Subway Permits

[Brian in SLC]

Eaton Canyon (popular for hiking and canyoneering) is the poster child for no regulation.

Not sure the Subway and Eaton are comparable. I've never been to Eaton, but, its what, a .4 mile hike to the falls (a main attraction?)? And, given the closures for some of the hiking nearby, it's getting crowds to be sure. Kinda near a large population center, too.

Zion and the Subway? Much longer and harder hike into the Subway. I'm guessing folks also buy a pass to get into the park too.

Zion and the So Cal canyons are very very different, methinks. And, different in terms of the folks that visit, too.

Having hiked/climbed at Ortega Falls in Orange County...yeah, that made me sick. But, I don't see any places, permit or no, in Zion that resembles that kind of mess.

[UtahAdventureGuide]

one of these days I'm going to win the lottery for 12 and then get a walk on permit for the other 12 so I can have the entire canyon to myself. Just like the old days :)

[Krrristi]

We let hundreds of folks traipse through the Subway every other day.

Or like 60. Get rid of the permit system and it will be hundreds.

Do you really think they'll be much more damage to this "pristine" environment? I don't think the permit system has anything to do with the environment, per se, but, the "VE" in the "VERP".

As far as designating Goose Creek as an RNA...I'd have picked a canyon system that didn't get any traffic, versus a reasonably popular canyon route that was confined to the bottom of the watercourse. You think folks "trample" that environment? Really? Is there an erosion concern at the bottom of the canyon? Social trails? 'Cause, I just don't see that.

I'm not familiar with this "VERP" you speak of.
Canyons are really delicate areas because they're isolated. Hundreds of people peeing and crapping in there, tons of sunscreen oiling up the water, rope grooves, trekking pole grooves.... Permit system may not have to do with the environment as far as conservation is concerned, but it definitely is in part to limit human impacts on the canyons.

I don't understand why people get all huffy about the permit system. I don't mind it...it gives the whole experience more significance, because you have to be LUCKY to get to go. It's a National Park, there have to be regulations in place. There are tons of places we can go that don't require permits, so it shouldn't be an enormous deal to have to compete for Zion. I've been able to get every permit I've wanted, even if I have to plan way in advance or be flexible with the dates. Not such a big deal.

Of course, that's just the lotteries and online reservations. The early morning wait in line thing seems silly, but is a good way to give away unclaimed permits. And it sucks when people who aren't going to do the whole canyon suck up 12 of the permits. But I think maybe people don't give NPS enough credit....they know what they're doing, even if it's not perfect, and they're doing it to make access to America's parks fair and enjoyable for everyone.

[ratagonia]

Wow Krrristi - you kinda go at it...

I support a daily quota in the 60-80 range for the Subway, but...

I agree without a daily quota, the canyon would be overused. However, I would like the quota set based on actual science, rather than what we have now, which is a number pulled out of the air. The Park HAS specific encounter rate goals, which may or may not make sense. But there has been little to no study on 1. whether those encounter rate goals are appropriate or 2. what encounter rates the current system generates.

Past the encounter rates, there can be concerns about the Resource exceeding its recoverable use limits... again, not something well-studied.

Or like 60. Get rid of the permit system and it will be hundreds.

I agree. But, ...

I'm not familiar with this "VERP" you speak of.

VERP is the process the National Park Service uses (in theory) for managing backcountry areas.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...zDhi92HtsDTm2w

Canyons are really delicate areas because they're isolated. Hundreds of people peeing and crapping in there, tons of sunscreen oiling up the water, rope grooves, trekking pole grooves.... Permit system may not have to do with the environment as far as conservation is concerned, but it definitely is in part to limit human impacts on the canyons.

Uh, in a word, no.

Canyons are robust. They refresh themselves with flash floods, once, twice, ten times a year. In drought less so. But really, the canyons themselves are not very delicate. When we canyoneer, we do so on hard surfaces and continually refreshed surfaces. Away for the canyon, the approach and deproach trails can be a significant problem, and are a problem at the Subway... although, really, the problem is an aesthetic one, not really an environmental one.

People don't poop in canyons, they poop in bags. This is an education problem, not an overuse problem. Peeing in there? Not really a problem. Tons of sunscreen - hyperbole will get you nowhere - it just makes you look ridiculous. (In pristine areas with no spring-fed flow, yes, sunscreen and body oils can have a significant impact on the environment).

I don't understand why people get all huffy about the permit system. I don't mind it...it gives the whole experience more significance, because you have to be LUCKY to get to go. It's a National Park, there have to be regulations in place. There are tons of places we can go that don't require permits, so it shouldn't be an enormous deal to have to compete for Zion. I've been able to get every permit I've wanted, even if I have to plan way in advance or be flexible with the dates. Not such a big deal.

Of course, that's just the lotteries and online reservations. The early morning wait in line thing seems silly, but is a good way to give away unclaimed permits. And it sucks when people who aren't going to do the whole canyon suck up 12 of the permits. But I think maybe people don't give NPS enough credit....they know what they're doing, even if it's not perfect, and they're doing it to make access to America's parks fair and enjoyable for everyone.

Because it is OUR National Park, not their's, and the PURPOSE of the Park is to provide recreation. And because they manage the system poorly, and make no show of caring. Because ...

Sorry, can't get it all in the 10 minutes available. If you don't know, then you haven't been paying attention, or deliberately ignore the ranting common on this forum.

Tom

[Brian in SLC]

Or like 60. Get rid of the permit system and it will be hundreds.

I guess over a couple days, that 60 is hundreds. Not sure a significant diffference in impact.

The hike itself is limiting and, that it's in a park makes it so too.

I'm not familiar with this "VERP" you speak of.

Get involved with enough land managers and their plans and it becomes important to know.

Vistor Experience Resource Protection. When you're offerring comment or contructive criticism to the park, it helps to put it into language they understand.

But I think maybe people don't give NPS enough credit....they know what they're doing, even if it's not perfect, and they're doing it to make access to America's parks fair and enjoyable for everyone.

They try, I guess. The process can be frustrating.

Cheers.

[Krrristi]

It would be nice for the quota to be based on actual science...that would help appease people. I fully admit I don't know anything about NPS and their management techniques; I'm fairly new to canyoneering and brand new to this forum, and although I have seen a lot of talk about Zion not listening to canyoneers, I kind of agree with Tanya that a lot of it is just "no more permits!" with not many solutions offered, thus why I responded with a "they're trying." But maybe not hard enough, I don't know. I am naive and like to think everyone is doing the best they can and have good intentions. That gets me in trouble a lot.

Thanks to both of you VERP info...I'll look at that today while I pretend to work, so next time I launch myself into a debate I know what I'm talking about :)

As far as canyon recovery & robustness, I see your point Tom. I'm from Phoenix and I haven't completely replaced the image of rocky, brushy, low-water canyons with smooth sandstone narrows....which is, of course, what this thread is about so I apologize. However, even though slot canyons are repeatedly flushed out, it wouldn't be a far stretch to imagine all the oils and stuff coating the walls or sinking to the bottom of potholes and never getting wiped away. What about the micro organisms in the Subway that give it that cool glow? It is an isolated eco-system and while it is adapted to being flushed with water, it's unfair (poor microbes ) to assume that it can handle lots of human traffic without being affected. I do believe there is a difference in impact between 60 & hundreds of people per day...maybe not visible impacts to the land & stone, but to the canyon environment as a whole. But that's the conservation biologist in me, and probably isn't much of a concern for NPS people.

As for pooping in bags....this may be where YOU, Tom, have too much faith in people :) I read a few days ago about a floater left in a pothole... Obviously TP blossoms are more prevalent in dry brushy canyons around Phoenix, but poo is a problem in Zion....isn't that why they began handing out the bags in the first place? And pee...well, again maybe not as much of an issue in canyons that flood repeatedly, but I read this book about Zion canyoneering once which told me to pee only in water, because the smell persists for months on dry land... :) An education issue, sure, but permits help weed out people who don't know how to behave themselves in back country.

[Brian in SLC]

An education issue, sure, but permits help weed out people who don't know how to behave themselves in back country.

My gut tells me that isn't completely true. Folks have different motivations for being in the backcountry in the first place. Some emphasis isn't on "good behavior" relative to the backcountry itself.

Big tent...

[ratagonia]

It would be nice for the quota to be based on actual science...that would help appease people. I fully admit I don't know anything about NPS and their management techniques; I'm fairly new to canyoneering and brand new to this forum, and although I have seen a lot of talk about Zion not listening to canyoneers, I kind of agree with Tanya that a lot of it is just "no more permits!" with not many solutions offered, thus why I responded with a "they're trying." But maybe not hard enough, I don't know. I am naive and like to think everyone is doing the best they can and have good intentions. That gets me in trouble a lot.

Thanks to both of you VERP info...I'll look at that today while I pretend to work, so next time I launch myself into a debate I know what I'm talking about :)

As far as canyon recovery & robustness, I see your point Tom. I'm from Phoenix and I haven't completely replaced the image of rocky, brushy, low-water canyons with smooth sandstone narrows....which is, of course, what this thread is about so I apologize. However, even though slot canyons are repeatedly flushed out, it wouldn't be a far stretch to imagine all the oils and stuff coating the walls or sinking to the bottom of potholes and never getting wiped away. What about the micro organisms in the Subway that give it that cool glow? It is an isolated eco-system and while it is adapted to being flushed with water, it's unfair (poor microbes ) to assume that it can handle lots of human traffic without being affected. I do believe there is a difference in impact between 60 & hundreds of people per day...maybe not visible impacts to the land & stone, but to the canyon environment as a whole. But that's the conservation biologist in me, and probably isn't much of a concern for NPS people.

As for pooping in bags....this may be where YOU, Tom, have too much faith in people :) I read a few days ago about a floater left in a pothole... Obviously TP blossoms are more prevalent in dry brushy canyons around Phoenix, but poo is a problem in Zion....isn't that why they began handing out the bags in the first place? And pee...well, again maybe not as much of an issue in canyons that flood repeatedly, but I read this book about Zion canyoneering once which told me to pee only in water, because the smell persists for months on dry land... :) An education issue, sure, but permits help weed out people who don't know how to behave themselves in back country.

The Subway is springfed, so it is not a matter of flushing, the canon continually flushes. Oils, pee, etc, continually diluted and flushed by the springs.

No, that is a concern of the NPS people. I think there is a limit to how many people can go through the canyon with only acceptable impacts. VERP was developed from the Forest Service program called Limits of Acceptable Change, which I think is a more-honest name for the process. There's a lot to say on this issue - perhaps around a compfire with some of that Captain Morgan Truth Serum would be a better venue than here.

Tom

[Felicia]

Does anyone know if the Park is willing to change the permit process?

Regarding the current permit system that is in place, let's assume that the permit number stays the same at a total of 80 per day, how would you suggest improving the system?

I'd like to get rid of the "line-up at the back-county window" for the non reservable permits. I'd suggest either:

1) run the system similar to the Wave permits via bingo balls the morning, but a day before the trip date. This system would allow people to arrive and get in the drawing within a short time frame. People will know if they have plans for the next day, and will still have energy to enjoy the present day.

2) all permits are through the reservation system. If you do not win, you will know well before your trip. You will know what your plans will be and you can be rested and prepared to enjoy Zion; with/without seeing The Subway.

Comments?

[Bo_Beck]

Did the Subway on Friday and was asked to show our permit 4 times. Once before we even pulled into the parking lot.

Did they pull your vehicle over and how did they check for a permit before you had even pulled into the parking lot?

Twice inside the canyon, and again when we exited. One of the rangers was on a serious power trip and was very demanding.

Power Trip? Explain if you don't mind what constitutes a power trip? Did he (she) threaten you with arrest or what?

Do they really issue enough citations to justify the salaries and new SUVs for all these rangers?

Do you know what pay Law Enforcement Rangers bring home? Have you ever ridden in one of these "new" SUV's?

or is this just another example of government control and waste?

Do you have employment, and or are you self employed? Are there policies that you abide by at your workplace? What do your superiors or customers think when you don't follow one of your own policies?

I just think this permit system is a complete joke.

Many people feel the same. Now that you've voiced your opinion, do you feel warm and fuzzy? I'd like to see changes as well, but for now it's what exists.

[Bo_Beck]

Uh, in a word, no.
People don't poop in canyons, they poop in bags.
If you don't know, then you haven't been paying attention, or deliberately ignore the ranting common on this forum.
Tom

Uh, in a word, no.
People do POOH in canyons. 2 years ago. My birthday party was in the Subway. I agreed to take nitrile gloves and a garbage bag to do clean-up along the way. Just after the descent on the slabs beyond Russell Gulch, low and behold....a Hanes brief full of caca in the middle of the trail. I was lonely for the rest of the hike on my birthday. Mystery Canyon 3 weeks ago....looking for a possible short haul location for a broken ankle survivor....voila another pile of POOH with TP on top just above the naturally flushed canyon floor. Wanna see the impact Tom? Just step off the trail a few meters sometime and maybe it'll open your eyes? Oh yeah...stepping off the trail (canyon floor) is taboo, but it does happen.

As for the ranting......these people have justification; they've never been part of the problem. Totally "leave no trace" folks and if we all would just live up to their standards and tread in their footsteps these canyons would show no evidence of use at all! It would be nice if all things were perfect, but they're not. Until then.....well it's just not perfect (permit system included).

[airman]

One simple way to improve the permit system would be to make it easier to cancel/reduce the size of a permit reservation. Online would be nice. Or, maybe the Backcountry Desk could start answering the phone. I wonder how many permit reservations are wasted because people simply don't make the effort to cancel/modify their reservation.

Yes, I know you are supposed to call the Backcountry Desk if your group size changes. But do they actually free those slots up for other people to use?

Sometimes I wonder if my efforts to cancel a reservation (leaving a message on the Backcountry Desk answering machine) actually ends up benefitting someone else.

[outdoor love]

I recall the original post saying that he was harassed 4 times. I have experienced the Rangers in the Subway numerous times, Most of the Rangers are licking there chops to write tickets (not all but most in my experience). I do believe that 4 times is an excessive amount. I do not mind getting permits. What I mind is the price of permits. I do not believe that the money I spend for heaps or behunin or many other canyons is ever put into that canyon. Back country money is not put back into the back country and that is where I find it offensive. Rangers you have a great job in a beautiful place. Please treat the people you encounter as customers and with respect. Remember who pays your salary!

[ratagonia]

I recall the original post saying that he was harassed 4 times. I have experienced the Rangers in the Subway numerous times, Most of the Rangers are licking there chops to write tickets (not all but most in my experience). I do believe that 4 times is an excessive amount. I do not mind getting permits. What I mind is the price of permits. I do not believe that the money I spend for heaps or behunin or many other canyons is ever put into that canyon. Back country money is not put back into the back country and that is where I find it offensive. Rangers you have a great job in a beautiful place. Please treat the people you encounter as customers and with respect. Remember who pays your salary!

I LIKE that they don't spend the money in the Wilderness. What you want, stairs down the Mystery approach? etc...

Your permit fee covers some of the costs of manning the permit desk and issuing the permits, period.

Tom

[chipper.chap]

New to Bogley. Doing the subway hike this Sunday. I was supposed to have two cars and not worry about shuttling, but my buddy had to bail. Is there a forum to see if anyone wants to shuttle to avoid paying for it. Thanks.

On the subject at hand. Permit systme is nessecarry but flawed. The Whitney permit system is ridiculous too. Especially since you need one for the Mountaineers route now. I think internet has allowed more people to discover these places, which is great, but floods them.

[reflection]

History - Perspective.

Left Fork of North Creek (Subway). 30 Years ago one could camp overnite in the place. Remote and not on the radar. Kelsey and his first "canyons" section in his mountaineering book though put Subway on the map, and walla, 300-400 people started showing up on the weekends, bottom up and top down. Mid canyon, at the falls for instance, the place was a veritable circus of people, noise, waste and debris. Some tried to leave no trace, others, out for the adventure or trek, didn't care much for the environment. Some/much of the canyon, took a beating (while some of the canyon, years later, particularly in the watercourse was not that much impacted).

In the decades that folllowed, more guide books, web sites, internet, and digital cameras and "posting", changed the human interest dimension, demand and visitation re the canyon.

The current permit process and some of the park quota numbers, along with "some of the rangers" demeanor and style has always been a concern. (some of the rangers are courteous and personable, while others are militaristic and martinets.)

In my view, some quota for the Left Fork should exist. I like the suggestion of allocating X number of visitors from the top, and Y number from the bottom. And, the park should facilitate an easy process for folk to report changes re numbers or non use of permits - this so others can participate and take slots.

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection - VERP. Ubiquitous and often wobbly views re what this does or doesn't mean to visitors or park staff. Views can be all over the map.

Many of us have been in the Left Fork some 25-30 times in the past two decades.; in the past decade we often try to dodge the final walk/scramble and go for the "3 Russell raps", Das Boot or a "longer upper L Fork". We like it with lotsa water (scares most away) and with as few people as possible. But the place is on the "map" (big time") and so expectations have (should) dramatically changed.

Once upon a time, no sign of a user trail down into Russell Gulch. And the final exit, a bit of an adventure. Folks visiting for the first time though? It's still a beautiful place, and some can enjoy enjoy it, and others can whine about the heat or distance (or their less than leisurly encounter with a "not so warm" ranger).

And how to tweek, adjust or modify the system for the Left Fork or elsewhere? Park Service has to feel pressure and be motivated. Only parties that can often do that are politicians or high in the food chain govt officials. Until then the line "Most like the permit system" is offered by Park officials; And the occasional tawdry demeanor of rangers? Unless there are many witnesses or video, complaints fall on deaf ears; there are exceptions though; some have been reprimanded and/or not re-hired. (And I'll repeat again; there are many fine, courteous and professional people with the park, and of course, there are some daunting "dark angels" too, that are sometimes less than "civil" with those in the canyoneering community.)

[ratagonia]

And how to tweek, adjust or modify the system for the Left Fork or elsewhere? Park Service has to feel pressure and be motivated. Only parties that can often do that are politicians or high in the food chain govt officials. Until then the line "Most like the permit system" is offered by Park officials; And the occasional tawdry demeanor of rangers? Unless there are many witnesses or video, complaints fall on deaf ears; there are exceptions though; some have been reprimanded and/or not re-hired. (And I'll repeat again; there are many fine, courteous and professional people with the park, and of course, there are some daunting "dark angels" too, that are sometimes less than "civil" with those in the canyoneering community.)

I'd like to add another tweak to the complaint -

My problem is not with the individual LE Rangers - I have almost always found them courteous and professional. I have a problem with management decisions, with the job they are being tasked with - make LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTACT with people enjoying the Park. Entirely inappropriate. How about turning this job over to Backcountry Rangers, and having them make a NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FRIENDLY BACKCOUNTRY RANGER contact with people out enjoying the Park. Our Park. That would be appropriate.

The purpose of the permit system is to support an outstanding Wilderness Experience for visitors to THEIR Park. Enforcement actions that conflict with this goal are inappropriate.

Tom

[Felicia]

History - Perspective.

Thank you for your comments. :-)

[canyoncaver]

Because it is OUR National Park, not their's, and the PURPOSE of the Park is to provide recreation.

While I agree that it is the peoples' park, not the rangers', I believe that you are confused on the basic PURPOSE of the park. National Parks are set aside in order to preserve resources first, and also to provide for public enjoyment if that can be done in a way that is consistent with preserving resources. Courts have consistently upheld that when conservation and enjoyment come into conflict, that conservation is to be the predominant concern. You don't have to like this or agree with this, but it is the law as it is currently being interpreted and implemented. So saying that the park's purpose is to provide recreation is not strictly true.

For the record, I support quotas, but I think that all the permits should be free. I also totally agree that being questioned by a cop every time I go canyoneering in Zion seriously detracts from my wilderness experience, and my willingness to support the park. Guilty until proven innocent, it often seems. Show us yer papers....

[ratagonia]

While I agree that it is the peoples' park, not the rangers', I believe that you are confused on the basic PURPOSE of the park. National Parks are set aside in order to preserve resources first, and also to provide for public enjoyment if that can be done in a way that is consistent with preserving resources. Courts have consistently upheld that when conservation and enjoyment come into conflict, that conservation is to be the predominant concern. You don't have to like this or agree with this, but it is the law as it is currently being interpreted and implemented. So saying that the park's purpose is to provide recreation is not strictly true.

For the record, I support quotas, but I think that all the permits should be free. I also totally agree that being questioned by a cop every time I go canyoneering in Zion seriously detracts from my wilderness experience, and my willingness to support the park. Guilty until proven innocent, it often seems. Show us yer papers....

True, oh caver-canyoneer.

The first purpose of the Park Service is to preserve the natural environment for the enjoyment of future generations. The Park takes this mandate seriously, and it has been tested in court, and the Park Service won, ie, the court confirmed that that is the first purpose.

The purposes of ZION are to:
• Preserve the dynamic natural process of canyon formation as an extraordinary example of
canyon erosion.
• Preserve and protect the scenic beauty and unique geologic features: the labyrinth of
remarkable canyons, volcanic phenomena, fossiliferous deposits, brilliantly colored strata,
and rare sedimentation.
• Preserve the archeological features that pertain to the prehistoric races of America and the
ancestral Indian tribes.
• Preserve the entire area intact for the purpose of scientific research and the enjoyment and
enlightenment of the public.
• Provide a variety of opportunities and a range of experiences, from solitude to high use, to
assist visitors in learning about and enjoying park resources without degrading those
resources.
...
The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1a-1) creates the NPS, and
establishes its purpose being, to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. It directs the NPS to
promote and regulate the use of the parks by such means and measures as conform to their
fundamental purposes.
...
National Park Service Management Policies, 2006 establishes Servicewide policies for
preservation, management, and use of park resources and facilities, and guidelines and direction
for the management of NPS wilderness. The NPS will manage wilderness areas for the use and
enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use
and enjoyment as wilderness. Management will include the protection of these areas, the
preservation of their wilderness character, and the gathering and dissemination of information
regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. The public purpose of wilderness in the
national parks includes the preservation of wilderness character and wilderness resources in an
unimpaired condition, as well as for the purposes of recreation, scenic, scientific, education,
conservation, and historical use.

More reading available here:

http://www.canyoneeringusa.com/zcc/ZIONGoodParts.pdf

So saying that the park's purpose is to provide recreation is not strictly true.

I think FactCheck would give me "Mostly True". Incomplete, perhaps misleading, but technically true as stated.

But, mostly the permit system is designed to prevent social crowding. In the Pristine Zone Canyons (Narrows, Subway, Orderville, Pine Creek), it is also there to keep traffic to a level where physical impacts are acceptable. Which is why I think a permit/quota system is appropriate for these specific areas. Not necessarily managed the way it is now.

Perhaps you will disagree, CC, but I think once the system is in place, enthusiastic Law Enforcement of the regulations is inconsistent with the goals of the permit system. If the goals of the system can be met by a sparse application of Law Enforcement resources, then that is what should take place. Yes, some people will cheat, and get away with it. So? B - F - D!

Tom