Grand Canyon Response

[Wolf]

Here is the follow-on letter from the National Park Service ref the Deer Creek closure. Last month Rich Rudow attended a teleconference with the other interested parties.

http://www.americancanyoneers.org/gr...on-response-2/

WOLF

[Iceaxe]

Here is the direct link to the PDF reply:

http://www.americancanyoneers.org/wp.../09/DOC091.pdf

I'm beginning to think Backcountry Management Plan is National Park code for "we will do whatever we want"... YMMV...

[2065toyota]

That seems to be the entire government from the top down at this point. No accountability at all

[Wolf]

It's not going to change unless everyone raises a stink about it. Without Rich, the river runners, and other organizations saying this is BS, the superintendent would just close Deer Creek and that would be that. He can justify any action, just look at the beginning of the letter. No public comment, nothing. Where do you draw the line in the sand?

WOLF

[Iceaxe]

Just tell us where and when to send our letters....

Sent using Tapatalk

[ratagonia]

I think this response from Drifter Smith (on Grand Canyon Hikers forum) probably nails it pretty well:

Well, he's only been there about a year now...and had just arrived on the scene
when the Deer Creek decision was made. Obviously someone fed him some nonsense,
and he accepted it as fact.

It would be really great if we were to find out who took advantage of the new
Superintendent. I can't think of another way to describe it.

But someone clearly did, and (for whatever reason) his staff did not have the
intelligence, knowledge, or opportunity to let him know that the Deer Creek
decision would be extremely controversial. Or perhaps more likely, they did,
but were intimidated by whomever it was who was imposing their own agenda on an
unsuspecting and innocent new Superintendent.

Someone who did not particularly care for hikers, canyoneers, or river runners -
took advantage of a new Superintendent to impose their own agenda of appeasing
the tribes. I don't know who this was, but there are a pretty limited number of
possible candidates...and whoever it was, I sure hope they get what they
deserve.

Superintendent Uberuaga has been put in a pretty bad light, but to his credit he
has stood behind his staff rather than letting the blame fall where it belongs.
I sure hope that behind the scenes a head - or heads - roll.

- Drifter Smith

[Wolf]

Tom,
I disagree with your assessment. I don't believe the superintendent is so unsuspecting and innocent. He has worked at Mt Rainier, and Yosemite for a combined 35 yrs of service. He is very well seasoned. I think he thought he could get away with it and gain political favor from certain groups.

WOLF

[Mountaineer]

I've seen some dialog that this was closed due to religious reasons? Maybe? So politics aside, which reason are they citing for closing it? If we can get them to tell us the root reason, we can properly address it.

36 CFR 1.5 (a) states they can limit or schedule it's use (or the most extreme close it) only if:

• public health and safety
• protection of environmental or scenic values
• protection of natural or cultural resources
• aid to scientific or cultural resources
• aid to scientific research
• implementation of management responsibilities
• equitable allocation and use of facilities
• avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities

Which one are they claiming?

[ratagonia]

I've seen some dialog that this was closed due to religious reasons? Maybe? So politics aside, which reason are they citing for closing it? If we can get them to tell us the root reason, we can properly address it.

36 CFR 1.5 (a) states they can limit or schedule it's use (or the most extreme close it) only if:

• public health and safety
• protection of environmental or scenic values
• protection of natural or cultural resources
• aid to scientific or cultural resources
• aid to scientific research
• implementation of management responsibilities
• equitable allocation and use of facilities
• avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities

Which one are they claiming?

The gorge, which is regularly filled with surging flood water, was closed to protect cultural resources.

The NPS has learned to describe closures for religious purposes (religious sensitivities) as "cultural resources", because closing public land for one sect's religious sensitivities is clearly illegal. In this case, it is quite a stretch, as any actual cultural resources are intellectual in nature, rather than physical.

Tom