HikeArizona.COM

(From NPS Ranger News)
Pro Tip: If you're on the Colorado River going through the Grand Canyon, there's really only one way out and the rangers know where it is.

October 20: Rangers on a Colorado River Patrol encountered a river party on the beach of Parashant Canyon. The trip participants were yelling obscenities, wearing prickly pear cactus bikinis, and intentionally exposing their genitalia at the river patrol.

Investigations identified a permit holder for the river party and all participants were contacted at their takeout days later.

Mandatory court appearance citations were issued to several individuals for permit violations, possession/removal/destruction of natural resources, possession of contraband substances, and disorderly conduct. (Source: NPS)

They should be required to clean out the backcountry outhouses.

That truly qualifies for an Arizona Darwin award.

I'll be happy if they throw the book at them.

One thing I saw in another forum is they thought it was another private trip approaching, who had been close behind them all along. They didn't realize it was the patrol boats until it was too late.

The patrol boats are distinctive. Not sure I fully buy that excuse.

This type of "no holds barred because nobody's looking" kind of behavior is disgusting to me, not because I care about nudity, but because of destruction of things in the Canyon, and the self-centered behaviors. No respect for the Canyon.

I'm guessing this was really just drug related?

Seems like government overreach to me. I think anybody who chooses to put prickly pear on their bits has already endured ample punishment in my eyes.

@chumley
They were not just prickly pear print bikinis? I figured no one would actually use prickly pear pads for that. How can you? Well, drugs, maybe.

Would have been fun to have met up with them, yet on your own permit.

@Pivo
I have met plenty of obnoxious people on river trips, both on trips I was on, and encounters with other groups. The groups that stand out in a positive and fun way are the ones who work together with you to decide on campsites, or offer help if someone in your group has flipped a boat. I have also encountered people who are clearly mind-altered with drugs and alcohol. These people are not "fun." They are to be avoided. If they seem to be a danger to themselves, they also could be a danger to your group. There have been plenty of deaths in Grand Canyon directly attributable to substance abuse. Being around people who create situations like that is a real drag. Not fun.

@big_load
That would mean they would be required to hike somewhere, since there are no outhouses on the boating beaches. These are boaters, not hikers. Sooo...maybe that would be a good punishment!

cactuscat
We saw similar behavior on our 2014 trip. Little did they know there was an NPS employee on out trip, who reported them when we got out.

The following are not my own words, but copied from elsewhere. I think this comment pretty much sums it up for me:

"River patrol are pro guides too- they don’t require a*s-kissing, and they don’t warrant fear like cops, just basic human decency if not mutual respect for peers. It is possible to keep your sh*t relatively “clean” (i.e. don’t destroy this heavily impacted desert environment) and still have a ridiculously amazing good time! I’m sick of this river-as-amusement park mentality. Even Burning Man has a higher environmental conscientiousness. Can you imagine how much sh*t fell off their boats along the way?? Can you imagine having the dream job of patrolling The Grand sans clients, but having to deal with those a*shats?! And not make tips…"

She said "amusement park mentality" That jumped off the page for me. That is how people are treating our public lands, and not just in Grand Canyon.

azbackpackr wrote:That is how people are treating our public lands, and not just in Grand Canyon.

This goes back to Mather and Roosevelt, if not farther. The question at hand, I believe, can be boiled down to exactly this: "Is the primary purpose of this place conservation or recreation?"

The answer, it seems, is not so simple.

chumley wrote:"Is the primary purpose of this place conservation or recreation?"

During my NPS training I read something to the effect of 'when making a decision regarding a potential conflict between visitor access and resource protection, resource protection is always the priority' ... not that I think that is always followed - but it's the policy.