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/grand-canyon-response-2/
WOLF
Yahoo Canyons Group
rging@q.com
Funny, I don’t recall selling my share to him. ————————-
I too have to agree with AJ in his respectful disagreement with the poster. To have a Superintendent write a letter like this shows concern for his park and for those that are utilizing it.
Whether or not this letter is sincere in its attempt only the Superintendent and maybe Rich can tell (since he was in on the conference call he could tell whether or not this was just a required exercise or one that was seeking additional comments).
I am not sure that we have ever seen any such letters from our friend Jock over in Zion.
bruce from bryce
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “aj.outdoors” wrote:
>
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> He (the superintendent) was addressing a question it sounds like he was specifically asked.
>
> He stated that they didn’t think the closure was going to be that big of a deal; and they are opening it up for public comment and putting it as part of the BMP.
>
> While I would have loved for them to overturn the decision, that would be just as selfish as their decision to close it. In my mind, at least it will be up for discussion; so at least it sounds like they will keep an open mind and it’s possible to change the outcome.
>
> I think it will rely on all of us as a community to help change the decision (if that’s the right thing to do.) I, for one, am glad we have the American Canyoneers organization to help with it; and I know Rich will be on top of things and let us know when it comes available for comment. Thanks for all your efforts Rich!
>
> Would I love to have life catered to me? Sure. But as Luke so eloquently put in his thoughts on the share/no share discussion; my thoughts/desires may not match with others’. The trick is to have good conversations and figure out what is the correct path going forward.
>
> Frankly, I don’t envy the decisions the park has to make regarding situations like these. Lots of bureaucracy and time involved. We’ll see how it plays out…
>
>
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, jabridaka@ wrote:
It seems that when a government letter starts out sighting the rules that allow them to do what they did then the battle is already lost. Simplified it follows the adage of “it’s easier to ask forgiviness than permission”. We did it, we are allowed to do it, sorry we did it, but we did it and it’s already been done.
—– Original Message —–
From: “wolfgang”
To: Yahoo Canyons Group
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:18:26 PM
Subject: [from Canyons Group] Response from NPS ref Deer Creek
Â
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/grand-canyon-response-2/
WOLF
>
Abby Snow
The website for all National Park Service public comment on planning is http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov
It looks like the Grand Canyon backcountry plan doesn’t have a public comment period open currently (they’re processing the results of the last one). But the site lists two employees you can contact for more info. I believe you can ask to be added to a notification list for when the next draft is open for review.
I’ve posted this here before, but you only have a few more days to comment on Death Valley National Park’s last draft of their Backcountry Management Plan — closes October 9th. Same website. Below is what I posted earlier on this forum and American Canyoneers:
*******************************
The pdf document is posted at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/DEVAWildernessPlanEA , which is the same place you respond with your comments. You may also submit comments in writing to: Superintendent, Death Valley NP, ATTN: Wilderness Plan Comments, P.O. Box 579, Death Valley, CA 92328.
It’s a large document. The PDF pages that are relevant to canyoneering are:
pg 88 (Day Use Guided Canyoneering Groups: Not allowed in wilderness)
pg 90-91 (Day use permits would be required for all private canyoneering trips due to the limited routes available, the increasing popularity of the sport, and the challenging conditions that Death Valley’s canyons present. Depending on patterns of visitor use, permits could be adapted to allocate routes on a per day, per party basis. The permit system would be phased in and would include online access to permits. Permits may be free or for a nominal cost, depending on the requirements for the permit system selected. All permits would include terms and conditions to require clean and safe canyoneering practices, environmental sensitivity, and respect for other park visitors.)
pg 98 (Climbing and canyoneering are both legitimate recreational pursuits, but there are limitations on where they may be appropriate and under what conditions. It is anticipated that Servicewide guidance on this issue will be forthcoming. In its absence, the park will adopt the following restrictions in all three action alternatives.
No new climbing hardware may be left in a fixed location; however, if an existing bolt or other hardware is unsafe, it may be replaced. Intensively bolted routes are not appropriate in wilderness. The physical altering of rock surfaces such as chiseling or the intentional removal of lichens or plants, glue reinforcement of exiting holds, and gluing of new holds is prohibited. The use of motorized drills is prohibited within wilderness and rock climbing is not allowed within 200 yards of an archeological or cultural site.).
The document lists 4 alternatives, but Alternative D is the park’s preferred alternative. The quotes above are from Alternative D.
-Abby Snow
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012, at 01:03 AM, nonot8946 wrote:
Does anyone know how to participate in the public comment aspect of the backcountry management plan this refers to?
— Abby Snow abby_snow@fastmail.fm
evergreen_dean
Agreed. This is very encouraging. Great work Rich and American CaCanyoneers! Thank you.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “nonot8946” wrote:
> I find this posting encouraging.
The superintendant actually identifies this situation as “temporary” until a “final decision” is made.
It seems like they may be actually opening the decision back up for debate.
Then again (pessimistic side) as the saying goes – you can’t change gov’t.
Does anyone know how to participate in the public comment aspect of the backcountry management plan this refers to? >
nonot8946
I find this posting encouraging.
The superintendant actually identifies this situation as “temporary” until a “final decision” is made.
It seems like they may be actually opening the decision back up for debate.
Then again (pessimistic side) as the saying goes – you can’t change gov’t.
Does anyone know how to participate in the public comment aspect of the backcountry management plan this refers to?
TomJones
I think Drifter Smith nailed it pretty well on the Grand Canyon Hikers Forum:
Drifter Smith said:
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
bsilliman2001
I too have to agree with AJ in his respectful disagreement with the poster. To have a Superintendent write a letter like this shows concern for his park and for those that are utilizing it.
Whether or not this letter is sincere in its attempt only the Superintendent and maybe Rich can tell (since he was in on the conference call he could tell whether or not this was just a required exercise or one that was seeking additional comments).
I am not sure that we have ever seen any such letters from our friend Jock over in Zion.
bruce from bryce
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “aj.outdoors” wrote:
I respectfully disagree.
He (the superintendent) was addressing a question it sounds like he was specifically asked.
He stated that they didn’t think the closure was going to be that big of a deal; and they are opening it up for public comment and putting it as part of the BMP.
While I would have loved for them to overturn the decision, that would be just as selfish as their decision to close it. In my mind, at least it will be up for discussion; so at least it sounds like they will keep an open mind and it’s possible to change the outcome.
I think it will rely on all of us as a community to help change the decision (if that’s the right thing to do.) I, for one, am glad we have the American Canyoneers organization to help with it; and I know Rich will be on top of things and let us know when it comes available for comment. Thanks for all your efforts Rich!
Would I love to have life catered to me? Sure. But as Luke so eloquently put in his thoughts on the share/no share discussion; my thoughts/desires may not match with others’. The trick is to have good conversations and figure out what is the correct path going forward.
Frankly, I don’t envy the decisions the park has to make regarding situations like these. Lots of bureaucracy and time involved. We’ll see how it plays out…
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, jabridaka@ wrote:
It seems that when a government letter starts out sighting the rules that allow them to do what they did then the battle is already lost. Simplified it follows the adage of “it’s easier to ask forgiviness than permission”. We did it, we are allowed to do it, sorry we did it, but we did it and it’s already been done.
—– Original Message —–
From: “wolfgang” To: Yahoo Canyons Group
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:18:26 PM
Subject: [from Canyons Group] Response from NPS ref Deer Creek
ÂÂ
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/grand-canyon-response-2/
> WOLF
>
aj.outdoors
I respectfully disagree.
He (the superintendent) was addressing a question it sounds like he was specifically asked.
He stated that they didn’t think the closure was going to be that big of a deal; and they are opening it up for public comment and putting it as part of the BMP.
While I would have loved for them to overturn the decision, that would be just as selfish as their decision to close it. In my mind, at least it will be up for discussion; so at least it sounds like they will keep an open mind and it’s possible to change the outcome.
I think it will rely on all of us as a community to help change the decision (if that’s the right thing to do.) I, for one, am glad we have the American Canyoneers organization to help with it; and I know Rich will be on top of things and let us know when it comes available for comment. Thanks for all your efforts Rich!
Would I love to have life catered to me? Sure. But as Luke so eloquently put in his thoughts on the share/no share discussion; my thoughts/desires may not match with others’. The trick is to have good conversations and figure out what is the correct path going forward.
Frankly, I don’t envy the decisions the park has to make regarding situations like these. Lots of bureaucracy and time involved. We’ll see how it plays out…
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, jabridaka@… wrote:
It seems that when a government letter starts out sighting the rules that allow them to do what they did then the battle is already lost. Simplified it follows the adage of “it’s easier to ask forgiviness than permission”. We did it, we are allowed to do it, sorry we did it, but we did it and it’s already been done.
—– Original Message —– > From: “wolfgang” Subject: [from Canyons Group] Response from NPS ref Deer Creek
ÂÂ
> 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/grand-canyon-response-2/
> WOLF
> >
jabridaka@comcast.net
It seems that when a government letter starts out sighting the rules that allow them to do what they did then the battle is already lost. Simplified it follows the adage of “it’s easier to ask forgiviness than permission”. We did it, we are allowed to do it, sorry we did it, but we did it and it’s already been done.
—– Original Message —– From: “wolfgang” wolf0421@yahoo.com> To: Yahoo Canyons Group Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:18:26 PM Subject: [from Canyons Group] Response from NPS ref Deer Creek
ÂÂ
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/grand-canyon-response-2/
WOLF