Canyoneering death in the Subway

[ratagonia]

Au contraire, though I will concede that the permit system is not the only reason that guiding is banned in the park, it is a very major reason from the park's point of view, and based on visitor surveys it is THE major reason according to visitors (aka us, "our community"). The creation of the new backcountry management plan a few years ago essentially created a blank slate to re-evaluate guiding in the park regardless of the status quo before then. From the Zion BMP, appendix E (bolding is mine):

Should commercial guiding be allowed in the Primitive Zone?
172 comments received on this topic

• 37 percent (from form letter) stated that commercial guiding should not be allowed
• 45 percent (not form letters) stated that commercial guiding should not be allowed
• 15 percent stated that commercial guiding should be allowed
• 3 percent had no clear stand on commercial guiding
• The most frequent reason given by those opposed to guiding was concern that commercial operations would take all available permits. Many of those who indicated a support for commercial guiding indicated that a system should be put in place that eliminates competition between private and commercial groups for permits.
• The second most common reason given by those opposed to guiding was a belief that commercial operations do not have a place in Zion’s backcountry, and that there are other areas outside of Zion available for the activity.
• Those in favor of guiding commented on the ability of guides to promote safe canyoneering and resource conservation.

--

Further in Appendix E, ZNP gives its rationale for banning guides:

A permit system is currently in place to keep use levels at, or near, proposed social or resource standards for canyoneering trips as well as overnight trips in the Primitive Zone.... An additional group of users would put additional pressure on all areas within the Primitive Zone.

Due to the lack of demand for guided trips as well as the existing high levels of use, commercial use of the Primitive Zone is not appropriate.

MDD: This is Zion National Park basically saying that guides are banned because adding an additional "user group" (i.e., guided parties) would put too much pressure on quotas set by the permit system.

M

I think ZNP did a good job of manipulating the Backcountry Management Plan to cut off any meaningful discussion of guiding in the backcountry.

"Due to the lack of demand for guided trips as well as the existing high levels of use, commercial use of the Primitive Zone is not appropriate."

1. The Park assessed demand for guided trips by surveying non-guided backcountry users, and found no demand. Not a surprise. (As a similar example, I have surveyed my Sierra Club friends, and find little support for Mr. Romney; therefore there is little support for Mr. Romney?);
2. The Park DECLARED that existing use levels in the backcountry were "high". They presented no evidence to support this claim. It is a declaration. I don't find use level in the backcountry to be high - in all but a few highly-sought after routes, use in the backcountry of Zion is extremely low.

In the Backcountry Plan, when the 'survey' supports the Park position, the Park makes it clear that 'the users voted' that way, as if it was a matter of tallying the votes. When the Park position is contrary to how the users 'voted', then the Park ignores the votes. So, the Park is very willing to use survey results as an EXCUSE for taking a particular action, but it is naive to claim that the Park takes ANY action because it represents the opinion of the populace. The Park does what it darn well pleases, and finds and excuse, however flimsy, whereever it can.

Tom

[ratagonia]

(from the article linked above)

Seems like this article is making it around the country. It caught my attention the first time I saw it. Looks like an attempt to use this incident to allow guiding in Zion.

You give Mike too much credence. He inopportunely took a jab at the park management. He mouthed off. Simple as that.

Tom

[Scott P]

The NPS in many parks (Rainier, Tetons) originally provided the guides as part of their 'service'.

Many still do (even on semi-technical stuff).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, personally, I don't think the Subway should be guided. I even find the quotas of 80 per day as really reasonable. As much as most of us don't like to get a permit, on a canyon such as the Subway, there almost has to be a limit on how many people are in there at once. Some routes might not matter, but in my opinion, the Subway doesn't fit that criteria.

[SRG]

"What is "the whole idea"?

I always thought that "the whole idea" was that the National Parks would be set aside for the enjoyment and recreation of the people.

I object to guiding on NTL Park land on the same principle which I object to drilling for oil on NTL Park land... because the resources of our parks shouldn't be open for private/for-profit consumption.

My comparison between drilling for oil and commercial guiding is on principle only. I understand that when it comes to impact on the parks, there is no comparison.

[mtn_dude]

SAR doesn't typically launch for over due hikers...You need to differentiate between "commercial guiding" and friendship guiding.

As for SAR not getting out the day of, I was thinking that if permits were more focused on safety of people in the backcountry and not quotas. they might have done something right away.
The commercial guides/friend guides I was being facetious.
But I do feel that commercial guiding in Zion isn't a bad thing, except it would open the Zion Superintendent to ridicule (and a pissing fest between locals) for not allowing certain companies and allegedly favoring others. Will commercial guiding be available soon in Zion Backcountry, doubtful.

[Aj84737]

I don't think commercial guiding should be allowed in Zion either! There are plenty of canyons outside the park that are fine for guiding. Sadly enough I do kinda like having quotas though. Not saying the permit system is perfect cause we all know it's far from it. But these canyons are far more enjoyable when you don't have to wait for three groups of people to rappel ahead of you at every rappel in pine creek for example. Think of how bad the subway or pine creek would be without a quota. However on the other end canyons like mystery need the stars and planets to align to get a permit in peak season so they could use a few more permits.

[ratagonia]

Many still do (even on semi-technical stuff).

Name one.

I don't know of any park that provides anything beyond ranger-led interpretative tours. Are there some that do?

Tom

[ratagonia]

As for SAR not getting out the day of, I was thinking that if permits were more focused on safety of people in the backcountry and not quotas. they might have done something right away.

Seriously?

Cameras at every rappel in every popular canyon?

Maybe button-operated airbags at the bottom of each rappel - the ranger watching the canyons can pop it out as soon as the rappeller looks like they are having problems. Of course, then, only specific rappels would be allowed... (etc.)

Emergency Call Phones in every canyon? Rangers in helicopters ready to respond?

"they might have done something right away."

Sorry to seem a little crass, but how long do you think he lasted? One hour? Two hours? Even with a helicopter and an immediate call-out, it would have been hard for a rescuer to get there in time.

It's a tragedy. It is sad. It is unfortunate.

But if people want to visit the Parks and do things in the backcountry, and have bad luck; the combination will result in people dying. This is not a bad thing, as it is not a good thing. It is a part of life.

Tom

[ratagonia]

I always thought that "the whole idea" was that the National Parks would be set aside for the enjoyment and recreation of the people.

I object to guiding on NTL Park land on the same principle which I object to drilling for oil on NTL Park land... because the resources of our parks shouldn't be open for private/for-profit consumption.

My comparison between drilling for oil and commercial guiding is on principle only. I understand that when it comes to impact on the parks, there is no comparison.

Interesting comparison...

Let me introduce you to: Grand Canyon National Park

"because the resources of our parks shouldn't be open for private/for-profit consumption."

Consumption? How is guiding people in a Park consumption?

Tom

[Scott P]

Name one.

I don't know of any park that provides anything beyond ranger-led interpretative tours. Are there some that do?

Yes. The parks and monuments that have caves as a primary attraction certainly come to mind. This is true even of the semi-technical sections of some caves. For example, the tour of Spider Cave in Carlsbad NP is more than just a "ranger-led interpretative tour". I would say that it is more or less at least equal with the Subway in difficulty.

Although independent travel is still permitted in some of the parks/monuments that have caves as a primary attraction, guiding by the NPS is common and although most tours are easy (Timp or Leman Caves for example), at least some of the tours in some parks/monuments have more in common to say a semi technical canyon than they do with the simple ranger led interpretive tours in say Zion or Bryce.

[ddavis]

You give Mike too much credence. He inopportunely took a jab at the park management. He mouthed off. Simple as that.

Tom

I don't know him, so between that and whatever the reporter did to what he actually said, I could have misinterpreted his message. I also have my own opinions about guiding in Zion that gives me a bit of a bias. However, I didn't like what he said the first time I read it, and I really didn't like it the second time. It looked self-serving as hell. If, however, he was just mouthing off and taking jabs at park managment, then what he took was a cheap shot.

[ratagonia]

I don't know him, so between that and whatever the reporter did to what he actually said, I could have misinterpreted his message. I also have my own opinions about guiding in Zion that gives me a bit of a bias. However, I didn't like what he said the first time I read it, and I really didn't like it the second time. It looked self-serving as hell. If, however, he was just mouthing off and taking jabs at park managment, then what he took was a cheap shot.

All those things.

[ratagonia]

Yes. The parks and monuments that have caves as a primary attraction certainly come to mind. This is true even of the semi-technical sections of some caves. For example, the tour of Spider Cave in Carlsbad NP is more than just a "ranger-led interpretative tour". I would say that it is more or less at least equal with the Subway in difficulty.

Although independent travel is still permitted in some of the parks/monuments that have caves as a primary attraction, guiding by the NPS is common and some of the tours have more in common to say a semi technical canyon than they do with the simple ranger led interpretive tours in say Zion or Bryce.

Good point.

But, seems like these (cave parks) are the exceptions in the National Park system.

When each Park looks at how to manage its resources, it looks to its mission. I suspect that the 'cave parks' lead tours there because they cannot preserve the caves and allow visitation at the same time, without closely supervising visitors. At most parks, since the Reagan administration, all things that can be out-sourced to private vendors are. Perhaps the community of Carlsbad had no one interested in running the cave tours as a concession.

Tom

[mtn_dude]

Cameras at every rappel in every popular canyon?...Maybe button-operated airbags at the bottom of each rappel - the ranger watching the canyons can pop it out as soon as the rappeller looks like they are having problems. Of course, then, only specific rappels would be allowed... (etc.)...Emergency Call Phones in every canyon? Rangers in helicopters ready to respond?

Those are a little in right field but thats an alright argument to make.

Would it hurt the park(or canyoneering pride) to allow the Ranger, who was told at the Left Fork trailhead at 9 p.m. that there was an elderly couple still down there, to be able to do something? Besides say, "I'll see them in the morning?"

[Scott P]

I suspect that the 'cave parks' lead tours there because they cannot preserve the caves and allow visitation at the same time, without closely supervising visitors.

Yes. Similar to the parks (i.e. Mesa Verde, Navajo National Monument, etc.) that emphasize ruins. I guess most of those guided tours could fit in the catagory of ranger led interpretive tours though.

Perhaps the community of Carlsbad had no one interested in running the cave tours as a concession.

Or my guess is that the NPS doesn't trust concessioners to make sure the fragile caves are protected enough. Carlsbad was one example, but the other "wild cave" tours in other parks are run by the NPS as well (for example some of the Wind Cave and Jewel Cave tours).

It seems the NPS like to do things themselves in the ruin parks and cave parks.

I guess that's a sidetrack of the main subject though.

[ratagonia]

Those are a little in right field but thats an alright argument to make.

Would it hurt the park(or canyoneering pride) to allow the Ranger, who was told at the Left Fork trailhead at 9 p.m. that there was an elderly couple still down there, to be able to do something? Besides say, "I'll see them in the morning?"

How much do you want permits to cost?

People come out of the Subway late, a LOT. Are you suggesting anytime a car is parked at the trailhead at dusk, the park rally a team with technical rescue capability to traverse the Subway?

I realize this accident tugs at the heartstrings... I am not heartless myself. But "personal responsibility" has real meaning in the Wilderness. This is not Disneyland. If you screw up out there you could get hurt or die. Generally when people break their leg or knee in the Subway, it takes 24 hours to get them out.

Several weeks ago, an elderly gentleman picked up a Subway permit, and started the hike in from the bottom. By 5 pm he had gotten halfway to the Subway and turned around. Hikers coming out told the ranger there was a guy in trouble down there. A ranger responded with overnight gear and food, found the guy and camped with him. The next day, the ranger helped the guy toward the trailhead. Working all day, they almost got to the foot of the hill. Camped again. Next day, NPS SAR team with help from Kane County and Washington County SAR executed a technical rescue to get him up the hill.

Appropriate response? I think so.

The key here is that a rescue was requested (by hikers coming out of the Subway).

Initiating a rescue everytime a car is parked overnight... wow. That would be expensive!!!

Tom

[jman]

Those are a little in right field but thats an alright argument to make.

Would it hurt the park(or canyoneering pride) to allow the Ranger, who was told at the Left Fork trailhead at 9 p.m. that there was an elderly couple still down there, to be able to do something? Besides say, "I'll see them in the morning?"

To do something? Launch a full 15pereon SAR in the night because there were some older folks that seem new to the sport or slow? Remember all the permit waiver you sign with all those checkboxes? Plural, not singular checkboxes, and not just 2 checkboxes but about 6 checkboxes. This is specifically keep the pressure on the user to make sure they are prepared. I think the tragedy is terribly sad and think its just series of unfortunate luck and timing.

You say it's a little in the right field when Tom mentioned airbags, and helicopters on standby...This is the backcountry, not the concrete jungle.

Speaking of the backcountry - I got bit by a mosquito tonight while jogging - who should I sue first, Kaysville city or the state for not warning about Mosquitos in the area. Tsk tsk.

[mtn_dude]

Hikers coming out told the ranger there was a guy in trouble down there. A ranger responded with overnight gear and food, found they guy and camped with him.

That's what I suggested about this past week.

I agree full fledged rescue missions shouldn't be sent everytime a car is left at a trailhead. But when a suggestion comes that someone might need help they could respond in like manner to the story you shared and didn't happen in last weeks situation.
This would make it clear that the permit system isn't just about limiting numbers and is there to provide a safety net for when things go wrong or people don't realize what they're in for with particular hikes.
We(a risk management class) joking suggested sending a ranger as a sweep later in the day, i'd take that job!

[Brian in SLC]

The thing about noticing slow folks is, that, overnight unplanned bivy's in Zion happen all the time with no consequences. Eh Tom? Eh Kip? Ha ha.

I still feel bad you camped in the woman's toilet at the TOS...

Back on track...yeah, folks can be slow. They get benighted. They're usually fine. This accident wasn't a "they were slow" thing. They had an accident. Way different. Hard to fault the park at all.

I don't want more ranger patrols in the backcountry. They take away from my "wilderness experience".

Slow is one thing. Having an accident another. Unplanned bivys...badge of honor. We all have them. I sure don't want SAR called out everytime my car is at a parking lot after dark. Damn, I'd have SAR looking for me all the time!

[ratagonia]

That's what I suggested about this past week.

The situation was different.

In the earlier case, the reporting party reported that the elderly gentleman needed rescue.

Was there any report about the elderly couple?

Tom