National Parks often use a permit and quota system to control gross crowding at the most-sought after objectives. There also may be good safety reasons for doing so: with VERY many people in a particular place, it may become a dangerous place.
However, usually quotas are set to prevent “degradation of the experience”. If the delightful wilderness canyon is “overly crowded”, the experience of visitors will not be very good. On the other hand, if people are not allowed into the canyon, then their experience is not very good either.
How does a rational land manager figure out what is the right level to set the quota at?
In Zion National Park, the quotas were set arbitrarily. If you ask the Park, you will usually get the answer that “everybody is happy with it”. Well, maybe the people that get to go…
So, I just want to toss this out, and see what people thing. How SHOULD the Park set quotas? Let’s talk about the Subway specifically – is the current quota level appropriate? What would be a better level? Have you felt overly crowded in the Subway (in the last 5 years)? What is your experience?
Tom
Steve Newcomb
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “bsilliman2001” wrote: > Tom wrote:> It is NOT a big, intractable problem. Our resource impacts > are small, specific, and manageable.
Our impacts may be small now, but will only grow as the sport continues to grow and expand into the seldom used canyon areas. If all the erosion at the Mystery entrance is caused by less than 13 people walking through each day, then it’s clear a small number of people can cause a lot of erosion.
> This is a significant point in how we present our solution. Compared > to the normal visitor who is hiking on trails that have to maintained > year round, we are in fact doing little damage to the resource.
The vast majority of visitors drive on the roads, walk on the paved paths and trails, and wander up the Narrows a bit. These are all in developed areas that have different standards than the backcountry. I’m sure if you put it in terms of impact/visitor or resource dollar/user, the canyoneerer doesn’t come out looking so good.
> We are users and not abusers. We use what is available to us already > i.e. that terrible entry into Keyhole.
I don’t believe anyone but canyoneerers had anything to do with the creation of the entry into Keyhole. We are both users and abusers, if abuse is defined as creating eroded hillsides and broken vegetation by walking down slopes that can not hold our weight. And a lot of us doing it without regard to its impact or future users.
As Tom says the problems are specific and manageable, but the solution requires a change in the current mindset of the park’s managers.
Steve Tucson, AZ
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “scott c.” wrote: >will seek permits later. Geez, Springdale doesn’t even start churning until at least 8:00 a.m. at the earliest. Can’t even find breakfast. Just a thought. >
7:00 am at the Pioneer Restaurant.
6:30 am at the Mean Bean, and they have actual food now.
Tom
scott c.
My question is does anyone know or keep track of how many permits are actually picked up vs. reserved? In other words, I am certain that many of the online permits issued are not filled and could be by those walking up to the window. What about a deadline for canyons like the Subway that if you don’t have your permit by 10:00 am. on the day of your hike, it is free game for the walk-up folks. Same for Mystery or others that are reserved. Most of us like to get an early start but many from out of state don’t understand and will seek permits later. Geez, Springdale doesn’t even start churning until at least 8:00 a.m. at the earliest. Can’t even find breakfast. Just a thought.
Tom Jones ratagoni@xmission.com> wrote:The ZCC asked the Park to keep track of permits denied, and they declined to do so.
To me, the biggee is to be clear on what we (The Park with our cooperation) seeks to achieve, and look for the best way to achieve it. Currently, the Park has the permit system as it’s main tool, and has trouble thinking outside the box. Funny how when your only tool is a screwdriver, everything looks like a screw!
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “JoeB” wrote: > I think the two themes of issues in the discussion on both groups are:
1. Easing the act of getting a permit (waiting in line, online > permits, getting permits offhours/offsite, etc.)
2. The issues of limits per canyon and ways to increase the limits > without having a negative impact on the canyons.
I have plenty of suggestions for issue #1, but #2 is much harder.
Tom – Do we have any hard stats on actual number of permits being > filled on given days and what canyons are most denied? (I remember > seeing the stats from a few years back on the ZCC website.) I would > guess that the Subway, Pine Creek, Mystery, and maybe Keyhole would be > the big areas of contention. -Joe
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 North fork 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.
bsilliman2001
Tom wrote:> It is NOT a big, intractable problem. Our resource impacts are small, specific, and manageable. > This is a significant point in how we present our solution. Compared to the normal visitor who is hiking on trails that have to maintained year round, we are in fact doing little damage to the resource.
We are users and not abusers. We use what is available to us already i.e. that terrible entry into Keyhole.
Bruce from Bryce
Tom Jones
You know, the whole use limits, zones and reservations are there to make darn sure you have “a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;”
See quote from the Wilderness Act below.
Complete Wilderness Act is available at:
http://tinyurl.com/clm3g
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “~tanya” wrote: > This would be ideal! Although I totally respect the right to make rules and policy as the head guys see fit to govern all they need too… Law Suits, all the people they have to deal with, etc… (although this respect is going away some as I get older lol)
But! No permits would be totally awesome.
And
Grand Canyon with no permits… oh yeah!!!!! Those are hard to come by!
Thunder River — we grabbed one of the only permits before snow hits! What if its a bad weekend. So goes the game in the National Parks. It would be so nice to just go out any time we please! > The Wilderness Act (partial):
(c) “Wilderness” defined A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of underdeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
~tanya
This would be ideal! Although I totally respect the right to make rules and policy as the head guys see fit to govern all they need too… Law Suits, all the people they have to deal with, etc… (although this respect is going away some as I get older lol)
But! No permits would be totally awesome.
And
Grand Canyon with no permits… oh yeah!!!!! Those are hard to come by!
Thunder River — we grabbed one of the only permits before snow hits! What if its a bad weekend. So goes the game in the National Parks. It would be so nice to just go out any time we please!
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, neil wilkinson wrote: > Life could only get better if you didn’t need to bother with the permit.
neil wilkinson
Life could only get better if you didn’t need to bother with the permit.
JoeB joe@citrusmilo.com> wrote:
Fill up at the Thunderbird, play a round of golf, and print out your Subway permit. Could life get any better?
JoeB
Hey thanks Tanya! BTW — I’ll back you up on that East Zion kiosk. Damn that would be cool. Fill up at the Thunderbird, play a round of golf, and print out your Subway permit. Could life get any better?
> By the way Joe. I love your posts about anything debatable. Your mind set, your rational > thought and the way you present it!
Thanks for the insight!!! >
~tanya
But I hear Mystery is not worth it.
By the way Joe. I love your posts about anything debatable. Your mind set, your rational thought and the way you present it!
Thanks for the insight!!!
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “JoeB” wrote: I would guess that the Subway, Pine Creek, Mystery, and maybe Keyhole would be the big areas of contention. -Joe
Tom Jones
The ZCC asked the Park to keep track of permits denied, and they declined to do so.
To me, the biggee is to be clear on what we (The Park with our cooperation) seeks to achieve, and look for the best way to achieve it. Currently, the Park has the permit system as it’s main tool, and has trouble thinking outside the box. Funny how when your only tool is a screwdriver, everything looks like a screw!
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “JoeB” wrote: > I think the two themes of issues in the discussion on both groups are:
1. Easing the act of getting a permit (waiting in line, online > permits, getting permits offhours/offsite, etc.)
2. The issues of limits per canyon and ways to increase the limits > without having a negative impact on the canyons.
I have plenty of suggestions for issue #1, but #2 is much harder.
Tom – Do we have any hard stats on actual number of permits being > filled on given days and what canyons are most denied? (I remember > seeing the stats from a few years back on the ZCC website.) I would > guess that the Subway, Pine Creek, Mystery, and maybe Keyhole would be > the big areas of contention. -Joe
JoeB
I think the two themes of issues in the discussion on both groups are:
1. Easing the act of getting a permit (waiting in line, online permits, getting permits offhours/offsite, etc.)
2. The issues of limits per canyon and ways to increase the limits without having a negative impact on the canyons.
I have plenty of suggestions for issue #1, but #2 is much harder.
Tom – Do we have any hard stats on actual number of permits being filled on given days and what canyons are most denied? (I remember seeing the stats from a few years back on the ZCC website.) I would guess that the Subway, Pine Creek, Mystery, and maybe Keyhole would be the big areas of contention. -Joe
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “adkramoo” wrote:
We have and we have run into zoning restrictions, I believe, using > Mystery as an example. Is that true Tom? Anyone else? Wouldn’t let us stablize a trail of use because it was a primative (?) zone? > Not real true. The situation is this: at the moment, the Park is fairly free to maintain trails in the Primitive Zone – because that is the zone where they put most of the trails. The Park recently did a project to stabilize and improve the gully/trail down to Russell Gulch, on the normal Subway route. This is Primitive Zone. They are considering work on Keyhole, again Primitive Zone.
The Mystery approach is in the Pristine Zone. This is the zone where you cannot tell that people have passed (it is Pristine), therefore there cannot possibly be trailwork that needs to be done! But, I am being snide. The current status is that this IS supposed to be the zone where signs of human passage are small, and therefore stabilizing trails should not be required. In the Backcountry Planning Process, the Park need to decide if trailwork in the Pristine Zone is appropriate, and if so, to what standard.
The ZCC is working with the Park to evaluate the Mystery, Keyhole and Pine Creek access trails, and consider what resources would be required to do a good job.
One thing we can all agree on, is that the Mystery trail is not a “ten guys with a shovel for four hours”, “service-project” type problem. It is a difficult problem, and needs to be solved professionally. I think the canyoneering community is up to providing the resources required to solve these erosion problems. The tune is about $100,000 over 10 years.
Ask the question: which canyons are impacted the most on entry and exit? how can we as a group mitigate that impact? which canyons are impacted as canyoneerers travel through them? what can we do to limit it? > —> The specific places where there are problems can be counted on one hand. This is good, real good. In general, we travel on hardened and refreshed surfaces, and there are places where we don’t especially on approaches and exits. There are few enough that they CAN be actively managed. The Park will say it does not have the resources to actively manage them – the canyoneering community must provide those resources on a voluntary basis.
In addition to desseminating accurate information? We do this pretty hard, but in many places (such as The Subway), the percentage of users that read our stuff is fairly low. My new Guidebook (October? February?) will help get to some of these.
It is NOT a big, intractable problem. Our resource impacts are small, specific, and manageable.
Tom
mike_dallin
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “adkramoo” wrote: > Do we have Sect 106 and NEPA+ written out for review?? > Ram
I’ve been reading up on this stuff for a while now. NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act. This covers such procedures as Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and so on. Volunteer groups that assist with trailbuilding projects on federal lands usually go through the NEPA process before ground is broken. The EPA has a web site that covers the basics of it:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/index.html
If you want to read the statute itself and other related documents, go here:
http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm
Section 106 is from the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) which, as the name implies, deals with the preservation of historic properties. I’m not sure about Utah, but in Colorado’s canyons this may be an issue, since a few of the canyons have historic mining equipment, mills, etc, within or near the canyon (such as Spruce Creek/Continental Falls up towards Hoosier Pass). More info is here:
http://www.achp.gov/work106.html
M
Steve Newcomb
I’ve done the Subway twice and it didn’t feel crowded either time.
> In limited canyoneering but extensive time spent in national parks the > biggest problem is the impact on the area of concern. If we can offer > solutions to limit this effect of the users, i.e. by assisting in > providing accurate beta for entry and exit, then our opinions may be of
I agree the biggest impact currenty is the entry and exit “trails”. However, I don’t think the solution is written or mapped beta. It is buiding real trails where the banks are too steep for routes, and spending the time and effort to MARK routes with cairns (stone piles) where erosion isn’t an issue.
The entry to the regular subway is an eyesore and not very safe. There’s no real problem finding it or following it. The slope just doesn’t support anyone sliding down it. Same with Mystery.
> the only damage on the environment is the entry and exit. Within the canyon > it is almost pristine and if we scrape up the inner walls the marks are > usually gone with the next major rain. We already try to limit the use
Canyons can and do get significant erosion within the canyons as well (Behunin, Spry), and that’s the reason Tom and others tell (really, preach to) people to stay in the watercourse, where there isn’t any dirt to erode and the sands get “reset” with heavy water flow. The tread is the lightest there.
> Possibly this group could assist in producing a pamphlet with topo maps > that shows the ‘highly recommended’ entry to the canyons?
Maps by themselves just aren’t high enough detail to place a person on a route and keep them there. A GPS waypoint might help find an entry point, but it also is only good to 30 or so feet at best (and there are other complications, like the datum). It may seem like nothing, but when surrounded by bushes and trees, and only a faint path to find, it just doesn’t work very well.
Entry/Exit degradation is a major challenge facing the community if it wants property owners and parks to continue to provide access. And it’s not so simple. For remote, seldom used canyons it might be best that each group take a slightly different route. A few people bushwacking doesn’t usually leave much overturned, the seasonal growth covering it back up. The parks are against the idea of creating new trails through the backcountry (like the Mystery entrance) and when the traffic doesn’t support it, it probably is the best approach.
But once the traffic reaches a certain level, then a single well marked approach would help prevent whole hillsides being eroded with multiple trails leading in all directions. I’m pretty conscientious about staying on trail, but during a recent trip through a secret canyon it was impossible because no one route was marked, and the area was covered with paths. There’s a big difference in ease of following when all you have to look for is a single path of slight human traffic (turned soil, broken twigs, etc) vs. chosing amongst many obvious worn treads.
I beleive this is the crux of the problem the park service faces. If you continue to allow more than insignificant numbers into these canyons, then you have to establish real trails to minimize the impact. But establishing trails is against a primary goal of maintaining the wilderness. I think they are going to have to sacrafice some canyons and close others. In a way, this is what they are basically doing right now, but as more canyoneerers seek out more canyons they haven’t done, they won’t be able to maintain a blind eye to the impact that occurs with the higher numbers.
Steve Tucson, AZ
“Wilderness is a lot like pregnancy – it either is, or it isn’t. And after it just isn’t the same.”
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “bruce silliman” wrote: > It appears that if we can use the terms “protection of the resource” we will > go a long way towards making a valid argument.
Thanx for the “insiders” perspective, Bruce
If we can offer > solutions to limit this effect of the users, i.e. by assisting in providing > accurate beta for entry and exit, then our opinions may be of more value.
We have and we have run into zoning restrictions, I believe, using Mystery as an example. Is that true Tom? Anyone else? Wouldn’t let us stablize a trail of use because it was a primative (?) zone?
> Ask the question: which canyons are impacted the most on entry and exit? > how can we as a group mitigate that impact? which canyons are impacted as > canyoneerers travel through them? what can we do to limit it?
This is great. Behunin, Spry we now try and not use the social trails. Below the Subway hike out? It ios time for an established trail rather than the 2-4 that run parallel. Mystery entry trail. Others?
We already try to limit the use of > anchors where possible and replace those that are unsafe, so our group is > assisting the park in managing the resource.
We are and do. We should make sure that this is understood by the powers that be.
> Possibly this group could assist in producing a pamphlet with topo maps that > shows the ‘highly recommended’ entry to the canyons?
An extension of what the web sites do already? Hard copy. Would the park be receptive? Consider it an asset and distribute? No liability?
> One other thought. Remember Section 106, NEPA+ compliance runs through > everything the park service does in evaluating backcountry and wilderness.
Do we have Sect 106 and NEPA+ written out for review?? Ram
bruce silliman
It appears that if we can use the terms “protection of the resource” we will go a long way towards making a valid argument.
In limited canyoneering but extensive time spent in national parks the biggest problem is the impact on the area of concern. If we can offer solutions to limit this effect of the users, i.e. by assisting in providing accurate beta for entry and exit, then our opinions may be of more value.
Ask the question: which canyons are impacted the most on entry and exit? how can we as a group mitigate that impact? which canyons are impacted as canyoneerers travel through them? what can we do to limit it?
I’ve only been through 3 canyons, Pine Creek, Keyhole and Echo Canyon, and the only damage on the environment is the entry and exit. Within the canyon it is almost pristine and if we scrape up the inner walls the marks are usually gone with the next major rain. We already try to limit the use of anchors where possible and replace those that are unsafe, so our group is assisting the park in managing the resource.
Possibly this group could assist in producing a pamphlet with topo maps that shows the ‘highly recommended’ entry to the canyons?
One other thought. Remember Section 106, NEPA+ compliance runs through everything the park service does in evaluating backcountry and wilderness.
Just my thoughts as a canyoneer,
Bruce from Bryce
>From: “Tom Jones” ratagoni@xmission.com
Reply-To: Yahoo Canyons Group
To: Yahoo Canyons Group
Subject: Re: [from Canyons Group] Setting Canyon Limits >Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:23:50 -0000
Thanks for playing, Neil.
My question was really, is there a way to set limits other than >pulling a number out of one’s, uh, the air? We can all pull a >number out of the air, I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how >to do it slightly more scientifically?
And let’s talk Subway, first.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, neil wilkinson require a permit!!!!)
Spry, Mystery, Behunin – 25 per day (large groups may be a pain >but not unsafe.
Popular tough canyons like Imlay, Kolob and Heaps – I’m okay w/12 >it keeps crowding down which tends for safer travel. Imagine >getting stuck behind a group of 10 in Heaps?
Lessor popular destinations do not have quotas. Permits for >remote destinations are free, w/a sign up station that is open >24/7. Keep current back-country desk to issue permits to the unwary >looking for permits to things like Subway.
i.e. – Only Canyons listed above will require a trip to see your >friendly ranger, everything else is walk up and sign in.
Food for thought, I’m not 100% sure I agree with everything I just >wrote but it’s kinda my own rough thoughts.
Neil
Tom Jones wrote:
National Parks often use a permit and quota system to control >gross
crowding at the most-sought after objectives. There also may be
good safety reasons for doing so: with VERY many people in a
particular place, it may become a dangerous place.
However, usually quotas are set to prevent “degradation of the
experience”. If the delightful wilderness canyon is “overly
crowded”, the experience of visitors will not be very good. On >the
other hand, if people are not allowed into the canyon, then their
experience is not very good either.
How does a rational land manager figure out what is the right >level
to set the quota at?
In Zion National Park, the quotas were set arbitrarily. If you >ask
the Park, you will usually get the answer that “everybody is happy
with it”. Well, maybe the people that get to go…
So, I just want to toss this out, and see what people thing. How
SHOULD the Park set quotas? Let’s talk about the Subway
specifically – is the current quota level appropriate? What would
be a better level? Have you felt overly crowded in the Subway (in
the last 5 years)? What is your experience?
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".
DAILY DIGEST OPTION will deliver one email
to you each day summarizing that day’s messages.
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you
must visit the web site to view messages.
SPONSORED LINKS
North fork 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
Tom Jones
Thanks for playing, Neil.
My question was really, is there a way to set limits other than pulling a number out of one’s, uh, the air? We can all pull a number out of the air, I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how to do it slightly more scientifically?
And let’s talk Subway, first.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, neil wilkinson wrote: > Here is a thought to start discussion:
Subway, Pine Creek – 50 per day is okay w/me (Keyhole should not require a permit!!!!)
Spry, Mystery, Behunin – 25 per day (large groups may be a pain but not unsafe.
Popular tough canyons like Imlay, Kolob and Heaps – I’m okay w/12 it keeps crowding down which tends for safer travel. Imagine getting stuck behind a group of 10 in Heaps?
Lessor popular destinations do not have quotas. Permits for remote destinations are free, w/a sign up station that is open 24/7. Keep current back-country desk to issue permits to the unwary looking for permits to things like Subway.
i.e. – Only Canyons listed above will require a trip to see your friendly ranger, everything else is walk up and sign in.
Food for thought, I’m not 100% sure I agree with everything I just wrote but it’s kinda my own rough thoughts.
Neil
Tom Jones wrote: > National Parks often use a permit and quota system to control gross > crowding at the most-sought after objectives. There also may be > good safety reasons for doing so: with VERY many people in a > particular place, it may become a dangerous place.
However, usually quotas are set to prevent “degradation of the > experience”. If the delightful wilderness canyon is “overly > crowded”, the experience of visitors will not be very good. On the > other hand, if people are not allowed into the canyon, then their > experience is not very good either.
How does a rational land manager figure out what is the right level > to set the quota at?
In Zion National Park, the quotas were set arbitrarily. If you ask > the Park, you will usually get the answer that “everybody is happy > with it”. Well, maybe the people that get to go…
So, I just want to toss this out, and see what people thing. How > SHOULD the Park set quotas? Let’s talk about the Subway > specifically – is the current quota level appropriate? What would > be a better level? Have you felt overly crowded in the Subway (in > the last 5 years)? What is your experience?
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".
DAILY DIGEST OPTION will deliver one email > to you each day summarizing that day’s messages.
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you > must visit the web site to view messages.
SPONSORED LINKS > North fork 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
Kris Nosack
On 8/15/05, Tom Jones ratagoni@xmission.com> wrote: > So, I just want to toss this out, and see what people thing. How > SHOULD the Park set quotas?
The foremost criteria, and the one that should be most agreeable to all parties, is “do no harm” to the canyon such that it remains in essentially it’s natural state for generations. It should be obvious when a particular canyon (and it’s approach and departure route) are being damaged by too much human traffic. At this point limits should be imposed. But I do expect the Park to do their part by “maintaining” the canyons, for example: blocking social trails, removing bad anchors and possibly placing good anchors (or allowing the canyoneering community to do this), and even improving approach trails so they are sustainable (i.e. don’t cause erosion). There is some subjectivity in judging what is and isn’t damage to the canyon environ, but at least this should have some measurable, visible proofs.
Second is overcrowding and solitude. Very subjective stuff since some folks are able to soak up the wilderness environ in a large group, while others cannot. I feel the primary way to improve solitude is by limiting the group size, then secondarily limiting the number of people per day. And even though subject, I feel statistically valid surveys with non-leading questions can help determine the average visitor satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the quality of their experience and then limits should follow accordingly.
> Let’s talk about the Subway > specifically – is the current quota level appropriate? What would > be a better level? Have you felt overly crowded in the Subway (in > the last 5 years)? What is your experience?
I’ve only been through the Subway once, and that was with a group of 6-8. Below Keyhole Falls we encountered other groups enjoying the canyon so the total at that point was around 15. The people did not detract from experience, in fact they enhanced it in some ways. It’s enjoyable to share a place like this with others. Some in our party had been here many times and pointed out some features I would not have seen by myself. And while talking could be heard, it was largely drowned out by the cascading water. My experience was: the other people were an insignificant distraction from my enjoyment of the Subway.
From the above experience I feel the limit of 50 is, if anything, too low. I feel this place could tolerate 70 or more people per day without affecting the experience. It helps that the Subway is a fairly large canyon (by slot canyon standards).
– Kris
neil wilkinson
Here is a thought to start discussion:
Subway, Pine Creek – 50 per day is okay w/me (Keyhole should not require a permit!!!!)
Spry, Mystery, Behunin – 25 per day (large groups may be a pain but not unsafe.
Popular tough canyons like Imlay, Kolob and Heaps – I’m okay w/12 it keeps crowding down which tends for safer travel. Imagine getting stuck behind a group of 10 in Heaps?
Lessor popular destinations do not have quotas. Permits for remote destinations are free, w/a sign up station that is open 24/7. Keep current back-country desk to issue permits to the unwary looking for permits to things like Subway.
i.e. – Only Canyons listed above will require a trip to see your friendly ranger, everything else is walk up and sign in.
Food for thought, I’m not 100% sure I agree with everything I just wrote but it’s kinda my own rough thoughts.
Neil
Tom Jones ratagoni@xmission.com> wrote: National Parks often use a permit and quota system to control gross crowding at the most-sought after objectives. There also may be good safety reasons for doing so: with VERY many people in a particular place, it may become a dangerous place.
However, usually quotas are set to prevent “degradation of the experience”. If the delightful wilderness canyon is “overly crowded”, the experience of visitors will not be very good. On the other hand, if people are not allowed into the canyon, then their experience is not very good either.
How does a rational land manager figure out what is the right level to set the quota at?
In Zion National Park, the quotas were set arbitrarily. If you ask the Park, you will usually get the answer that “everybody is happy with it”. Well, maybe the people that get to go…
So, I just want to toss this out, and see what people thing. How SHOULD the Park set quotas? Let’s talk about the Subway specifically – is the current quota level appropriate? What would be a better level? Have you felt overly crowded in the Subway (in the last 5 years)? What is your experience?
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 North fork 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