Poaching permitted or closed canyons

[Scott P]

The website actually encourages the practice of asking to park at a residence, and possibly paying a small fee. Seems like a great idea.

There are many reasons the canyons were closed, but this is apparently one of them.

See this old post on the canyons group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/message/9226

I am often asked how good I think chances are of more Navajo canyons
opening. Currently, the answer is "not very".

The original reason for some specific closures had to do with the
number of rescues. I think the ACA could have helped with this issue
by inviting tribal rangers to participate in rescue courses.

Unfortunately, I learned earlier this year that two additional issues
have created more concerns and resulted in many more closures.

1) People being inconsiderate of tribal members' homes. The first
canyon I ever did using Kelsey's guidebook is called Chaol. The
description reads "...drive to mile marker X, turn left to Owen
Yazzie's house, then turn right..." I remember wondering how many
people might knock on the door to make sure they have the right
house. Turns out, quite a few. As the result of numerous people
cutting across yards, being too loud as they pass by homes, etc. any
canyon that is not directly accessible from a public road is CLOSED.
This only leaves Waterholes, Antelope and a few of the Marble Canyon
tributaries open.

NOTE: Don't try and turn this one into an excuse for Kelsey bashing.
I didn't read anything in his guidebook that suggested people should
knock on doors, drive offroad across yards, etc. Common sense and
common courtesy should have dictated peoples' actions.

2) A few selfish people who believe they have the right to ignore the
rules and trespass on Navajo land without a permit. I'm not sure if
anything upsets Native Americans more than people who don't respect
their right to govern and control their own land. They DO have the
right to open or close canyons, impose restrictions, require guides,
charge for permits, etc. Tell them they don't have the right to close
them and they are even more likely to do so. People who knowingly
ignore the rules are being selfish and are jeopardizing future access
for the entire canyoneering community.

I don't think the situation is entirely hopeless. If canyoneers can
prove that they are responsible and respectful, perhaps someday ...

Although I disagree with Rich on several issues, the information above is good.

Another reason for the closures is because of people having no permits.

Anyway, I have been told that the Navajos sometime do give out permits for lower Kaibito Creek (non-technical), even though the website says it's officially closed. It wouldn't hurt asking the permit office (rather than at a local home). If you explain where you are parking and your route, it apparently is possible at times.

I believe most of us have poached canyons for various reasons and usually we have a self serving reason of why we should be excluded from the rules....

I've never poached a canyon with two possible exceptions. One was when the NPS screwed up my permit. Another one was on the Hualapai Reservation. We went to get a permit and the office was closed. We were told to drop by on our way out. On the way out it was closed again, so I sent a letter and never recieved a reply back. Years later, the internet said (there was no interenet during the time period when we went) that hiking permits haven't been issued since about a year before we did our hike (it's been opened up again), so if this can be counted as poaching, it was accidental.

I haven't done that many canyons on the Navajo Reservation, but I have done some. Most of the time (every time for me), the Navajos are friendly people. Despite what some guidebooks/sources seem to say, I've found that the Navajos I have met are aware that you are supposed to have a permit to hike on the reservation. Once when we did Silver Grotto and were waiting for a car shuttle, a Navajo came over to us and asked us if we were aware that we were on private land. I told them we had a permit and he was very kind after learning that we did and told us not to let anyone else give us flack (and one did). When we did Aztec Creek and it's environs, I was unable to get an advanced permit (I didn't know if I could go until it was too late to go through the mail system) and it was out of the way to get a permit in person. The trip leader (goofball on Bogley) made a phone call, and was told that I could get my "permit" after the hike if I would send them the number of days I went, where and sent the fee. In some ways the Navajos are more accomodating then the NPS or non-reservation private lands.

[bshwakr]

__

[restrac2000]

What is the current situation surrounding that Oak drainage? I thought we lost any rational for access with the latest (2010?) law about water rights.

I still hate the idea of folks using a loophole to cut across someone's private land. Hard not to be in their shoes on this one.

I have friends in Moab who have this very issue. Except, its a motorized right of way. Can't fundamentally support that either.

Phillip

[bshwakr]

__

[restrac2000]

Its a shame; that law is overly restrictive and ignores so much honorable American history. I would really love to show my wife and friends that drainage. Its my favorite in the area but I haven't been since I realized/assumed the legality of the situation (way back to 2005 I think). Was more ignorant about my decisions then. It was one of the 2 trips I poached or trespassed; I think. Did a lot of trips back in the day as a participant and never asked many questions; that said, none seem to be questionable except the two.

We have powerful ways of rationalizing our decisions. I just try to limit mine to running my cataraft through massive hydraulics now instead of those decisions that impact others.

Phillip

[darkmatter]

Wow, seems I touched a nerve somehow.

1. "You are disrespecting the Navajo." Not. I am an equal opportunity anti-authoritarian. I tend to be skeptical of the moral legitimacy of bureaucratic edicts regardless of the particular organization the bureaucrat belongs to.

2. "You are trying to legitimize your own poaching." I have never done a canyon on reservation land, and probably never will. There is plenty of undiscovered country, for me, closer to home.

3. "You think locals can override rules from above/afar." I am more questioning than asserting. Still unanswered is whether the closures apply to the Navajo themselves. Next question would be "what about guests", and what would qualify one as a "guest"?

4. "The closures are reasonable." What?? Everybody has their panties in a stone knot over Subway being closed, probably for only a few weeks. These closures are in their second decade. Could we have some consistency, please?

5. "Asking to park at a residence (with payment) is the sort of thing that led to the ban." The examples cited are different things entirely. The advice really is right there in black and white at http://www.navajonationparks.org/permits.htm

[restrac2000]

Wow, seems I touched a nerve somehow.

1. "You are disrespecting the Navajo." Not. I am an equal opportunity anti-authoritarian. I tend to be skeptical of the moral legitimacy of bureaucratic edicts regardless of the particular organization the bureaucrat belongs to.

Not a moral issue from what I understand. I understand the hypothetical nature of you comments but there is no legal question of legitimacy with the Navajo land and permitting.

3. "You think locals can override rules from above/afar." I am more questioning than asserting. Still unanswered is whether the closures apply to the Navajo themselves. Next question would be "what about guests", and what would qualify one as a "guest"?

Not sure how the Navajo regulate technical access to canyons amongst themselves. Never seemed to matter to me since I have never none a Navajo on the reservation who canyoneers. Those questions don't seem to apply to any of us in this context. Not sure how you would find answers.

"The closures are reasonable." What?? Everybody has their panties in a stone knot over Subway being closed, probably for only a few weeks. These closures are in their second decade. Could we have some consistency, please?

There isn't any problem here with consistency because they are fundamentally two different issues. The Subway is regulated by the federal government for which most of us are citizens. They hold it in trust for us. There is also the question of legal precedent and justification for the closure of that resource; really not sure if that will ever be answered because it seems there can be way too much leniency for "authoritarian" measures such as this in the laws that regulate the NPS.

Navajo Lands on the other hand are not managed in trust for us. We are not citizens of the reservation. We have no entitlement to their lands. We have no rights to access, except for motorized right-of-ways. Seems that is were we have to differentiate. Hence, why most of us, philosophically at least, think the Navajo's closing these lands is "reasonable" while holding the opinion that the Subway should not be closed because the park considers it too dangerous.

5. "Asking to park at a residence (with payment) is the sort of thing that led to the ban." The examples cited are different things entirely. The advice really is right there in black and white at http://www.navajonationparks.org/permits.htm

From your previous post I think it is fair to conclude that you were arguing (no matter how hypothetically) that you disagreed with the permit system. It also seems fair to conclude that you thought you could bypass said system by offering money to individuals at the various trailheads, or to those who lived nearby. That would simply be illegal:

"All areas on the Navajo Nation are closed to non-Navajos unless you have a valid camping, hiking or backcountry permit issued by the Navajo Parks and Recreation Department or other duly delegated tribal authority. Failure to have a permit is considered Trespassing on a Federal Indian Reservation."

That is what seems black and white. But maybe we are all just talking past each other.

Phillip

[darkmatter]

I don't have a problem with the permit system.

It is the closures I have an issue with; that they are not in anyone's best interest, that there are better ways to, in the future, mitigate against problems such as those that occurred in the past. And that whatever the "community" has been doing about them to date has not been effective.

[CarpeyBiggs]

that they are not in anyone's best interest

you mean, your best interest?

[restrac2000]

Sorry, have a lot of time on my hands today ...

The current closures may not benefit non-native canyoneers but it obviously does benefit the Navajos. Their interest matters and disqualify the statement that the closure is "not in anyone's interest". It benefits them culturally and financially. It may not be the "best" solution for them but that is their prerogative. We can respectfully provide constructive criticism to them (not sure who that would be sent to) but assuming its our problem to solves smacks of the same American self-interest that dominated native relations for centuries.

Just because we don't have the desired outcome doesn't mean we have been effective. There are a lot of people behind the scenes working diplomatically to either prevent more closures or open negotiations to changes. We have likely been effective as a community. Folks have gone out of their way to make sure their permits are accurate. These types of conversations prevented my selfish alter ego from exploring lands on the south of lake powell on my recent kayaking trip.

There are MANY canyons on the Navajo land that have not been closed yet. We have been effective at preventing worse measures. These canyons could be closed whenever the Navajo decide. I like to think people are more thoughtful in the canyoneering community than before.

All game for different approaches. We can try harder, I get that. We can self-police and educate. The ACA has tried working with their folks in the past as a show of mutual respect. But I don't think talking about patriotic duty to poach canyons makes things better. I don't think calling into the question the "moral authority" of the permitting agency of the Navajo Nation is productive or even respectful of them or their rights.

This may simply come down to the fact that its not always about "us"......

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

Current rules allow packrafting off a backcountry permit up to 5 miles on the Big River. The particular adventure in question involved packrafting a bit further than that to get to the next available exit.

Thanks Tom That is exactly the information I was looking for.

Why do you have to bring me into this?

I actually wasn't even thinking of you when I wrote that post. But I guess if the shoe fits.

This may simply come down to the fact that its not always about "us"......

As for the Indian's and their reoccurring problems with whitey.... maybe the Indian's will learn to fight better next time.

[Bo_Beck]

Simple instructions.

[ratagonia]

1. "You are disrespecting the Navajo." Not. I am an equal opportunity anti-authoritarian. I tend to be skeptical of the moral legitimacy of bureaucratic edicts regardless of the particular organization the bureaucrat belongs to.

I think you mean you are not being prejudicially disrespectful of the Navajo, but spread your disrespect around.

Otherwise, I think Phillip nailed it.

Tom

[Scott Card]

Simple instructions.

Nice Bo.

[ratagonia]

Nice Bo.

How the gators made that sign, I will never know...

T

[Scott Card]

Gators spell better but I think animals do stuff when we aren't lookin.

[Iceaxe]

Enough of this... you're all interrupting my latest endeavor, I'm trying to put together a care package of blankets to send to the Indians.

[darkmatter]

I appreciate your considerate replies, Philip. It's a refreshing contrast to the junk on this thread that is not worth responding to.

Sorry, have a lot of time on my hands today ...

The current closures may not benefit non-native canyoneers but it obviously does benefit the Navajos. Their interest matters and disqualify the statement that the closure is "not in anyone's interest". It benefits them culturally and financially. It may not be the "best" solution for them but that is their prerogative. We can respectfully provide constructive criticism to them (not sure who that would be sent to) but assuming its our problem to solves smacks of the same American self-interest that dominated native relations for centuries.

It is not at all obvious to me how anti-tourism policies could be beneficial to the Navajo.

All game for different approaches. We can try harder, I get that. We can self-police and educate. The ACA has tried working with their folks in the past as a show of mutual respect. But I don't think talking about patriotic duty to poach canyons makes things better. I don't think calling into the question the "moral authority" of the permitting agency of the Navajo Nation is productive or even respectful of them or their rights.

Everyone should constantly question the moral authority of the governing class, especially those that don't have an electorate to answer to. And I don't see why such criticism need be reserved only to one's own government.

For the record, I have not arrived at a position as to whether poaching these particular canyons is just, or politic, or practical. Those offering only insults and invective have certainly not been convincing.

[Scott Card]

It's a refreshing contrast to the junk on this thread that is not worth responding to.

I resemble...wait strike that. I RESENT your statement!

[ratagonia]

It is not at all obvious to me how anti-tourism policies could be beneficial to the Navajo.

You lack imagination.

Maybe they want to be LEFT THE FRAK ALONE for a change.

Perhaps you have no appreciation for the history. May I recommend: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Navajo-Ra...5157516&sr=8-1

Tom