Canyoneering Arches NP

[Iceaxe]

I am writing you because either myself, LE Ranger Nathan Plants, or Supervisory LE Ranger Mike Henry has communicated with you in regards to canyoneering in Arches, the CCMP, safety, or resource protection information over the past year(s).

As you know, part of the CCMP action items are to increase messaging to better educate and inform canyoneers of resource impacts and mitigations.

The CCMP states "Access routes will be delineated and maintained as necessary to minimize impacts on park resources and values. Results of resource assessments and monitoring will be used to determine management strategies for access routes. Short sections of routes may be maintained to prevent erosion or other resource degradation. In some instances signs may be placed to direct climbers and canyoneers away from problem or sensitive areas in order to protect resources. Signs or cairns will only be erected to protect resources or for safety concerns. Access trails to the bases of well-known and heavily used climbing routes and access trails to canyoneering routes may be identified on a map, delineated and maintained in order to prevent further erosion and loss of vegetation. No more than one access route up/down a slope to the base of a climb, area, or canyon will be allowed. Social trails that are used infrequently or that traverse sensitive soils will be rehabilitated or blocked to discourage future use.

[jman]

Interesting.

Personally, I'm glad the park has sanctioned and placed cairns and signs as a official route into the canyon compared to hiding the resource and trying to make it "hidden" or gasp..."secret!".

I'm always in favor of more and better education when it comes to canyoneering routes. This should help mitigate unneeded erosion.

[RAM]

Its up on the Coalition of American Canyoneers web site too.
Good news all around. They are following through nicely on the projects they have discussed. The less resource damage, the better for all
http://www.americancanyoneers.org/ar...update-012715/

[Iceaxe]

Education is the key... now we need to do our part and help make this work. It's nice to see Arches NP attempting to work with canyoneers in a constructive and cooperative approach.

[jman]

Education is they key... now we need to do our part and help make this work. It's nice to see Arches NP attempting to work with canyoneers in a constructive and cooperative approach.

I agree. Arches has framed themselves up correctly, in my opinion, for a good canyoneering presence.

Although arches has tiny, mini slots - they too need management, especially given how easy the access is to these canyons.

Arches NP did it right by not outright banning canyoneering altogether but allowed to persist while they monitored our actions (read: erosion, vandalism and resource protection) and words on the forums.

They also did it right by not charging for a permit out-right. I assume this will evolve and change over the years - but for now, this is a great thing.

They also did it right by, again, better educating the hordes and creating/maintaining social routes into and out of the canyons.

Anyways, like Shane said earlier with Arches NP being cooperative with us and, if I may add, not seeing us as the enemy, is very telling of its current management. :)

[qedcook]

Education is they key...

Education is THEY key.

Irony, anyone? :)

[Iceaxe]

Education is THEY key.

Irony, anyone? :)

That's what you get when trying to post from a smartphone in a third country with sporadic cell service...

[TommyBoy]

That's what you get when trying to post from a smartphone in a third country with sporadic cell service...

Thats right just rub in the fact that you're in the Caribbean and we're not. Lucky bastard

[Iceaxe]

FWIW- the NPS already had a little chat with me about publishing any more routes inside Arches NP. They didn't exactly tell me I couldn't do it, and with our little freedom of speech and press thingy there is really no way of stopping me... but they could ticket you for following any new routes I publish...

The NPS was actually really nice in the way they asked/told me, but it still kind of rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. On the flip side the park has been great with keeping all of our current routes open, free and with few regulations.

When the Lost Springs routes hit the inter-web's it caught the NPS a little off guard as they we planning on managing that section of the park as a remote and seldom visited area. And suddenly the area was seeing more visitors in a month than had visited in a year.

Two sides to every story I guess...

[lucach]

FWIW- the NPS already had a little chat with me about publishing any more routes inside Arches NP. They didn't exactly tell me I couldn't do it, and with our little freedom of speech and press thingy there is really no way of stopping me... but they could ticket you for following any new routes I publish...

The NPS was actually really nice in the way they asked/told me, but it still kind of rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. On the flip side the park has been great with keeping all of our current routes open, free and with few regulations.

When the Lost Springs routes hit the inter-web's it caught the NPS a little off guard as they we planning on managing that section of the park as a remote and seldom visited area. And suddenly the area was seeing more visitors in a month than had visited in a year.

Two sides to every story I guess...

Iceaxe, if I may ask, what were the reason for NPS to ask you to keep routes secret?
I know, I know... most people uses the "secret" motivated by alter motives: "to prorect the canyon".
But there's already a permit system to protect some of these locations (ie: Fiery Furnace) and regulations of what you can and cannot do (ie: Delicate Arch). If an area is really that delicate, it should just be closed to access for EVERYONE period.

Why the additional layer of keeping routes secret then? What's the real motive?
I have seen rangers acting to keep a canyon secret and unregulated in other National Park (Death Valley, Zion, etc.), telling people it was not a good canyon and not worth the effort, forbidding others to post about it, while telling their friends it was AWESOME and giving them all the information. It worries me whenever I see public officials assuming these type of behaviors, being them politicians or rangers, it just does not seem right to me. But maybe it's only me.

[Iceaxe]

The NPS never asked me to keep routes secret, they asked me not to post them... which might sound like the same thing to you but they are different, at least to me. For example I've never posted Lomation or Krill, but I've also never kept it secret.

I understood that what the NPS really wanted was to approve any new route before it was posted and the chances they would approve a new route similar to Big Horn or Dragon Fly was not very good for a number of reasons. I do understand the parks reasoning from their point of view. The NPS is always looking at how best to manage with limited resources.... or in my opinion they want to keep 99% of the people contained in 10% of the park because that makes their job objectives possible.

I hope that all makes sense.

[Kurly_Q]

I see and understand both sides. It's definitely an interesting problem. I like that the NPS is working with the canyoneers and not separately.

Personally, I like the "not published but not secret" mentality.

This is the way I think of it: Beginners can start in the more popular canyons that are already published and impacted by extensive use (while hopefully limiting their impact). As beginners gain more experience and get more involved in the activity, their investment in the preservation of these places is increased. They learn more low-impact techniques and more technical ropework to improve their personal safety. At the same time, they will probably become part of the canyoneering community.

Once they have exhausted the list of publically viewable, published canyons, they can ask members of the community about other canyons.

Then, by the time they get to these "secret" canyons that are possibly more fragile and remote, they will know how to limit their impact and keep themselves safe or at least rescue themselves from a remote location.

I hope that makes sense.