Off-trail G.C. may be getting tougher?

[FOTG]

I don't know if I recycled thred properly, but I found this article interesting, and I usually dont post links, but I am sure Hippie, John, Dave and other off-trail canyon people may find interesting, sounds like it wont impact average hikers, but I think Deer Creek was a place they are talking about limiting future off-trail passes, isnt that were a few HAZ people went in Fall?? Or I don't know maybe nobody really goes to these areas much anyways, and it wont impact anyone??

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/c660f8 ... f887a.html

[Hippy]

I'll be interested to see in which direction this goes. Great Thumb Mesa is not for the casual hiker, the Natives have more rights in this situation than we do. IMHO.
thanks for sharing friend!

[FOTG]

@Hippy
no problem...I am soooo bored, so reading message boards all day..who works at school when there are no kids???

wait that is the only time I enjoy teaching, when kids are not here

[Nighthiker]

Just claim you are lost and thank them for rescuing you. This does not work with missile silo security forces.

[toddak]

Same old "use" versus "preserve" line-drawing problem. I find the canyoneering restrictions a bit excessive, as no one else is going to descend the technical canyons anyway and flowing water will erase the evidence of their passage. Regarding hiking, I'll keep sticking it to the man and do it in a day, sans permit. In any case, there needs to be open dialogue and compromise, not decrees and mandates handed down from on high.

[azbackpackr]

That article is full of misinformation. The Deer Creek issue has to do with people rappelling off the waterfall in front of boat-loads of tourists. Not a "back country experience" at all. Deer Creek falls, and "The Patio" above it are thronged with hundreds of boaters every single day, during the heavy use commercial river season, from May through September. I strongly feel that the Park Service was right in prohibiting canyoneering in that one spot. They have said, no canyoneering in the narrows below that tourist trail that leads to the Patio, and no rappelling off the waterfall. (You'd have to be nuts to want to go down that narrows with dozens of tourists walking on the trail directly over your head, likely as not to kick a rock down on top of you!) And if you spent $4500 to go on a river trip so you could take a photo of Deer Creek falls, do you want a pristine falls in your photo, or do you want it with a bunch of smelly rock bums hanging all over it?

And let's not mix apples with oranges. Great Thumb Mesa is another matter altogether. The top of the mesa is owned by the Havasupai Tribe. They have jurisdiction over that part of it. Canyoneers would like to be able to obtain a permit to cross Indian lands to get to the canyons that lead off the mesa to descend them. This seems legitimate to me. They are asking to get a permit to cross the flat part of the mesa, which is tribal, to get to the Grand Canyon part of it.

And to further muddy the waters the reporter then starts talking in the same paragraphs about the hordes of gym rats who insist on doing rim to rims ad nauseum, and bothering the campers at Bright Angel Camp at night. Talk to some of these lame brains, and you'll find they know NOTHING about the Canyon, don't even KNOW there are other trails or places to go. It's so pathetic. They don't do any reading or research, it's just a fad thing, they don't care about the Canyon or try to know the Canyon, they just treat it like it's some kind of racetrack. It's a "challenge." Gawd, how I have come to hate that word.

Now I want to start using pumpkin words, so I'll shut up.

[mikehikes]

@friendofThundergod
"I don't know"... "people may find"... "sounds like it wont"... "I think"... "isnt that were"... "I don't know"... "it wont impact anyone"... ?????

Mike Coltrin
Tucson

[chumley]

There was a different article on the upcoming revision to the plan in the Republic a few days ago. (Save the agony and don't watch the video, which is irrelevant to the article found here: http://www.azcentral.com/travel/article ... lenge.html).

It seems the biggest thing they want to control are the R2R2R hikers ... especially the groups. Pack rafting and canyoneering are other things this article mentions as something the NPS wants to look at. With 37,000 backcountry camper-nights annually, it might be time to make sure things are working the best way possible. (Then again, it's only 100 people per night, so maybe it's working just as it was originally planned!)

Let's see what they propose, and when the public comment period opens, that's when it's time to make your opinion heard.

[azbackpackr]

There was a different article on the upcoming revision to the plan in the Republic a few days ago. (Save the agony and don't watch the video, which is irrelevant to the article found here: http://www.azcentral.com/travel/article ... lenge.html).

It seems the biggest thing they want to control are the R2R2R hikers ... especially the groups. Pack rafting and canyoneering are other things this article mentions as something the NPS wants to look at. With 37,000 backcountry camper-nights annually, it might be time to make sure things are working the best way possible. (Then again, it's only 100 people per night, so maybe it's working just as it was originally planned!)

Let's see what they propose, and when the public comment period opens, that's when it's time to make your opinion heard.

Um, might want to fix your math. Anyway, this article is much better and more clear than the previous one, (which was ridiculously mixed-up.)

[FOTG]

@mikehikes
Great contribution to discussion mike, so clever you are..

[chumley]

Um, might want to fix your math.

Is 100 people x 365 nights not 36,500 (rounded to 37,000)? Where did my math go astray?

[azbackpackr]

Um, might want to fix your math.

Is 100 people x 365 nights not 36,500 (rounded to 37,000)? Where did my math go astray?

I think mine did. It has never been my strong suit!