Looks like some people can get together to descend canyons and repair canyon damages in Virgin River Gorge, Arizona the weekend of Jan 28, 29. Camping will be at Cedar Pocket.
It would be great if peeps would come that can help with unbolting and un-trailing Cherry canyon, but there will be other canyons and time permitting, an exploratory that weekend as well. I think the Emperor would be happy to supervise the removals as he is nursing his wrist.
Probably can just show up on Friday night. There is the need to cross the Virgin River there, so flows can change the plan. Wading across knee to mid thigh has been the usual m.o. Change of shoes on the other side sort of thing.
The rock is carniverous limestone but not overly slotty.
There were no pools we had to go through.
I may not be able to go, but wanted to throw the dates out there so people could plan.
Rick I and some of the Las Vegas canyoneers are planning to go.
Hope you can make it!
Lori C
Ice
>>Not everyone is going to see things the way you do and the only way to keep a place the way you found it is not to advertise it. If you advertise, well, I hate to say ‘you’re asking for it’, but you’re asking for it…. they will come. And they will bring their own ideologies with them.
My experience has been totally different…. keeping it secret works in the short term, but not the long term. Sooner or later the cat is going to get out of the bag one way or anther.
So…. if your interest is in the long term you need to decide how you want to distribute the information and what education you would like to accompany the information that is distributed. Something to keep in mind that I believe is very important, the first point of distribution has by far the largest potential for influencing the direction and ethics for an area or canyon. In the long run education is your best ally.
I also see this as a perfect example of one person causing a real problem for all canyoneers. When I talk with land managers its never the 90% doing things correctly that is a concern. Its the small group using poor practices and ethics that are a worry to them and cause the rest of us grief.
YMMV……….
TomJones
Continuing the discussion –
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
> I guess I believe we all have a responsibility to participate in meeting agreed-upon objectives, by taking action when it is appropriate.
> Agreed upon? Weak element of argument. As I will point out later, the only actor who has “agreed upon” (published and democratic) objectives is the BLM. Getting “permission” from them is the way to justify your statement. >
The BLM is a public agency, so yes, they have published goals and objectives. In the Law, in the Wilderness Act, in their management plans. You do not need a license from the BLM to pick up trash in the Wilderness. You do not need a license to scrub off graffiti scratched on a wall. Every land manager I have talked to (BLM North Wash, Zion NP, Escalante Canyons of GCNRA) thanks us when we take these actions, without permission. I have spent time blocking off social trails and focusing use on a single trail, and have been thanked for my efforts.
From these discussions, I have drawn the conclusion that the Land Managers are happy to have competent, engaged citizens participating in managing the wild lands.
Then again, people building ATV trails probably think they are doing the same thing – assisting the BLM in managing their lands. The difference here is, of course, that what they are doing is clearly illegal, as stated in the Forest (or BLM) Management Plan, even if the case can be made that it is consistent with the Goal of “providing a variety of recreation opportunities”.
> I would more characterize the post as an “extension to absurdity” argument, rather than strawman. But really, I was trying to tease out your principle – do you really believe it inappropriate for citizens to take actions consistent with management objectives, without permission from the land manager?
> The larger principle for me is rooted in consistency. The wilderness designation was used to justify the cleanup. An unsanctioned cleanup in a wilderness area seems ironic to me. You can try to tease out all you want but I chose not play along. >
I fail to see a lack of consistency. What are you referring to? A couple friends restoring vandalism without using power tools is consistent with Wilderness values. Are you talking about something else?
One Wilderness value that gets little sophisticated play is the opportunity for Solitude. Since social encounters can be measured, counting social encounters has become a substitute for solitude, but solitude is not a matter of just being by ones-self. see: http://www.canyoneeringusa.com/zcc/2173.pdf
“Solitude is psychological detachment from society for the purpose of cultivating the inner world of the self. It is the act of emotionally isolating oneself for self-discovery, self-realization, meaning, wholeness, and heightened awareness of one’s deepest feelings, and impulses. It implies a morality that values the self, at lease on occasion, as above the common good.”
I suggest that my taking the initiative to care for the land and mitigate impacts created by other canyoneers is consistent with wilderness values.
> I’m just confused, because it sounds like you think individuals have a responsibility to do NOTHING, even when human impacts are created illegally and against the agreed-upon management objectives.
You are representing my critique as a false dichotomy to prove yourself right (which therefor makes your argument a logical fallacy) There is a lot more wiggle room in there than you admit (but that doesn’t play well for your attempts since you are one of the actors trying to facilitate change). Your statement above is more about your own reasoning than mine. >
That wasn’t an argument, that was a request for clarification. Perhaps you would clarify what you were saying.
But let me state that as an argument:
I think we can agree that for certain actions on public land, even those consistent with management goals and plans, permission and direction from the managing authority is required. And for other actions, permission is not required. I feel that erasing vandalism such as recently established social trails falls within the range of actions individuals can take without explicit land manager permission.
Apparently you feel otherwise. Is this a matter of personal choice? Are you saying it is IN FACT illegal to move a little dirt around to restore the natural landscape (as we have previously agreed (perhaps) that it is illegal to move a little dirt around to establish a significant trail)?
Let me also point out that vandalism begets vandalism, so that the sooner vandalism can be restored, the less likely subsequent vandalism is likely to occur. Therefore timely reaction is called for.
(enough for now)
Tom
phil
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
> Please, be my guest.
My taking action does not prevent you from also taking some form of action.
Tom >
hehe….nice try. Out of everyone here its odd for you to resort to that finality of argument.
Not gonna happen. Not all preferences see themselves into action; this would be one such for me.
But I also value constructive criticism within the community. But if you believe in the famous false dichotomies, actions speak louder than words, than I guess I am almost mute (it is my guess that this is what your comment is trying to highlight).
Phillip
TomJones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
I actually agree with the desire to limit man made trails in the area but I think a different approach is in order for the long term conservation of the resource. A little more patience (and choosing not to blindly guess at culprits) and collaboration with land managers could limit the intra-community squabbles we have witnessed in the past. I think that can coexist along with the reclamation of this specific trail. >
Please, be my guest.
My taking action does not prevent you from also taking some form of action.
Tom
phil
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
I guess I believe we all have a responsibility to participate in meeting agreed-upon objectives, by taking action when it is appropriate. >
Agreed upon? Weak element of argument. As I will point out later, the only actor who has “agreed upon” (published and democratic) objectives is the BLM. Getting “permission” from them is the way to justify your statement.
> I would more characterize the post as an “extension to absurdity” argument, rather than strawman. But really, I was trying to tease out your principle – do you really believe it inappropriate for citizens to take actions consistent with management objectives, without permission from the land manager? >
The larger principle for me is rooted in consistency. The wilderness designation was used to justify the cleanup. An unsanctioned cleanup in a wilderness area seems ironic to me. You can try to tease out all you want but I chose not play along.
> I’m just confused, because it sounds like you think individuals have a responsibility to do NOTHING, even when human impacts are created illegally and against the agreed-upon management objectives.
You are representing my critique as a false dichotomy to prove yourself right (which therefor makes your argument a logical fallacy) There is a lot more wiggle room in there than you admit (but that doesn’t play well for your attempts since you are one of the actors trying to facilitate change). Your statement above is more about your own reasoning than mine.
> TOM: Untrammeled was a word in usage in the 1950’s — not so now. I think you were paraphrasing from memory, but Zahniser did not ‘define’ untrammeled, he perhaps elucidated on it, but the word already had a well-defined meaning, even if we have lost it (in common usage) since. >
You definitely have a better understanding of wilderness than many. But you are wrong here as I did not paraphrase from memory (it was a direct quote). Zahniser did “define” ( state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning ) the word untrammeled in a letter; however, as you are trying to highlight he did not create a universal “definition” (a statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary.) Context dear Watson. One can define a word in its specific use as language is a very flexible medium. In this case, he defined untrammeled in multiple ways, with the aforementioned definition in parentheses and also to “mark out the boundary or limits of”, i.e. similar to delimiting its purpose. As you point out below, even Zahniser struggled with the appropriate limits and definitions to be used.
http://tinyurl.com/7g2cda8 http://tinyurl.com/yp4pm3
> There is a bit of a dilemma associated with untrammeled, because keeping the impact of man “substantially unnoticeable” in an area requires management action. see: http://www.canyoneeringusa.com/zcc/419.pdf In many cases, “untrammeled” is an illusion, and that is all the Wilderness Act asks for. Untrammeled does not say that nobody can do anything. In my interpretation, we all cooperate to maintain the illusion that the land is in a natural state, therefore, it is “the community’s” JOB to take action when a trail is created and erase it, so the land will return to its untrammeled appearance. >
That is a fair argument. But back to the context of my original comment, it seems this could all appear less “selfish” if it waited for BLM approval. The manner in which the proposal was presented appears rushed (both in judgement of culprits and unsanctioned cleanup). By appealing to greater authority than the action could appear more appropriate to the larger community. I don’t think the original posters wanted to appear selfish or are acting out of selfish desires, hence their appeal to the wilderness designation.
Could be wrong but I don’t see much benefit to “teasing” out my broader principle on this occasion. This is a particular context that I was interested in because it is just down the road from me. I actually agree with the desire to limit man made trails in the area but I think a different approach is in order for the long term conservation of the resource. A little more patience (and choosing not to blindly guess at culprits) and collaboration with land managers could limit the intra-community squabbles we have witnessed in the past. I think that can coexist along with the reclamation of this specific trail.
Seems some folks are trying to contact the BLM as we speak.
Phillip
PS….to those wonderings, I have no problem with Tom, I actually think is an extremely considerate person (environmentally) in the community but just disagree with him on details this time
Randi
Totally agree with Kip. I don’t mean to sound insensitive here, but I can think of numerous canyons that people whine about ‘after’ they let the cat out of bag so to speak. People all have their own perceptions of wilderness and what is or isn’t an acceptable compromise as far as visiting wild places. Be it leaving webbing behind or bolts, creating trails, or building dead-men or cairns. Not everyone is going to see things the way you do and the only way to keep a place the way you found it is not to advertise it. If you advertise, well, I hate to say ‘you’re asking for it’, but you’re asking for it…. they will come. And they will bring their own ideologies with them.   — On Tue, 1/10/12, bshwakr09 jameskm1@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: bshwakr09 jameskm1@yahoo.com> Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: VRG Canyons and cleanup Jan 28,29 save the date To: Yahoo Canyons Group Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 7:27 AM
ÂÂ
To me that’s the real meat of the matter. Was it necessary to broadband a previously unknown area to the general canyoneering population? In the long run, the way it was released will have much more impact than a few local guides or climbers.
K
> On a broader note to those exploring this area….sorry to hear of such significant impacts in such a short timeframe. Many of us have been in a similar spot and still struggle what level of personal responsibility should be assumed and what other methods could have been employed.
Phillip >
TomJones
I guess I believe we all have a responsibility to participate in meeting agreed-upon objectives, by taking action when it is appropriate.
I would more characterize the post as an “extension to absurdity” argument, rather than strawman. But really, I was trying to tease out your principle – do you really believe it inappropriate for citizens to take actions consistent with management objectives, without permission from the land manager?
I stopped some kids from scratching their names on a rock, on the Angels Landing trail – instead, I should have not said anything to the kids but reported them to a ranger?
I’m just confused, because it sounds like you think individuals have a responsibility to do NOTHING, even when human impacts are created illegally and against the agreed-upon management objectives.
Phillip: ‘But it seems odd to justify it with the above “wilderness” qualification and then go in and do something as equally as “trammeling”. As a thought from Zahniser who “defined “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act as “not being subject to human controls and manipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces.” It seems removing the new “trail” is much an affront to the “untrammeled” issue of natural forces its original construction. ‘
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (paragraph): DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS (c) 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 Act an area of undeveloped 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.
TOM: Untrammeled was a word in usage in the 1950’s — not so now. I think you were paraphrasing from memory, but Zahniser did not ‘define’ untrammeled, he perhaps elucidated on it, but the word already had a well-defined meaning, even if we have lost it (in common usage) since.
There is a bit of a dilemma associated with untrammeled, because keeping the impact of man “substantially unnoticeable” in an area requires management action. see: http://www.canyoneeringusa.com/zcc/419.pdf In many cases, “untrammeled” is an illusion, and that is all the Wilderness Act asks for. Untrammeled does not say that nobody can do anything. In my interpretation, we all cooperate to maintain the illusion that the land is in a natural state, therefore, it is “the community’s” JOB to take action when a trail is created and erase it, so the land will return to its untrammeled appearance.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
How is that relevant? Constructing a strawman?
Once again….you try to make my idea solely “philosophical” when it obviously has practical issues as well. One can support a practical idea with historical and philosophical arguments (you do it all the time). I actually posted the first part of my original comment as a question for a reason: I didn’t know the exact law regarding trail building and reclamation. But since one poster rooted the issue is such law it seems a very real context to investigate.
But then again…..I am evidently the reason no one wants to work in organizations or politics ;^)
Phillip
> Obviously people are going to do what they think is proper. But it seems odd to justify it with the above “wilderness” qualification and then go in and do something as equally as “trammeling”. As a thought from Zahniser who “defined “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act as “not being subject to human controls and manipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces.” It seems removing the new “trail” is much an affront to the “untrammeled” issue of natural forces its original construction.
Just a thought.
Phillip
bshwakr09
To me that’s the real meat of the matter. Was it necessary to broadband a previously unknown area to the general canyoneering population? In the long run, the way it was released will have much more impact than a few local guides or climbers.
K
> On a broader note to those exploring this area….sorry to hear of such significant impacts in such a short timeframe. Many of us have been in a similar spot and still struggle what level of personal responsibility should be assumed and what other methods could have been employed.
Phillip >
Luke
I am not jumping in on the topic so do not take my comment as agree or disagree with either side.
I love the In Theory Quote!
From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf Of TomJones Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:38 PM To: Yahoo Canyons Group Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: VRG Canyons and cleanup Jan 28,29 save the date
You might remember Phillip, that the next paragraph stated a commitment to contact the BLM.
You seem to suggest, Phillip, that a slightly constructed trail also becomes a “sacred fetish object” upon creation, much like the bolts in Mr. Thompson’s mind.
You could disagree, Phillip, but erasing a trail, especially before it becomes solidified is a different process with a different result than creating one. In a Wilderness Area, the BLM (or NPS) are not able to make a trail without considerable paperwork, but I am pretty sure they can erase one as part of on-going maintenance.
In theory, perhaps, erasing a use trail and creating a use trail are equivalent. Which gives me the opportunity to use my “(smarmy) quote of the month”:
In Theory, there is little difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is a large difference.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group , “phil” wrote:
I applaud the motivation to right a wrong (as many seem to perceive it). However I am left very curious. A previous comment stated:
“Also Jose just informed me that this is a wilderness area. There’s no mention of climbing or bolting, but the use of a mechanized drill is illegal, as building the trail was”
Is “reclaiming” a trail anymore legal than the “building” of the one in concern? I don’t know the laws here and actually curious. It seems both efforts without BLM(???) sanction are equally illegal. Any correction there?
Obviously people are going to do what they think is proper. But it seems odd to justify it with the above “wilderness” qualification and then go in and do something as equally as “trammeling”. As a thought from Zahniser who “defined “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act as “not being subject to human controls and manipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces.” It seems removing the new “trail” is much an affront to the “untrammeled” issue of natural forces its original construction.
Just a thought.
Phillip >
phil
How is that relevant? Constructing a strawman?
Once again….you try to make my idea solely “philosophical” when it obviously has practical issues as well. One can support a practical idea with historical and philosophical arguments (you do it all the time). I actually posted the first part of my original comment as a question for a reason: I didn’t know the exact law regarding trail building and reclamation. But since one poster rooted the issue is such law it seems a very real context to investigate.
But then again…..I am evidently the reason no one wants to work in organizations or politics ;^)
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
Do you also, philosophically, feel it inappropriate to pick up trash, as it disrupts the natural process of the trash breaking down?
How does this fit on the continuum?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
You might remember Phillip, that the next paragraph stated a commitment to contact the BLM.
You seem to suggest, Phillip, that a slightly constructed trail also becomes a “sacred fetish object” upon creation, much like the bolts in Mr. Thompson’s mind.
You could disagree, Phillip, but erasing a trail, especially before it becomes solidified is a different process with a different result than creating one. In a Wilderness Area, the BLM (or NPS) are not able to make a trail without considerable paperwork, but I am pretty sure they can erase one as part of on-going maintenance.
In theory, perhaps, erasing a use trail and creating a use trail are equivalent. Which gives me the opportunity to use my “(smarmy) quote of the month”:
In Theory, there is little difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is a large difference.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
I applaud the motivation to right a wrong (as many seem to perceive it). However I am left very curious. A previous comment stated:
“Also Jose just informed me that this is a wilderness area. There’s no mention of climbing or bolting, but the use of a mechanized drill is illegal, as building the trail was”
Is “reclaiming” a trail anymore legal than the “building” of the one in concern? I don’t know the laws here and actually curious. It seems both efforts without BLM(???) sanction are equally illegal. Any correction there?
Obviously people are going to do what they think is proper. But it seems odd to justify it with the above “wilderness” qualification and then go in and do something as equally as “trammeling”. As a thought from Zahniser who “defined “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act as “not being subject to human controls and manipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces.” It seems removing the new “trail” is much an affront to the “untrammeled” issue of natural forces its original construction.
Just a thought.
Phillip
phil
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote: >.
You seem to suggest, Phillip, that a slightly constructed trail also becomes a “sacred fetish object” upon creation, much like the bolts in Mr. Thompson’s mind.
I suggest no such thing. The trail to me is worse than the bolts. My point is that “reclaiming” the trail without permission is as bad as building it in the first place….when framed in the ideals of wilderness management (as the means matter as much as the ends). I may like the outcome but it seems awfully inconsistent with some of the original comments.
I would also suggest that you introduced a new inconsistency with the “slightly constructed trail” comment. Seems rather ironic to have one group of people play up the severity of an issue when demonizing it existence only to minimize the same issue to play down one’s own actions.
If permission is granted then my idea is moot…..but that doesn’t seem to be the case right now.
Theory? Not really. I was just trying to expose the discrepancy in the proposed rationales and related actions. I think it is practical because the long term conservation of these canyons requires individual forum users and canyoneers to accept certain rationalizations. Consistency seems to help with long term outcomes.
Summary: I believe seeking BLM approval would alleviate the issue of this appearing as solely a “selfish” action (in so far as it supports a personally desired outcome) instead of one that supports the “wilderness” that has supposedly been affected. Would hate to see a “war” happen in this new canyon arena; seems more likely if those “reclaiming” appear to be doing so for “selfish” reasons (versus reasons associated with written policy). For this same reason, I would encourage those trying to foster less intrusive techniques to avoid making grossly generalized assumptions about the culprits (don’t think that helps the long term goals I have heard expressed).
On a broader note to those exploring this area….sorry to hear of such significant impacts in such a short timeframe. Many of us have been in a similar spot and still struggle what level of personal responsibility should be assumed and what other methods could have been employed.
Phillip
TomJones
Do you also, philosophically, feel it inappropriate to pick up trash, as it disrupts the natural process of the trash breaking down?
How does this fit on the continuum?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
You might remember Phillip, that the next paragraph stated a commitment to contact the BLM.
You seem to suggest, Phillip, that a slightly constructed trail also becomes a “sacred fetish object” upon creation, much like the bolts in Mr. Thompson’s mind.
You could disagree, Phillip, but erasing a trail, especially before it becomes solidified is a different process with a different result than creating one. In a Wilderness Area, the BLM (or NPS) are not able to make a trail without considerable paperwork, but I am pretty sure they can erase one as part of on-going maintenance.
In theory, perhaps, erasing a use trail and creating a use trail are equivalent. Which gives me the opportunity to use my “(smarmy) quote of the month”:
In Theory, there is little difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is a large difference.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
I applaud the motivation to right a wrong (as many seem to perceive it). However I am left very curious. A previous comment stated:
“Also Jose just informed me that this is a wilderness area. There’s no mention of climbing or bolting, but the use of a mechanized drill is illegal, as building the trail was”
Is “reclaiming” a trail anymore legal than the “building” of the one in concern? I don’t know the laws here and actually curious. It seems both efforts without BLM(???) sanction are equally illegal. Any correction there?
Obviously people are going to do what they think is proper. But it seems odd to justify it with the above “wilderness” qualification and then go in and do something as equally as “trammeling”. As a thought from Zahniser who “defined “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act as “not being subject to human controls and manipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces.” It seems removing the new “trail” is much an affront to the “untrammeled” issue of natural forces its original construction.
Just a thought.
Phillip
>
TomJones
You might remember Phillip, that the next paragraph stated a commitment to contact the BLM.
You seem to suggest, Phillip, that a slightly constructed trail also becomes a “sacred fetish object” upon creation, much like the bolts in Mr. Thompson’s mind.
You could disagree, Phillip, but erasing a trail, especially before it becomes solidified is a different process with a different result than creating one. In a Wilderness Area, the BLM (or NPS) are not able to make a trail without considerable paperwork, but I am pretty sure they can erase one as part of on-going maintenance.
In theory, perhaps, erasing a use trail and creating a use trail are equivalent. Which gives me the opportunity to use my “(smarmy) quote of the month”:
In Theory, there is little difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is a large difference.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
I applaud the motivation to right a wrong (as many seem to perceive it). However I am left very curious. A previous comment stated:
“Also Jose just informed me that this is a wilderness area. There’s no mention of climbing or bolting, but the use of a mechanized drill is illegal, as building the trail was”
Is “reclaiming” a trail anymore legal than the “building” of the one in concern? I don’t know the laws here and actually curious. It seems both efforts without BLM(???) sanction are equally illegal. Any correction there?
Obviously people are going to do what they think is proper. But it seems odd to justify it with the above “wilderness” qualification and then go in and do something as equally as “trammeling”. As a thought from Zahniser who “defined “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act as “not being subject to human controls and manipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces.” It seems removing the new “trail” is much an affront to the “untrammeled” issue of natural forces its original construction.
Just a thought.
Phillip >
rickinlo
This is a reasonable point. If we were to plan a trip to the canyon, and happen to fix some misplaced rocks on the hike up I wouldn’t be concerned, but if we’re going to refer to it as a “cleanup” it may be a good idea to ask first.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
I applaud the motivation to right a wrong (as many seem to perceive it). However I am left very curious. A previous comment stated:
“Also Jose just informed me that this is a wilderness area. There’s no mention > of climbing or bolting, but the use of a mechanized drill is illegal, as > building the trail was”
Is “reclaiming” a trail anymore legal than the “building” of the one in concern? I don’t know the laws here and actually curious. It seems both efforts without BLM(???) sanction are equally illegal. Any correction there?
Obviously people are going to do what they think is proper. But it seems odd to justify it with the above “wilderness” qualification and then go in and do something as equally as “trammeling”. As a thought from Zahniser who “defined “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act as “not being subject to human controls and manipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces.” It seems removing the new “trail” is much an affront to the “untrammeled” issue of natural forces its original construction.
Just a thought.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Lori” wrote:
Looks like some people can get together to descend canyons and repair canyon damages in Virgin River Gorge, Arizona the weekend of Jan 28, 29. Camping will be at Cedar Pocket.
It would be great if peeps would come that can help with unbolting and un-trailing Cherry canyon, but there will be other canyons and time permitting, an exploratory that weekend as well. I think the Emperor would be happy to supervise the removals as he is nursing his wrist.
Probably can just show up on Friday night. There is the need to cross the Virgin River there, so flows can change the plan. Wading across knee to mid thigh has been the usual m.o. Change of shoes on the other side sort of thing.
The rock is carniverous limestone but not overly slotty.
There were no pools we had to go through.
I may not be able to go, but wanted to throw the dates out there so people could plan.
Rick I and some of the Las Vegas canyoneers are planning to go.
Hope you can make it!
Lori C
>
phil
I applaud the motivation to right a wrong (as many seem to perceive it). However I am left very curious. A previous comment stated:
“Also Jose just informed me that this is a wilderness area. There’s no mention of climbing or bolting, but the use of a mechanized drill is illegal, as building the trail was”
Is “reclaiming” a trail anymore legal than the “building” of the one in concern? I don’t know the laws here and actually curious. It seems both efforts without BLM(???) sanction are equally illegal. Any correction there?
Obviously people are going to do what they think is proper. But it seems odd to justify it with the above “wilderness” qualification and then go in and do something as equally as “trammeling”. As a thought from Zahniser who “defined “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act as “not being subject to human controls and manipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces.” It seems removing the new “trail” is much an affront to the “untrammeled” issue of natural forces its original construction.
Just a thought.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Lori” wrote:
Looks like some people can get together to descend canyons and repair canyon damages in Virgin River Gorge, Arizona the weekend of Jan 28, 29. Camping will be at Cedar Pocket.
It would be great if peeps would come that can help with unbolting and un-trailing Cherry canyon, but there will be other canyons and time permitting, an exploratory that weekend as well. I think the Emperor would be happy to supervise the removals as he is nursing his wrist.
Probably can just show up on Friday night. There is the need to cross the Virgin River there, so flows can change the plan. Wading across knee to mid thigh has been the usual m.o. Change of shoes on the other side sort of thing.
The rock is carniverous limestone but not overly slotty.
There were no pools we had to go through.
I may not be able to go, but wanted to throw the dates out there so people could plan.
Rick I and some of the Las Vegas canyoneers are planning to go.
Hope you can make it!
Lori C >