality canyon trips for his clients I don't blame him one bit for wanting to keep those canyons under the beta radar.

[FONT=Verdana]The interesting canyons are a limited resource and every time a guide takes a group through one of these canyons there is a chance that someone in that group will leak the beta. It

[CarpeyBiggs]

instead of sniping at each other the canyon community would be much better serviced if everyone learned to share and tried to work together......

so it's in everyones best interest to work together as much as possible.... and it's really in our best interest to work it out among the community and not start bitching to land managers... that can only end up bad for everyone. Because right now canyoneering is not even on the radar screen of most land managers, the last thing we want as a group is to put a target on canyoneers.....

Say what? Another classic Shane-Misdirection?

Posing as a big-time canyoneer on Bogley hardly counts as servicing the community. Just because you own a website and act like a bad-ass in front of a huge collection of folks relatively new to the sport doesn't make you a community do-gooder. Quite the opposite, in fact. At best, you are a profiteer and a poser. But the hypocrisy of your statements here and elsewhere needs to be questioned. This nonsense of telling everyone you are "trying to help the community learn to share and work together" while simultaneously being a catalyst for the very issues that will end up regulating and hurting the sport is total bullshit.

How is using unethical underhanded techniques to sniff out guided routes and then posting them on a website do anything to help the community? If you actually did the work yourself to find them, it MIGHT be understandable. But this is the equivalent of looking over your "friends" shoulder in high school to copy that test you obviously didn't study for, and then bragging when you end up getting an "A" on it.

Shane, face it, when the possibility of regulated canyoneering in Arches becomes reality, it will be largely because of you. Perhaps it was destined to happen eventually, but you were the catalyst. (perhaps like Kelseys canyon guide was the catalyst for closures on much of Navajo Land, due to poorly educated canyoneers and ethics). Yet you refuse to take any responsibility for it. And then, when you take from the hand that indirectly feeds you, you say "hey man, they're public, let's share!" Except you don't share. You take. And the community suffers. What's more, the person you "sniffed" the routes from is under serious financial pressure. But hey, that 30 bucks a year was worth it, right?

You've demonstrated time and time again that not only do you have no conscience, but you have little respect for the land or the community in general. About the only thing you care about is building your ego, padding your wallet, and keeping folks joining the circle jerk.

Want to do the community some good? Help people learn leave no trace ethics. Help people learn the skills to go into canyons that have limited beta, so they can solve the puzzle as if it were the first time. Teach people to explore their own maps, where a page of beta doesn't tell them every rappel and rope length. Then, the canyons stay clean, unmarked, unregulated and the impacts are properly dispersed. The only way we are going to keep these resources from getting regulated is if people learn to leave no trace.

But for damned sure don't give me this bullshit about "public land" or capitalism at work or "for the good of the community" or whatever other load of shit you can come up with. Just be honest. You're a selfish ego-building poser. If you were anything else, you wouldn't have a history of consistently selling out your "friends" the last 10 years for 30 bucks a pop...