Arches NP Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan

[Don]

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.

[DWayne27]

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.

[bshwakr]

__

[oldno7]

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)

[oldno7]

For those interested in opening a Hunting concession in Arches:

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][B]TITLE 36

[bshwakr]

__

[moabmatt]

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)

Kurt,

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

[oldno7]

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.

[Scott P]

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.

[moab mark]

Kurt,


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.


Cheers,
Matt

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.

[Scott P]

She stated that Desert Highlights had done an exemplary job over the years but they could not discriminate against these other companies.

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.

[rcwild]

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.

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.

[moabmatt]

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.

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.

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.

[oldno7]

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?

[moabmatt]

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.

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?

[oldno7]

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"?

[oldno7]

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"

[oldno7]

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.

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?

........................

[rcwild]

Kurt,

I don't think you understand why Jennifer wrote to you. Please call her.

[oldno7]

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.