— In Yahoo Canyons Group, neil wilkinson wrote: > It’s all about the deaths in Kolob and all the money they lost and bad press. The permit system IMO is all about covering their legal backsides and has little or nothing to do with anything else. The warm fuzzy justifications came out of a need to ‘MANAGE’ the parks liability exposure. It certainly was not created because they had nothing better to do. There are specific factors that is going to make it almost impossible to turn the pages backwards. IMO.
Neil > Nope, at least, I hope not.
1. This is why, once every twenty years whether you need to or not, you do a complete planning cycle. That is what we are doing.
2. The legal climate has changed substantially since the Kolob accident. Partly due to the Kolob accident. Congress passed a law that clarifies matters greatly, in favor of the Park.
see: http://tinyurl.com/btnc7
Tom
Verlyn Hawks
Interesting perspective and comments Reid. Thank you.
I’ve had several occasions where friends and family that I’ve taken through various Zion canyons have shown the pictures of our trips to their extended family or other friends. They in turn were excited to do the canyons as well and asked about hiring a guide to take them through. I explained that commercial guiding was not allowed.
I’ve pointed them at the ACA, Zions Adventure Company, Deseret Highlights, etc. I’ve told them that if I have room on my personal trips I might could take one or two along (so far hasn’t happened). I have explained that skill sets and ones willingness to dedicate themselves to a sport obviously increases access to certain areas. They understood that but it was an interesting perspective that they felt cheated that they – the public that pays taxes to support Zions – could not get access to at least the ‘simpler’ canyons – via the service of a guide.
They don’t want to do the Imlays or Heaps or Kip’s, etc. They don’t want to make canyoneering their hobby or go thru the classes and try it on their own. They don’t want to buy a bunch of gear. They just wanted a chance to see one or two of the canyons they have seen plastered in all the various travel magazines and newspaper articles over the last several years. They wanted to experience a portion of ‘their’ park.
I will admit to having had the desire to do some commercial guiding on a part-time basis and explored that some -only to learn that the costs of liability insurance pretty much squashes any ability to do that. The thing is, I did not want to do it for the money – I wanted to do it because I love the canyons, I love seeing people stretched to do things they didn’t think they could do, I love seeing the awestruck gazes as they try to take in the beauty of these places, I love helping people. I have taken quite a few newbies in the forms of family, co-workers, friends, and scouts (and even a couple strangers I met in Zions) through some of the trade canyons in various parts of the state. I’ve spent gobs of money on gas, permits, fees, gear, training, etc. and even when they offer to help cover costs I’ve never come close to breaking even on a single trip. I do it because I love it. Call me strange, but I think I get as much thrill taking newbies through a canyon and doing the problem solving and coaching to get them thru and sharing in their joy as I do when I’m going with some more experienced guys to explore a canyon I’ve never been down.
So my feedback on limits and guiding on the back country plan will likely be as follows: 1. Eliminate permits entirely for small (4 or less) PRIVATE groups. 2. Require permits with slightly increased fees above what they are today for PRIVATE groups larger than 4 people but limit the max group size to 12. (I’m a Boy Scout leader and feel groups should still have some access but understand the increased impact on environment, other people, etc. I definitely agree larger groups should be limited and controlled – but not completely shutdown.) 3. Limit the number of large groups of any type (Private or Commercial) that can go thru a canyon. 4. Provide a LIMITED number of COMMERCIAL permits but limit the specific canyons that these groups are allowed to go through to a smaller set of canyons, increase the fees for them- potentially substantially, and limit those groups to under 8 people.
That’s my two bits. Commence firing Verlyn Hawks ————-
Message: 19 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 03:44:03 -0000 From: “W. Reid White” Subject: Re: Setting Canyon Limits
Howdy,
I’ve been reading this thread with interest and am responding to the whole, not any particular message. I stand in awe of the feelings y’all have towards protecting our natural resources – especially our National Parks. While not having done the amount of climbing and canyoneering that many of you have, I’ve also spent much of my adult life exploring the land we live in.
There are vast expanses of America that I’m perfectly capable of accessing on my own – bit by bit, on this vacation or the next. And I’m not talking about in the ‘from the car, round the kiosk’ sort of way. I’ve done my share of that, but I’ve also hiked a good bit of Acadia and the Smokies. Done backcountry in Yellowstone, done day hikes (death marches) over Indian Paintbrush Divide in the Tetons and through Wheeler Geologic up to Half Moon Pass in the Rockies. And had quite a few adventures this summer in New Mexico, Arizona and Utah which many of you have already read about. There’s a lot more, but I’ve hopefully made the point that I’m not just a cruise through kind of tourist. If it ain’t very technical, I’ll tackle it solo (vacations are most always with my wife and daughters, and they aren’t going there – we usually go our separate ways for at least one day).
My issue is that I’m not happy being limited to the spectacular vistas I can hike my butt into on my own. Not really interested in mountain climbing (I can hike high as I want to go), but I want to do WAY MORE canyoneering – especially technical. I want ‘in’ to many of the places I read about here. And one of these days, I’ll hopefully be able to stay on the Colorado Plateau long enough to go to Canyoneering school, develop some real skills and do tech canyons with some of you guys as a less experienced peer rather than a noob. In the mean time, however, I’ll be back once or twice between now and then. And I’d like to get far more intimate with Canyons in Arches, Canyonlands and Zion – places I can’t possibly go without a guide – on those trips.
So I’m left wondering. Why does this discussion seem to be either/or? Either there’s no guiding in the National Parks. Or there’s inadequately planned and administered guiding – which leads to horrors. I mean I too disagree with ‘guiding’ which intensely disturbs the environment. No chopper tours. No snowmobiles. No uncontrolled tramping of delicate resources. But what about guides who love the special places they get to go? Guides who see their responsibilities including not only making money for the boss and pleasing their customers, but sharing some of their own knowledge and love for a Place? Guides who perhaps leave their customers more suited to being ‘good tourists’ – even when just pulling their cars off into National Park overlooks?
This summer, I participated in two amazing experiences in National Parks with guides. Both involved low impact exploration. Both were with folks who I felt were not just following regs in keeping it clean, but were actually happy to be part of both sharing natural beauty with me and helping me to protect it from my presence. I could never have had either experience without my guides. And there is virtually nothing I would take for either.
Last time I checked, I was still one of the (many) tax-paying American citizens who ‘owns’ these parks. Sure – I’m not a Utahn. I have a poor understanding of the many complexities of local political situations that swirl around and through the management of our national lands. But I do have a broad understanding of ecology and the environment. And a lust for exploring it. Far to much so to be happy with the idea that if I can’t get into Zion’s canyons without a guide then I shouldn’t be getting into them at all. I mean, should I connect successfully with folks here who are willing (assuming I have some basic climbing skills and would be the, rather old, ‘boy’ on the trip) wouldn’t y’all be my guides? A rhetorical question, as I do understand the differences, but a hyperbole to address my point.
But without being hyperbolic, that question came from someone who lives in the piedmont of North Carolina. Sure, there are great outdoor experiences here – and I take advantage of them. But I’m hours from good climbing and states from good canyoneering. I’ve spent decades coming to Utah exploring. Often spend a year planning a trip. But I still need a guide to experience many of the things that most wash over me and make me stand in awe of the beauty and ferocity of nature.
And what about someone with less ability to invest time, resources and energy into experiencing Utah. Does that mean they should never get to see the wonders of Zion? So, popular stance or not, I’m adding my .02 to the fray – in favor of SOME kinds of guiding within our National Parks. Sure, if guides are allowed there will be problems. For that matter, if canyoneers are allowed, there will be problems… No, wait. There are problems, aren’t there? But not everyone functions at the lowest common denominator. I guess I’ve been very fortunate – my guides certainly didn’t.
Have a great evening – I’m currently in the mountains hiking my butt off as I can in between the various duties of getting my eldest settled in to her sophmore year at Appalachian State University.
Reid
neil wilkinson
Reid,
Very valid thoughts. How do you feel about limited resources being held for commercial interest? In other words, the playing field is not level. If I want to float the Grand Canyon in the next few years I better be willing to pay extra to the commercial interest who controls a portion of our ‘public’ resource. Do you see the irony in that? There are lots and lots of awesome places to go on guided trips where you won’t compete for access with John Q tax payer.
The side note is that protecting resources for people like Reid who may or may not ever see spectacular places w/out the aid of a guide is also equally important and something not to lose sight of.
Neil
“W. Reid White” damhruadh@bellsouth.net> wrote: So I’m left wondering. Why does this discussion seem to be either/or? Either there’s no guiding in the National Parks. Or there’s inadequately planned and administered guiding – which leads to horrors. I mean I too disagree with ‘guiding’ which intensely disturbs the environment. No chopper tours. No snowmobiles. No uncontrolled tramping of delicate resources. But what about guides who love the special places they get to go? Guides who see their responsibilities including not only making money for the boss and pleasing their customers, but sharing some of their own knowledge and love for a Place? Guides who perhaps leave their customers more suited to being ‘good tourists’ – even when just pulling their cars off into National Park overlooks?
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group “canyons” on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: canyons-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Groups is subject to the Terms of Service.
Start your day with – make it your home page
neil wilkinson
Quality post …. Thx. Thought provoking. Guiding has it’s place. However, I hate to see commercial interests compete for resources that are limited to John Q Public. I for one am in favor of guide services, however, that does not mean everywhere.
Neil
restrac2000 Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> wrote: I am curious, could you clarify some specifics behind these statements, if beyond the Grand Canyon. I would whole-heartedly agree, as most would I bet, on the Grand Canyon/Colorado River fiasco. Yet, I am curious what experiences/education you have had with guide services that encompass the mentality you mention. I am privelaged enough to work for a different sort of guide service.
What about a different perspective on the ownership piece. I think most of us agree on the idea that as citizens we “own” the parks that the Department of Interior administers. As citizens, some are experienced in rope technique, some aren’t. Some are content with the in-the-car-round-the-kiosk experience. Some aren’t. So, that said and grossly generalized, what about the public whom “own” the park and want a guide? It is just as much there natural resource as your’s or mine. I think it comes down to something much differene then the entitlement of guide services(I haven’t experienced yet have no doubt it exists). I believe guiding has a scewed perspective with private recreators because of several beliefs, but primarily that somewhere along the way money scews its image. I guess it doesn’t help that there is already a mentality that recreators are in competetion with recreators for permits, addition doesn’t help that scenario.
Even beyond the guiding element, what of the consistency piece I mentioned. Guiding is quickly discounted in National Parks, okay I can understand that opinion. What of the influence of guidebooks, beta sites, gear shops(manufacturers), magazines and media that highlight “our” natural resources. I personally don’t think they need to be vilified yet I do believe with the current level of impact/use on BLM, NFS and NPS lands it is time to hold a light to them as well. And I think this consistency is an important piece. Yes, we “own” these lands. Yes, somewhere we have inherited a right to recreate on these lands. Yet, if we simply demand access without objectively analyzing our own habits then I think we are making a big mistake. It impacts our “own” natural resources and provides even more reasons to the land managers to create more regulation. Its a problematic reality we have created; most of us in some way use these services to initially start our endeavors, but it has come to the point that now there are some many of “us”(insert canyoneer, climber, skier, etc) utilizing such a limited “comodity”(insert canyon, cliff or mountain) that I believe it is time to analyze much more than we have. And if we don’t do a thorough enough job, then the land managers(that some like, some don’t) will do the mitigation.
I applaud people who are constructively working with the NP to create a better management plan. Yet I fear if it gets solely wrapped up in better(=more, = less$) access for canyoneers then it is a lost cause that will affect us for twenty years. We have a limited time in Zion to work with this, but we can be proactive in so many other places that at the moment we primarily just recreate. Swell, Roost, North Wash, Escalante, White Canyon, Powell. Think the land managers of these resources aren’t aware of our growing impact(if solely increased popularity, which isn’t likely). Think again, “canyoneering” is not just a catch phrase that only recreators are catching on to.
“Youth”
Start your day with – make it your home page
Dave Pimental
great points,and i’m humbled(once again)by the fact that MOST people don’t get to enjoy the day-to-day beauty of our environment/they don’t get to debate the finer points of”should we”or”shouldn’t we”/it’s more like”CAN WE!get away for long enough to get a little bit…”/I TAKE YOUR POINT WITH HUMILITY
From: “W. Reid White” damhruadh@bellsouth.net> Reply-To: Yahoo Canyons Group To: Yahoo Canyons Group Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Setting Canyon Limits Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 03:44:03 -0000
Howdy,
I’ve been reading this thread with interest and am responding to the whole, not any particular message. I stand in awe of the feelings y’all have towards protecting our natural resources – especially our National Parks. While not having done the amount of climbing and canyoneering that many of you have, I’ve also spent much of my adult life exploring the land we live in.
There are vast expanses of America that I’m perfectly capable of accessing on my own – bit by bit, on this vacation or the next. And I’m not talking about in the ‘from the car, round the kiosk’ sort of way. I’ve done my share of that, but I’ve also hiked a good bit of Acadia and the Smokies. Done backcountry in Yellowstone, done day hikes (death marches) over Indian Paintbrush Divide in the Tetons and through Wheeler Geologic up to Half Moon Pass in the Rockies. And had quite a few adventures this summer in New Mexico, Arizona and Utah which many of you have already read about. There’s a lot more, but I’ve hopefully made the point that I’m not just a cruise through kind of tourist. If it ain’t very technical, I’ll tackle it solo (vacations are most always with my wife and daughters, and they aren’t going there – we usually go our separate ways for at least one day).
My issue is that I’m not happy being limited to the spectacular vistas I can hike my butt into on my own. Not really interested in mountain climbing (I can hike high as I want to go), but I want to do WAY MORE canyoneering – especially technical. I want ‘in’ to many of the places I read about here. And one of these days, I’ll hopefully be able to stay on the Colorado Plateau long enough to go to Canyoneering school, develop some real skills and do tech canyons with some of you guys as a less experienced peer rather than a noob. In the mean time, however, I’ll be back once or twice between now and then. And I’d like to get far more intimate with Canyons in Arches, Canyonlands and Zion – places I can’t possibly go without a guide – on those trips.
So I’m left wondering. Why does this discussion seem to be either/or? Either there’s no guiding in the National Parks. Or there’s inadequately planned and administered guiding – which leads to horrors. I mean I too disagree with ‘guiding’ which intensely disturbs the environment. No chopper tours. No snowmobiles. No uncontrolled tramping of delicate resources. But what about guides who love the special places they get to go? Guides who see their responsibilities including not only making money for the boss and pleasing their customers, but sharing some of their own knowledge and love for a Place? Guides who perhaps leave their customers more suited to being ‘good tourists’ – even when just pulling their cars off into National Park overlooks?
This summer, I participated in two amazing experiences in National Parks with guides. Both involved low impact exploration. Both were with folks who I felt were not just following regs in keeping it clean, but were actually happy to be part of both sharing natural beauty with me and helping me to protect it from my presence. I could never have had either experience without my guides. And there is virtually nothing I would take for either.
Last time I checked, I was still one of the (many) tax-paying American citizens who ‘owns’ these parks. Sure – I’m not a Utahn. I have a poor understanding of the many complexities of local political situations that swirl around and through the management of our national lands. But I do have a broad understanding of ecology and the environment. And a lust for exploring it. Far to much so to be happy with the idea that if I can’t get into Zion’s canyons without a guide then I shouldn’t be getting into them at all. I mean, should I connect successfully with folks here who are willing (assuming I have some basic climbing skills and would be the, rather old, ‘boy’ on the trip) wouldn’t y’all be my guides? A rhetorical question, as I do understand the differences, but a hyperbole to address my point.
But without being hyperbolic, that question came from someone who lives in the piedmont of North Carolina. Sure, there are great outdoor experiences here – and I take advantage of them. But I’m hours from good climbing and states from good canyoneering. I’ve spent decades coming to Utah exploring. Often spend a year planning a trip. But I still need a guide to experience many of the things that most wash over me and make me stand in awe of the beauty and ferocity of nature.
And what about someone with less ability to invest time, resources and energy into experiencing Utah. Does that mean they should never get to see the wonders of Zion? So, popular stance or not, I’m adding my .02 to the fray – in favor of SOME kinds of guiding within our National Parks. Sure, if guides are allowed there will be problems. For that matter, if canyoneers are allowed, there will be problems… No, wait. There are problems, aren’t there? But not everyone functions at the lowest common denominator. I guess I’ve been very fortunate – my guides certainly didn’t.
Have a great evening – I’m currently in the mountains hiking my butt off as I can in between the various duties of getting my eldest settled in to her sophmore year at Appalachian State University.
Reid
W. Reid White
Howdy,
I’ve been reading this thread with interest and am responding to the whole, not any particular message. I stand in awe of the feelings y’all have towards protecting our natural resources – especially our National Parks. While not having done the amount of climbing and canyoneering that many of you have, I’ve also spent much of my adult life exploring the land we live in.
There are vast expanses of America that I’m perfectly capable of accessing on my own – bit by bit, on this vacation or the next. And I’m not talking about in the ‘from the car, round the kiosk’ sort of way. I’ve done my share of that, but I’ve also hiked a good bit of Acadia and the Smokies. Done backcountry in Yellowstone, done day hikes (death marches) over Indian Paintbrush Divide in the Tetons and through Wheeler Geologic up to Half Moon Pass in the Rockies. And had quite a few adventures this summer in New Mexico, Arizona and Utah which many of you have already read about. There’s a lot more, but I’ve hopefully made the point that I’m not just a cruise through kind of tourist. If it ain’t very technical, I’ll tackle it solo (vacations are most always with my wife and daughters, and they aren’t going there – we usually go our separate ways for at least one day).
My issue is that I’m not happy being limited to the spectacular vistas I can hike my butt into on my own. Not really interested in mountain climbing (I can hike high as I want to go), but I want to do WAY MORE canyoneering – especially technical. I want ‘in’ to many of the places I read about here. And one of these days, I’ll hopefully be able to stay on the Colorado Plateau long enough to go to Canyoneering school, develop some real skills and do tech canyons with some of you guys as a less experienced peer rather than a noob. In the mean time, however, I’ll be back once or twice between now and then. And I’d like to get far more intimate with Canyons in Arches, Canyonlands and Zion – places I can’t possibly go without a guide – on those trips.
So I’m left wondering. Why does this discussion seem to be either/or? Either there’s no guiding in the National Parks. Or there’s inadequately planned and administered guiding – which leads to horrors. I mean I too disagree with ‘guiding’ which intensely disturbs the environment. No chopper tours. No snowmobiles. No uncontrolled tramping of delicate resources. But what about guides who love the special places they get to go? Guides who see their responsibilities including not only making money for the boss and pleasing their customers, but sharing some of their own knowledge and love for a Place? Guides who perhaps leave their customers more suited to being ‘good tourists’ – even when just pulling their cars off into National Park overlooks?
This summer, I participated in two amazing experiences in National Parks with guides. Both involved low impact exploration. Both were with folks who I felt were not just following regs in keeping it clean, but were actually happy to be part of both sharing natural beauty with me and helping me to protect it from my presence. I could never have had either experience without my guides. And there is virtually nothing I would take for either.
Last time I checked, I was still one of the (many) tax-paying American citizens who ‘owns’ these parks. Sure – I’m not a Utahn. I have a poor understanding of the many complexities of local political situations that swirl around and through the management of our national lands. But I do have a broad understanding of ecology and the environment. And a lust for exploring it. Far to much so to be happy with the idea that if I can’t get into Zion’s canyons without a guide then I shouldn’t be getting into them at all. I mean, should I connect successfully with folks here who are willing (assuming I have some basic climbing skills and would be the, rather old, ‘boy’ on the trip) wouldn’t y’all be my guides? A rhetorical question, as I do understand the differences, but a hyperbole to address my point.
But without being hyperbolic, that question came from someone who lives in the piedmont of North Carolina. Sure, there are great outdoor experiences here – and I take advantage of them. But I’m hours from good climbing and states from good canyoneering. I’ve spent decades coming to Utah exploring. Often spend a year planning a trip. But I still need a guide to experience many of the things that most wash over me and make me stand in awe of the beauty and ferocity of nature.
And what about someone with less ability to invest time, resources and energy into experiencing Utah. Does that mean they should never get to see the wonders of Zion? So, popular stance or not, I’m adding my .02 to the fray – in favor of SOME kinds of guiding within our National Parks. Sure, if guides are allowed there will be problems. For that matter, if canyoneers are allowed, there will be problems… No, wait. There are problems, aren’t there? But not everyone functions at the lowest common denominator. I guess I’ve been very fortunate – my guides certainly didn’t.
Have a great evening – I’m currently in the mountains hiking my butt off as I can in between the various duties of getting my eldest settled in to her sophmore year at Appalachian State University.
Reid
Randi Poer
I have friends who are guides and they’re wonderful people. I have absolutely nothing against guides doing what they do for a living. I’ve also had negative encounters with a few guides. For instance I’ll throw out the ATS guide who came through our San Gabriel canyons here in Calif. and bolted the sh*t our of a bunch of what he called his “trade routes”. We couldn’t for the life of us figure out why he’d done it because natural anchors abound and many of the bolts were placed in awkward and even dangerous positions (especially during high high run-off).
But to stereotype them would be the same as stereotyping anyone else on the planet. I have question as I don’t know that much about guiding, but how is that a guide service somehow gets a monopoly on an area. I don’t see how this can even be legal. I was rather shocked when I learned that “Sky’s the Limit?” has a monopoly on the Red Rocks climbing area. Is this the way it’s done everywhere? Guides vie for a spot and “there can only be one?”
How do these outdoor recreation areas “pick and choose” who the “one” is? Sounds like it would be more who you know than anything else, and it sounds unfair.
~R
restrac2000 Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> wrote: Sorry to hear you have had such negative encounters. Unfortunately it doesn’t take but a few people to tarnish a reputation.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Dave Pimental” wrote: > i have had direct contact with rafting services on the snake river > where,since they have permits,the boat dock and parking has become the > domain of the guide services/if you don’t believe,then park at von guntards’ > landing(south of jackson,WY)and see if someone tells you that those spots > are reserved for rafting clients or that you park there at your own risk/i > kid you not,this is how it is!/MAYBE i was confronted by a particularly > nasty variation on the general river guide but my outlook was solidified on > that day/ > try doing baxters pinnacle(in the grand tetons)and you will run into dozens > of people acquiring the skills to make an attempt on the grand/good for > them…/but,wouldn’t it be more instructive if the guides doing the teaching > taught his students that piling up on a climb is bad/or that letting > people”play thru”is good etiquette/instead they cop an attitude and clog up > a rather nice and easily accessible climb that could be a good introduction > to the tetons for everyone/ > if you need more let me know…
From: “restrac2000” Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:22:33 -0000
the PRIVILEGE to do business on one of our natural resources,they > soon begin > > to feel that they”own”the place and think that they possess some > kind of > > right that is beyond the average citizen because they make their > living off > > the permits
I am curious, could you clarify some specifics behind these > statements, if beyond the Grand Canyon. I would whole-heartedly > agree, as most would I bet, on the Grand Canyon/Colorado River > fiasco. Yet, I am curious what experiences/education you have had > with guide services that encompass the mentality you mention. I am > privelaged enough to work for a different sort of guide service.
What about a different perspective on the ownership piece. I think > most of us agree on the idea that as citizens we “own” the parks that > the Department of Interior administers. As citizens, some are > experienced in rope technique, some aren’t. Some are content with > the in-the-car-round-the-kiosk experience. Some aren’t. So, that > said and grossly generalized, what about the public whom “own” the > park and want a guide? It is just as much there natural resource as > your’s or mine. I think it comes down to something much differene > then the entitlement of guide services(I haven’t experienced yet have > no doubt it exists). I believe guiding has a scewed perspective with > private recreators because of several beliefs, but primarily that > somewhere along the way money scews its image. I guess it doesn’t > help that there is already a mentality that recreators are in > competetion with recreators for permits, addition doesn’t help that > scenario.
Even beyond the guiding element, what of the consistency piece I > mentioned. Guiding is quickly discounted in National Parks, okay I > can understand that opinion. What of the influence of guidebooks, > beta sites, gear shops(manufacturers), magazines and media that > highlight “our” natural resources. I personally don’t think they > need to be vilified yet I do believe with the current level of > impact/use on BLM, NFS and NPS lands it is time to hold a light to > them as well. And I think this consistency is an important piece. > Yes, we “own” these lands. Yes, somewhere we have inherited a right > to recreate on these lands. Yet, if we simply demand access without > objectively analyzing our own habits then I think we are making a big > mistake. It impacts our “own” natural resources and provides even > more reasons to the land managers to create more regulation. Its a > problematic reality we have created; most of us in some way use these > services to initially start our endeavors, but it has come to the > point that now there are some many of “us”(insert canyoneer, climber, > skier, etc) utilizing such a limited “comodity”(insert canyon, cliff > or mountain) that I believe it is time to analyze much more than we > have. And if we don’t do a thorough enough job, then the land > managers(that some like, some don’t) will do the mitigation.
I applaud people who are constructively working with the NP to create > a better management plan. Yet I fear if it gets solely wrapped up in > better(=more, = less$) access for canyoneers then it is a lost cause > that will affect us for twenty years. We have a limited time in Zion > to work with this, but we can be proactive in so many other places > that at the moment we primarily just recreate. Swell, Roost, North > Wash, Escalante, White Canyon, Powell. Think the land managers of > these resources aren’t aware of our growing impact(if solely > increased popularity, which isn’t likely). Think > again, “canyoneering” is not just a catch phrase that only recreators > are catching on to.
“Youth”
When you post, please change the Subject appropriately, to make reading and searching easier. You can use the following abbreviations: TRIP = Trip Report; BETA = Canyon Beta; PARTNER = Partner and/or Rides; ETHICS = Ethics; TECH = Technical Questions and Tips; BIZ = E Group Business; SALE = Stuff for Sale. Please use a Tilde ~ after the abbreviation, so we know you are coding for us, such as:
Subject: BIZ~ New Abbreviation List – working?
To change your delivery options, go to the Canyons Egroup page on yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/
This will require logging into Yahoo. Click on the "Edit My Membership" link, and change your delivery option. Press "Save Changes".
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you must visit the web site to view messages.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group “canyons” on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: canyons-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Groups is subject to the Terms of Service.
Dave Pimental
that’s true…and i don’t hold it against everybody that i run into on the trail/MOST FOLKS ARE GOOD FOLKS/what i intended as my original point was that the NPS will see a guided system as less risk-intensive and that ,when we get guiding going on,the”powers that be”are more inclined to go with whatever is easiest and risk free/it’s not just a slippery slope,it’s a case of once you allow it,it’s the standard by which EVERYTHING is judged thereafter/
From: “restrac2000” Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> Reply-To: Yahoo Canyons Group To: Yahoo Canyons Group Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Setting Canyon Limits Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 02:41:11 -0000
Sorry to hear you have had such negative encounters. Unfortunately it doesn’t take but a few people to tarnish a reputation.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Dave Pimental” wrote: > i have had direct contact with rafting services on the snake river > where,since they have permits,the boat dock and parking has become the > domain of the guide services/if you don’t believe,then park at von guntards’ > landing(south of jackson,WY)and see if someone tells you that those spots > are reserved for rafting clients or that you park there at your own risk/i > kid you not,this is how it is!/MAYBE i was confronted by a particularly > nasty variation on the general river guide but my outlook was solidified on > that day/ > try doing baxters pinnacle(in the grand tetons)and you will run into dozens > of people acquiring the skills to make an attempt on the grand/good for > them…/but,wouldn’t it be more instructive if the guides doing the teaching > taught his students that piling up on a climb is bad/or that letting > people”play thru”is good etiquette/instead they cop an attitude and clog up > a rather nice and easily accessible climb that could be a good introduction > to the tetons for everyone/ > if you need more let me know… > > From: “restrac2000” > Reply-To: Yahoo Canyons Group > To: Yahoo Canyons Group > Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Setting Canyon Limits > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:22:33 -0000 > > the PRIVILEGE to do business on one of our natural resources,they > soon begin > > to feel that they”own”the place and think that they possess some > kind of > > right that is beyond the average citizen because they make their > living off > > the permits > > > > I am curious, could you clarify some specifics behind these > statements, if beyond the Grand Canyon. I would whole-heartedly > agree, as most would I bet, on the Grand Canyon/Colorado River > fiasco. Yet, I am curious what experiences/education you have had > with guide services that encompass the mentality you mention. I am > privelaged enough to work for a different sort of guide service. > > What about a different perspective on the ownership piece. I think > most of us agree on the idea that as citizens we “own” the parks that > the Department of Interior administers. As citizens, some are > experienced in rope technique, some aren’t. Some are content with > the in-the-car-round-the-kiosk experience. Some aren’t. So, that > said and grossly generalized, what about the public whom “own” the > park and want a guide? It is just as much there natural resource as > your’s or mine. I think it comes down to something much differene > then the entitlement of guide services(I haven’t experienced yet have > no doubt it exists). I believe guiding has a scewed perspective with > private recreators because of several beliefs, but primarily that > somewhere along the way money scews its image. I guess it doesn’t > help that there is already a mentality that recreators are in > competetion with recreators for permits, addition doesn’t help that > scenario. > > Even beyond the guiding element, what of the consistency piece I > mentioned. Guiding is quickly discounted in National Parks, okay I > can understand that opinion. What of the influence of guidebooks, > beta sites, gear shops(manufacturers), magazines and media that > highlight “our” natural resources. I personally don’t think they > need to be vilified yet I do believe with the current level of > impact/use on BLM, NFS and NPS lands it is time to hold a light to > them as well. And I think this consistency is an important piece. > Yes, we “own” these lands. Yes, somewhere we have inherited a right > to recreate on these lands. Yet, if we simply demand access without > objectively analyzing our own habits then I think we are making a big > mistake. It impacts our “own” natural resources and provides even > more reasons to the land managers to create more regulation. Its a > problematic reality we have created; most of us in some way use these > services to initially start our endeavors, but it has come to the > point that now there are some many of “us”(insert canyoneer, climber, > skier, etc) utilizing such a limited “comodity”(insert canyon, cliff > or mountain) that I believe it is time to analyze much more than we > have. And if we don’t do a thorough enough job, then the land > managers(that some like, some don’t) will do the mitigation. > > I applaud people who are constructively working with the NP to create > a better management plan. Yet I fear if it gets solely wrapped up in > better(=more, = less$) access for canyoneers then it is a lost cause > that will affect us for twenty years. We have a limited time in Zion > to work with this, but we can be proactive in so many other places > that at the moment we primarily just recreate. Swell, Roost, North > Wash, Escalante, White Canyon, Powell. Think the land managers of > these resources aren’t aware of our growing impact(if solely > increased popularity, which isn’t likely). Think > again, “canyoneering” is not just a catch phrase that only recreators > are catching on to. > > “Youth”
restrac2000
Sorry to hear you have had such negative encounters. Unfortunately it doesn’t take but a few people to tarnish a reputation.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Dave Pimental” wrote: > i have had direct contact with rafting services on the snake river > where,since they have permits,the boat dock and parking has become the > domain of the guide services/if you don’t believe,then park at von guntards’ > landing(south of jackson,WY)and see if someone tells you that those spots > are reserved for rafting clients or that you park there at your own risk/i > kid you not,this is how it is!/MAYBE i was confronted by a particularly > nasty variation on the general river guide but my outlook was solidified on > that day/ > try doing baxters pinnacle(in the grand tetons)and you will run into dozens > of people acquiring the skills to make an attempt on the grand/good for > them…/but,wouldn’t it be more instructive if the guides doing the teaching > taught his students that piling up on a climb is bad/or that letting > people”play thru”is good etiquette/instead they cop an attitude and clog up > a rather nice and easily accessible climb that could be a good introduction > to the tetons for everyone/ > if you need more let me know…
From: “restrac2000” Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:22:33 -0000
the PRIVILEGE to do business on one of our natural resources,they > soon begin > > to feel that they”own”the place and think that they possess some > kind of > > right that is beyond the average citizen because they make their > living off > > the permits
I am curious, could you clarify some specifics behind these > statements, if beyond the Grand Canyon. I would whole-heartedly > agree, as most would I bet, on the Grand Canyon/Colorado River > fiasco. Yet, I am curious what experiences/education you have had > with guide services that encompass the mentality you mention. I am > privelaged enough to work for a different sort of guide service.
What about a different perspective on the ownership piece. I think > most of us agree on the idea that as citizens we “own” the parks that > the Department of Interior administers. As citizens, some are > experienced in rope technique, some aren’t. Some are content with > the in-the-car-round-the-kiosk experience. Some aren’t. So, that > said and grossly generalized, what about the public whom “own” the > park and want a guide? It is just as much there natural resource as > your’s or mine. I think it comes down to something much differene > then the entitlement of guide services(I haven’t experienced yet have > no doubt it exists). I believe guiding has a scewed perspective with > private recreators because of several beliefs, but primarily that > somewhere along the way money scews its image. I guess it doesn’t > help that there is already a mentality that recreators are in > competetion with recreators for permits, addition doesn’t help that > scenario.
Even beyond the guiding element, what of the consistency piece I > mentioned. Guiding is quickly discounted in National Parks, okay I > can understand that opinion. What of the influence of guidebooks, > beta sites, gear shops(manufacturers), magazines and media that > highlight “our” natural resources. I personally don’t think they > need to be vilified yet I do believe with the current level of > impact/use on BLM, NFS and NPS lands it is time to hold a light to > them as well. And I think this consistency is an important piece. > Yes, we “own” these lands. Yes, somewhere we have inherited a right > to recreate on these lands. Yet, if we simply demand access without > objectively analyzing our own habits then I think we are making a big > mistake. It impacts our “own” natural resources and provides even > more reasons to the land managers to create more regulation. Its a > problematic reality we have created; most of us in some way use these > services to initially start our endeavors, but it has come to the > point that now there are some many of “us”(insert canyoneer, climber, > skier, etc) utilizing such a limited “comodity”(insert canyon, cliff > or mountain) that I believe it is time to analyze much more than we > have. And if we don’t do a thorough enough job, then the land > managers(that some like, some don’t) will do the mitigation.
I applaud people who are constructively working with the NP to create > a better management plan. Yet I fear if it gets solely wrapped up in > better(=more, = less$) access for canyoneers then it is a lost cause > that will affect us for twenty years. We have a limited time in Zion > to work with this, but we can be proactive in so many other places > that at the moment we primarily just recreate. Swell, Roost, North > Wash, Escalante, White Canyon, Powell. Think the land managers of > these resources aren’t aware of our growing impact(if solely > increased popularity, which isn’t likely). Think > again, “canyoneering” is not just a catch phrase that only recreators > are catching on to.
“Youth”
Dave Pimental
i have had direct contact with rafting services on the snake river where,since they have permits,the boat dock and parking has become the domain of the guide services/if you don’t believe,then park at von guntards’ landing(south of jackson,WY)and see if someone tells you that those spots are reserved for rafting clients or that you park there at your own risk/i kid you not,this is how it is!/MAYBE i was confronted by a particularly nasty variation on the general river guide but my outlook was solidified on that day/ try doing baxters pinnacle(in the grand tetons)and you will run into dozens of people acquiring the skills to make an attempt on the grand/good for them…/but,wouldn’t it be more instructive if the guides doing the teaching taught his students that piling up on a climb is bad/or that letting people”play thru”is good etiquette/instead they cop an attitude and clog up a rather nice and easily accessible climb that could be a good introduction to the tetons for everyone/ if you need more let me know…
From: “restrac2000” Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> Reply-To: Yahoo Canyons Group To: Yahoo Canyons Group Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Setting Canyon Limits Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:22:33 -0000
the PRIVILEGE to do business on one of our natural resources,they soon begin > to feel that they”own”the place and think that they possess some kind of > right that is beyond the average citizen because they make their living off > the permits
I am curious, could you clarify some specifics behind these statements, if beyond the Grand Canyon. I would whole-heartedly agree, as most would I bet, on the Grand Canyon/Colorado River fiasco. Yet, I am curious what experiences/education you have had with guide services that encompass the mentality you mention. I am privelaged enough to work for a different sort of guide service.
What about a different perspective on the ownership piece. I think most of us agree on the idea that as citizens we “own” the parks that the Department of Interior administers. As citizens, some are experienced in rope technique, some aren’t. Some are content with the in-the-car-round-the-kiosk experience. Some aren’t. So, that said and grossly generalized, what about the public whom “own” the park and want a guide? It is just as much there natural resource as your’s or mine. I think it comes down to something much differene then the entitlement of guide services(I haven’t experienced yet have no doubt it exists). I believe guiding has a scewed perspective with private recreators because of several beliefs, but primarily that somewhere along the way money scews its image. I guess it doesn’t help that there is already a mentality that recreators are in competetion with recreators for permits, addition doesn’t help that scenario.
Even beyond the guiding element, what of the consistency piece I mentioned. Guiding is quickly discounted in National Parks, okay I can understand that opinion. What of the influence of guidebooks, beta sites, gear shops(manufacturers), magazines and media that highlight “our” natural resources. I personally don’t think they need to be vilified yet I do believe with the current level of impact/use on BLM, NFS and NPS lands it is time to hold a light to them as well. And I think this consistency is an important piece. Yes, we “own” these lands. Yes, somewhere we have inherited a right to recreate on these lands. Yet, if we simply demand access without objectively analyzing our own habits then I think we are making a big mistake. It impacts our “own” natural resources and provides even more reasons to the land managers to create more regulation. Its a problematic reality we have created; most of us in some way use these services to initially start our endeavors, but it has come to the point that now there are some many of “us”(insert canyoneer, climber, skier, etc) utilizing such a limited “comodity”(insert canyon, cliff or mountain) that I believe it is time to analyze much more than we have. And if we don’t do a thorough enough job, then the land managers(that some like, some don’t) will do the mitigation.
I applaud people who are constructively working with the NP to create a better management plan. Yet I fear if it gets solely wrapped up in better(=more, = less$) access for canyoneers then it is a lost cause that will affect us for twenty years. We have a limited time in Zion to work with this, but we can be proactive in so many other places that at the moment we primarily just recreate. Swell, Roost, North Wash, Escalante, White Canyon, Powell. Think the land managers of these resources aren’t aware of our growing impact(if solely increased popularity, which isn’t likely). Think again, “canyoneering” is not just a catch phrase that only recreators are catching on to.
“Youth”
restrac2000
the PRIVILEGE to do business on one of our natural resources,they soon begin > to feel that they”own”the place and think that they possess some kind of > right that is beyond the average citizen because they make their living off > the permits
I am curious, could you clarify some specifics behind these statements, if beyond the Grand Canyon. I would whole-heartedly agree, as most would I bet, on the Grand Canyon/Colorado River fiasco. Yet, I am curious what experiences/education you have had with guide services that encompass the mentality you mention. I am privelaged enough to work for a different sort of guide service.
What about a different perspective on the ownership piece. I think most of us agree on the idea that as citizens we “own” the parks that the Department of Interior administers. As citizens, some are experienced in rope technique, some aren’t. Some are content with the in-the-car-round-the-kiosk experience. Some aren’t. So, that said and grossly generalized, what about the public whom “own” the park and want a guide? It is just as much there natural resource as your’s or mine. I think it comes down to something much differene then the entitlement of guide services(I haven’t experienced yet have no doubt it exists). I believe guiding has a scewed perspective with private recreators because of several beliefs, but primarily that somewhere along the way money scews its image. I guess it doesn’t help that there is already a mentality that recreators are in competetion with recreators for permits, addition doesn’t help that scenario.
Even beyond the guiding element, what of the consistency piece I mentioned. Guiding is quickly discounted in National Parks, okay I can understand that opinion. What of the influence of guidebooks, beta sites, gear shops(manufacturers), magazines and media that highlight “our” natural resources. I personally don’t think they need to be vilified yet I do believe with the current level of impact/use on BLM, NFS and NPS lands it is time to hold a light to them as well. And I think this consistency is an important piece. Yes, we “own” these lands. Yes, somewhere we have inherited a right to recreate on these lands. Yet, if we simply demand access without objectively analyzing our own habits then I think we are making a big mistake. It impacts our “own” natural resources and provides even more reasons to the land managers to create more regulation. Its a problematic reality we have created; most of us in some way use these services to initially start our endeavors, but it has come to the point that now there are some many of “us”(insert canyoneer, climber, skier, etc) utilizing such a limited “comodity”(insert canyon, cliff or mountain) that I believe it is time to analyze much more than we have. And if we don’t do a thorough enough job, then the land managers(that some like, some don’t) will do the mitigation.
I applaud people who are constructively working with the NP to create a better management plan. Yet I fear if it gets solely wrapped up in better(=more, = less$) access for canyoneers then it is a lost cause that will affect us for twenty years. We have a limited time in Zion to work with this, but we can be proactive in so many other places that at the moment we primarily just recreate. Swell, Roost, North Wash, Escalante, White Canyon, Powell. Think the land managers of these resources aren’t aware of our growing impact(if solely increased popularity, which isn’t likely). Think again, “canyoneering” is not just a catch phrase that only recreators are catching on to.
“Youth”
bruce silliman
The info I’m providing is based upon road based tours ie bicycyle tours, motorcycle tours, etc. Fees generated from guiding services are miniscule. They pay a fee for the privalege of coming into the park and there really is no limit on the number of times they can enter the park. Yes they do pay an entrance fee based upon the type of vehicle they are driving, 7-15 passenger vans cost $50 here at Bryce and not sure what they charge at Zion, but that is revenue the park would have collected (or more) if the people had come into the park on their own. Overall it is not a large amount of money. There may also be some administrative costs built in to cover the secretary to prepare the paperwork.
bruce from bryce
>From: “desertres” desertres@yahoo.com
Reply-To: Yahoo Canyons Group
To: Yahoo Canyons Group
Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Setting Canyon Limits >Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:48:40 -0000
Guiding is legal in Yosemite, Yellowstone,and the Grand Tetons that >I know of. I think Zion will allow guiding as well. Heres why:
1) Zion is pretty much guided as far as a national park experience >already…..tour shuttle buses, ranger guiding, signed trails, etc. >2) Guides could provide legal protection to the park and stick to >trails, know whats required, etc…and are good hosts..try and tell >Jackson Hole guides that you have no experience and want to go to >the summit of Grand Teton. Are they just out there to take money? >3) Guiding does bring in dollars for national parks…park entry >fees..could also be money from park activities…etc. >4) Guiding brings more unique people to the parks. Sure the permits >are taken, but its the same group of canyoneers. >5) I still dont see a difference between a large group of ACA coming >through, a large group of boyscouts coming through, or a large group >of guided people coming through. Bottom line is the second they hit >the route, they are all canyoneers, some with more skills than >others but not a 100% chance of success or lack of impact for anyone.
&…Are you sure the park service sees canyoneers as friends? I dont >know. But I only have one visit to Zion, and from that, I could see >why canyoneers get no say. First, a lot of wannabe canyoneers >pounding their chests on how good they are, speeding around, >demanding permits,talking on cell phones all the time(including the >Kolob permit office) acting like they own the place or are special. >Whereas the “tourons” were saying how cool the place was, how good >the park service is, etc. >I had a difficult time obtaining a permit for the Subway…why? >because “canyoneers” were saying conditions were dangerous. >Including a group a couple weeks before that resulted in a rescue >PR. So I lied just to make it easy on them to get that permit, of >course the canyon was as described ..class 2C.
Of course Im imaging things and all canyoneers carry a respectful >attitude like a lot of experts here do….thats why last time as I >read, the park service put a stringent restrictive limit,because >canyoneers were so well admired.
Rather strange post for me, because I dont support guiding….but >thats my 2 cents.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, neil wilkinson time to learn what the heck they are doing are an asset to our >community of backcountry enthusiasts and a conduit for enjoyment to >people who would know it no other way. Not to mention a great >learning resource for the budding ‘do it yourself’ers’.
My stance, simply no guides in the National Park system.
Neil
restrac2000 wrote:
So I ask this objectively, why are folks so vehemently against
guiding? Is it strictly Zion? How closely related to one NP’s >(GC)
fiasco is this or has a similar fiasco happened many other places?
Start your day with – make it your home page
scott c.
Guiding would provide no legal protection to the Park. When a plaintiff sues for injury, everyone with potential liability is sued and all possible claims are made. Frankly, deep pockets, ie., the federal government, are always a consideration. Further, many guides have attempted to protect themselves by creating a corporation or limited liability company. Many guides likely have had or maybe still have an insurance policy in effect for 1 million dollars. Assuming a young mother or medical doctor is killed, 1M will likely be insufficient to cover the economic damages despite the general damages of pain and suffering – hence, back to the deep pockets thought. No protection is afforded to the federal government simply because there is another party to sue.
beadysee beadysee@yahoo.com> wrote: — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “desertres” wrote: > Guiding is legal in Yosemite, Yellowstone,and the Grand Tetons that > I know of. I think Zion will allow guiding as well. Heres why:
1) Zion is pretty much guided as far as a national park experience > already…..tour shuttle buses, ranger guiding, signed trails, etc.
But, not for technical canyoneering and/or climbing.
> 2) Guides could provide legal protection to the park and stick to > trails, know whats required, etc…and are good hosts..try and tell Jackson Hole guides that you have no experience and want to go to the summit of Grand Teton. Are they just out there to take money?
I’m struggling to understand your point here. Of course they’re there to take money. The less experience the better, as you enroll in ground school, take a bunch of classes, and eventually, are allowed to climb the grand with a guide.
Sure, a guide (especially a “legal” guide) has to follow the rules. That’s a given. Sometimes they don’t, though…(just like the gen public doesn’t). They’re at more risk for not following the rules than the public, though, as their permit is at risk. Helps keep them in line…ha ha.
> 3) Guiding does bring in dollars for national parks…park entry > fees..could also be money from park activities…etc.
I’d argue that of the 2 million folks a year that visit Zion, the few that would use a guide there would amount to a very small drop in the bucket for entry fees. Ditto Tetons. Ditto Yosemite. Etc.
Look how many folks visit Denali each year, versus the guided groups. Of course, they’re payin’ 200 each extra over the standard park visitor. Not fair (another subject!).
> 4) Guiding brings more unique people to the parks. Sure the permits are taken, but its the same group of canyoneers.
Guiding encourages diversity! Too funny…
-Brian in SLC
When you post, please change the Subject appropriately, to make reading and searching easier. You can use the following abbreviations: TRIP = Trip Report; BETA = Canyon Beta; PARTNER = Partner and/or Rides; ETHICS = Ethics; TECH = Technical Questions and Tips; BIZ = E Group Business; SALE = Stuff for Sale. Please use a Tilde ~ after the abbreviation, so we know you are coding for us, such as:
Subject: BIZ~ New Abbreviation List – working?
To change your delivery options, go to the Canyons Egroup page on yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/
This will require logging into Yahoo. Click on the "Edit My Membership" link, and change your delivery option. Press "Save Changes".
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you must visit the web site to view messages.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group “canyons” on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: canyons-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Groups is subject to the Terms of Service.
Mail for Mobile Take Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
scott c.
Every once in a while, the courts actually spew forth common sense. Refreshing isn’t it? Great link to the opinion Tom Thanks.
Scott Card
Tom Jones ratagoni@xmission.com> wrote: — In Yahoo Canyons Group, neil wilkinson wrote: > It’s all about the deaths in Kolob and all the money they lost and bad press. The permit system IMO is all about covering their legal backsides and has little or nothing to do with anything else. The warm fuzzy justifications came out of a need to ‘MANAGE’ the parks liability exposure. It certainly was not created because they had nothing better to do. There are specific factors that is going to make it almost impossible to turn the pages backwards. IMO.
Neil > Nope, at least, I hope not.
1. This is why, once every twenty years whether you need to or not, you do a complete planning cycle. That is what we are doing.
2. The legal climate has changed substantially since the Kolob accident. Partly due to the Kolob accident. Congress passed a law that clarifies matters greatly, in favor of the Park.
see: http://tinyurl.com/btnc7
Tom
When you post, please change the Subject appropriately, to make reading and searching easier. You can use the following abbreviations: TRIP = Trip Report; BETA = Canyon Beta; PARTNER = Partner and/or Rides; ETHICS = Ethics; TECH = Technical Questions and Tips; BIZ = E Group Business; SALE = Stuff for Sale. Please use a Tilde ~ after the abbreviation, so we know you are coding for us, such as:
Subject: BIZ~ New Abbreviation List – working?
To change your delivery options, go to the Canyons Egroup page on yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/
This will require logging into Yahoo. Click on the "Edit My Membership" link, and change your delivery option. Press "Save Changes".
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you must visit the web site to view messages.
SPONSORED LINKS Zion national park Canyon Springdale ut Hiking
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group “canyons” on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: canyons-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Groups is subject to the Terms of Service.
Start your day with – make it your home page
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “desertres” wrote: > Guiding is legal in Yosemite, Yellowstone,and the Grand Tetons that > I know of. I think Zion will allow guiding as well. Heres why:
1) Zion is pretty much guided as far as a national park experience > already…..tour shuttle buses, ranger guiding, signed trails, etc.
But, not for technical canyoneering and/or climbing.
> 2) Guides could provide legal protection to the park and stick to > trails, know whats required, etc…and are good hosts..try and tell Jackson Hole guides that you have no experience and want to go to the summit of Grand Teton. Are they just out there to take money?
I’m struggling to understand your point here. Of course they’re there to take money. The less experience the better, as you enroll in ground school, take a bunch of classes, and eventually, are allowed to climb the grand with a guide.
Sure, a guide (especially a “legal” guide) has to follow the rules. That’s a given. Sometimes they don’t, though…(just like the gen public doesn’t). They’re at more risk for not following the rules than the public, though, as their permit is at risk. Helps keep them in line…ha ha.
> 3) Guiding does bring in dollars for national parks…park entry > fees..could also be money from park activities…etc.
I’d argue that of the 2 million folks a year that visit Zion, the few that would use a guide there would amount to a very small drop in the bucket for entry fees. Ditto Tetons. Ditto Yosemite. Etc.
Look how many folks visit Denali each year, versus the guided groups. Of course, they’re payin’ 200 each extra over the standard park visitor. Not fair (another subject!).
> 4) Guiding brings more unique people to the parks. Sure the permits are taken, but its the same group of canyoneers.
Guiding encourages diversity! Too funny…
-Brian in SLC
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, neil wilkinson wrote: > You see no parallel between the Kolob accident and the advent of the permit system in Zion? I admit the permit system has grown way beyond the Kolob accident, but I think our current permit issues where birthed when that Scout group died.
Neil
Dude, like, they had a permit, eh?
What evolved afterwards was the checking of the list on the back of the permit that you didn’t have your head stuffed up your arse too far.
But, they had a permit. Then they sued the park for issuing said permit.
Another arguement against having a permit in the first place. Reduces the perception of some type of liability on the part of the issuer of the permit.
-Brian in SLC
Rich Carlson
> I agree. The whole system is cobbled together from reactions to > various incidents, most notably the Kolob ‘accident’.
That’s only part of it. Three reasons given for implementing limits/permits, in order of priority:
1. Environmental resource protection 2. Visitor safety (and liability) (and rescue costs) 3. Visitor experience
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Two canyons were closed completely, to be used as study areas and to establish a “baseline” to measure impacts in other canyons. The limits selected are arbitrary numbers, but they had to start somewhere. At some point, they will have to evaluate the validity of the numbers. Were they set too high or too low? Canyoneers need to focus on minimizing impacts to prove the canyons can handle higher numbers. To me, that means:
(a) being more responsible for our own actions (b) educating others (c) cleaning up after others who have not been educated (d) volunteering for more service projects (e) taking measures to insure people stay in the water course
Because this issue is number one on the list, it should receive the most attention from canyoneers who want changes.
VISITOR SAFETY (LIABILITY) (RESCUE COSTS) Be careful how you argue this one. I’ve heard/read people say that the current permit system creates a safety issue because it forces people into canyons that are beyond their ability. Ram proposes a system of permits in the easy, high-traffic canyons and no permits in others. The safety issue argument will come right back — people will opt for canyons that are beyond their ability because there is less hassle.
This issue, handled wrong, could also push the NPS toward allowing guiding. Some have suggested that land managers like guides because of the revenue received. I don’t agree. From my own experience as a guide, I believe it has more to do with simplicity and safety. It is simpler to manage a few guides than it is to manage an unlimited number of recreators. Guides are required to submit detailed operating plans that outline how they will minimize their impacts. They know they will risk losing their permits if they don’t adhere to their operating plans.
There is a perception (right or wrong) that guided trips will be safer because guides have more expertise, will provide the right gear, will screen participants, etc. It is also assumed that guides can deal with most problems without calling out the SAR team. The availability of guides will allow access to canyons by incompetent people who would otherwise attempt them on their own. And guides are often viewed as a “force multiplier”. They will be in the canyons frequently to identify impacts, they have a vested interest in keeping the canyons clean, and they may be in a position to help non-clients they encounter who need help.
I’m not arguing for guiding in Zion. I am against it. I am simply warning against over- playing the safety argument.
VISITOR EXPERIENCE Way, way too much emphasis has been placed on this issue. It is a mistake for two reasons:
(1) It is the most divisive of the three issues among canyoneers. It is wrong to assume that all canyoneers oppose use limits.
(2) Because it is only #3 on the list, the over-play may give the NPS the impression that canyoneers don’t understand or care about their more important issues.
desertres
Guiding is legal in Yosemite, Yellowstone,and the Grand Tetons that I know of. I think Zion will allow guiding as well. Heres why:
1) Zion is pretty much guided as far as a national park experience already…..tour shuttle buses, ranger guiding, signed trails, etc. 2) Guides could provide legal protection to the park and stick to trails, know whats required, etc…and are good hosts..try and tell Jackson Hole guides that you have no experience and want to go to the summit of Grand Teton. Are they just out there to take money? 3) Guiding does bring in dollars for national parks…park entry fees..could also be money from park activities…etc. 4) Guiding brings more unique people to the parks. Sure the permits are taken, but its the same group of canyoneers. 5) I still dont see a difference between a large group of ACA coming through, a large group of boyscouts coming through, or a large group of guided people coming through. Bottom line is the second they hit the route, they are all canyoneers, some with more skills than others but not a 100% chance of success or lack of impact for anyone.
&…Are you sure the park service sees canyoneers as friends? I dont know. But I only have one visit to Zion, and from that, I could see why canyoneers get no say. First, a lot of wannabe canyoneers pounding their chests on how good they are, speeding around, demanding permits,talking on cell phones all the time(including the Kolob permit office) acting like they own the place or are special. Whereas the “tourons” were saying how cool the place was, how good the park service is, etc. I had a difficult time obtaining a permit for the Subway…why? because “canyoneers” were saying conditions were dangerous. Including a group a couple weeks before that resulted in a rescue PR. So I lied just to make it easy on them to get that permit, of course the canyon was as described ..class 2C.
Of course Im imaging things and all canyoneers carry a respectful attitude like a lot of experts here do….thats why last time as I read, the park service put a stringent restrictive limit,because canyoneers were so well admired.
Rather strange post for me, because I dont support guiding….but thats my 2 cents.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, neil wilkinson wrote: > For the record: Qualified, competent guides who have taken the time to learn what the heck they are doing are an asset to our community of backcountry enthusiasts and a conduit for enjoyment to people who would know it no other way. Not to mention a great learning resource for the budding ‘do it yourself’ers’.
My stance, simply no guides in the National Park system.
Neil
restrac2000 wrote: > So I ask this objectively, why are folks so vehemently against > guiding? Is it strictly Zion? How closely related to one NP’s (GC) > fiasco is this or has a similar fiasco happened many other places?
> > Start your day with – make it your home page
Tom Jones
I agree. The whole system is cobbled together from reactions to various incidents, most notably the Kolob ‘accident’. Which is why, once every 20 years, the world otta take a good look at how we are doing things, and figure out what works and what doesn’t, and throw out the bath water, and keep the baby.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, neil wilkinson wrote: > Tom,
You see no parallel between the Kolob accident and the advent of the permit system in Zion? I admit the permit system has grown way beyond the Kolob accident, but I think our current permit issues where birthed when that Scout group died.
Neil
Tom Jones wrote: > Nope, at least, I hope not.
1. This is why, once every twenty years whether you need to or not, > you do a complete planning cycle. That is what we are doing.
2. The legal climate has changed substantially since the Kolob > accident. Partly due to the Kolob accident. Congress passed a law > that clarifies matters greatly, in favor of the Park.
see: http://tinyurl.com/btnc7
> Tom >
neil wilkinson
Tom,
You see no parallel between the Kolob accident and the advent of the permit system in Zion? I admit the permit system has grown way beyond the Kolob accident, but I think our current permit issues where birthed when that Scout group died.
Neil
Tom Jones ratagoni@xmission.com> wrote: Nope, at least, I hope not.
1. This is why, once every twenty years whether you need to or not, you do a complete planning cycle. That is what we are doing.
2. The legal climate has changed substantially since the Kolob accident. Partly due to the Kolob accident. Congress passed a law that clarifies matters greatly, in favor of the Park.
see: http://tinyurl.com/btnc7
Tom
When you post, please change the Subject appropriately, to make reading and searching easier. You can use the following abbreviations: TRIP = Trip Report; BETA = Canyon Beta; PARTNER = Partner and/or Rides; ETHICS = Ethics; TECH = Technical Questions and Tips; BIZ = E Group Business; SALE = Stuff for Sale. Please use a Tilde ~ after the abbreviation, so we know you are coding for us, such as:
Subject: BIZ~ New Abbreviation List – working?
To change your delivery options, go to the Canyons Egroup page on yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/
This will require logging into Yahoo. Click on the "Edit My Membership" link, and change your delivery option. Press "Save Changes".
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you must visit the web site to view messages.
SPONSORED LINKS Zion national park Canyon Springdale ut Hiking
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group “canyons” on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: canyons-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Groups is subject to the Terms of Service.