# Loved to death in Utah



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

So the problem of too many folks, a town's water supply and lack of a solution
is impacting Kanarraville, Utah as well:

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/ne...best-kept-secret-becomes-nightmare/396690001/

It was on my list to see...as a LNT Master Educator, just doesn't seem right to add one more human to the problem.


----------



## royal (May 6, 2016)

exactly, all the parks are overrun. Moab is a zoo. Tell every one to Stop coming to Utah unless they like waiting in long lines like Disneyland.

The fragile landscapes just can't handle the impact of this many people. I wish the state would stop their "mighty five" campaign too. but there is too much short term profit to be made and the greedy commercial and corporate interests will win out I'm sure.

I feel bad that my grandchildren will not be able to experience the things I did.


----------



## tanderson (Mar 26, 2010)

Don't forget about all the new outdoor companies recruiting more people to "enjoy" the outdoors thus increasing the demand for the products and services. I always get lambasted when I rant about this. Remember when you could count on on hand the amount of companies that made and sold down coats? Or when you had to mail order gear and wait? I'm not saying that I don't like the huge selection and quick availability, I just believe that there is a close connection to the overcrowding and degradation of the outdoors, and all those REI ads saying Opt Outside! Each new company that is created needs to find more people to buy its products and/or use its services. I think a new S.U.P company is created every day.

Oops, I think REI owns this site!

tda
slc


----------



## jaffy (Feb 4, 2004)

So we're going to blame companies and government for trying to generate revenue, and not the fact that there are too many humans? Limiting the former might provide short term relief, but fixing the latter is the only long term solution.


----------



## tetondan (Jun 1, 2017)

I will play a little devils advocate and say choose one:

1.) The state giving in and selling all public land to oil and gas interests
2.) The state advertising it's natural wonders to an ever increasing tourism base.

The state of Utah will make money. How it does that is up to them, but I prefer it coming from tourism dollars, rather than selling off public lands to the highest energy developer. Could things be managed a lot better? Sure, and that is something worth fighting for. But I would rather have all the humans corralled into Arches and Zion so the state can make their precious tax dollars and I can have my far out of the way places. 

Nothing is perfect, we need to come to compromises, I prefer this one.


----------



## RiverCowboy (Mar 14, 2011)

jaffy said:


> So we're going to blame companies and government for trying to generate revenue, and not the fact that there are too many humans? Limiting the former might provide short term relief, but fixing the latter is the only long term solution.


You hit the nail on the head. We are overpopulated. Our species' intellect and use of opposable thumbs has thwarted Darwinism for too long.


----------



## rivh2o (Jan 17, 2013)

"I can have my far out of the way places."

Maybe until Outside Mag has another story about "the ten most far out of the way places in Utah!


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

If you follow the herd it will always be overcrowded.


----------



## trevko (Jul 7, 2008)

ColoradoDave said:


> If you follow the herd it will always be overcrowded.


Exactly! I went to Rocky Mountain NP on July 4th this year. We did not see another person in the park - you just need go to the out of the way places where the hoards are not. I haven't been to Estes Park in years.


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

Agreed, finding alternate routes, places for solitude and quiet are priorities...I won't reveal details on favorite destinations or special places unless I know whoever is asking will protect the resource. What started this thread was an issue of Sunset Magazine that was about "must see" places. Just have to become more clever at diverting the masses and do what we can to promote stewardship.


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

We paddled an out of the way river in Utah in February and only saw 1 packrafter and 3 backpackers in 8 days, right after we took a quick spin through arches and moab area and it looked crowded and unappealing to spend any length of time.


----------



## cdcfly (Jul 28, 2013)

Sacrificial places are key. Gotta have places to throw to the hoards


----------



## MountainmanPete (Jun 7, 2014)

rivh2o said:


> "I can have my far out of the way places."
> 
> Maybe until Outside Mag has another story about "the ten most far out of the way places in Utah!


#bearsearsnatmonument


----------



## formerflatlander (Aug 8, 2013)

One for favorite easy short paddles is rarely run. Used to say something once in a while. Now I pretty much keep it to myself. Like the being on river without company thing more and more


----------



## kayakjunkie (May 19, 2006)

royal said:


> exactly, all the parks are overrun. Moab is a zoo. Tell every one to Stop coming to Utah unless they like waiting in long lines like Disneyland.
> 
> The fragile landscapes just can't handle the impact of this many people. I wish the state would stop their "mighty five" campaign too. but there is too much short term profit to be made and the greedy commercial and corporate interests will win out I'm sure.
> 
> I feel bad that my grandchildren will not be able to experience the things I did.




Like riding a bike without a helmet.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

That is my backyard. It was problem anyone with foresight saw coming and one with a multifaceted foundation. 

First, we are definitely seeing spillover from the Big 5 campaign as more people seek newer or less crowded places to visit after initial trips to the main targets. The state chose to broadcast our natural resources but never provided the support local communities needed to cope with increasing visitation. Zion NP is seriously considering a lottery system to even enter the park and Springdale is overrun well past capacity. Same with Moab. Cedar and its environs are far from full but important places like Kannaraville are getting hit too hard.

Second, its not a binary between tourism and extraction. Kannaraville was never going to be used in that fashion but tourism is solely responsible for its degradation. Granted, I believe it was Spring Canyon down the road was bulldozed during the last Sage Brush Rebellion but that is a different story. I think we are decades from the pitfalls of assuming its one or the other and we are seeing more and more places degraded due to recreational use. We are definitely loving places to death and it has nothing to do with mineral extraction. 

Three, its complicated further by the fact that too many blogs, magazines, guidebooks and companies extract profit from perpetual newness and novelty of places like Kanaraville. They have little to no attachment to local economies and therefor do not share in the responsibility of sustainable management. Its one of the unfortunate human tendencies and a predictable consequence of tourism/capitalism. Its only going to get worse as we seek newer places and compress our remaining wild places. But how do you manage this component give there is no way to regulate these types of communication and information sharing.

Four, its likely to be closed in the near future by my county because it provides an important municipal water source. Its hard to argue against protecting something as vital as water and ultimately the landscape gets a chance to heal. 

I don't have any magical solution. I just know our historic and current framework is failing to provide us solutions to these types of problems. If we don't want too many more closures or lotteries to visit such places then we need to reconsider how tourism impacts these environments.


----------



## CBow (Aug 26, 2007)

Everything I've read on this thread is pretty much true. Publications that promote "secret" destinations to the hoards to little know areas are ruining them. I quit going to the Moab area 20 years ago because of the jeep and ATV infestation but it has spread to more and more areas. Bears Ears was a little know area to most for along time but since it has become a National Monument there are more and more people going there.

I had an interesting conversation this past Spring with long time local and shuttle driver Jim Hardin in Bluff. He said that since the designation of Bears Ears last year he has seen a steady steam of jeeps and trailers full of ATV'S heading up there. While at the same time the BLM has only 2 law enforcement officers for the entire area. Sad times are upon us as Trump and his pro development agenda will further erode protections while cutting budgets for enforcement. Sad, very sad. CB


----------



## stuntmansteve (Apr 28, 2008)

We've seen the same thing here in NM. Tent Rocks used to be a nice BLM trail getting only moderate use that was mainly only known to locals until Obama made it a Nat'l Monument. Now they've set up an entrance station so you get to pay for the privilege of hiking with hordes (not hoards) of tourists. To top it off, they close the trail well before sundown so now you have to make it to the overlook before 3:30pm else be escorted out by a ranger (usually right before reaching the end). I hope they rescind its Nat'l Monument status and go back to what it used to be, but the cat's out of the bag and I doubt it would cut down on the tourist #'s much at this point. 

As for Moab, I've seen it change over the years and not for the better. At least there's more to do in town now...


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

Hey, I like my "out of the way" and "secret" places as much as anybody, and I get sad when I see places that used to be paradise become overcrowded, but folks need to take a step back here and realize that no one is special.

I look at the places that people who have posted here are from--Salt Lake City, Denver, Albuquerquie, Summit County, ect..--and can't help but think that we are nearly all seen as outsiders by someone. So you thumbed your nose at Moab because of the hoards of second class outdoor citizens, but then you head to some farther away place where the ranchers and Mormons see you as another hippy tourist ruining their special place.

You see, the thing about public land is: well, it's public. Everyone has the same right to be there as you do. People love to put themselves on a pedestal above others and this is just another example of that. How on earth do you complain about people wanting to experience Southern Utah, when they are coming there for the same reasons that you are, they just heard about it a few years later than you did. 

So we have a few options: we could privatize the "special places," allowing only those elites who can pay for access to enter; we could allow access to go unrestricted and deal with the resource degradation that would surely follow; or we could fund and support government regulation and management that attempts to control resource damage and balance the desires of differing user groups, probably leaving no one completely satisfied.

It sucks, but it is really just a matter of sharing the Earth with all of the other people who live on it, all of whom are just as important as you are, and all of whom have the same right to exist as you do. Nobody likes big government, but when it comes to natural resource management, there really is no free market model that makes any long term sense. Our best hope is for a government that serves everyone equally, and looks to the future when decisions are made. Of course, in order for that to work, Americans need to realize that difficult problems don't have easy answers and the current trend of stupidity, laziness, and apathy must end.


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

People are special when they respect the land, no matter where they are from. I've experienced first hand the transformed thinking of folks who did not know wilderness from national forest, had never rafted, camped or hiked, but came to a place of understanding and stewardship simply because they spent time in the outdoors and in the company of others who set an an example of visitation without damage, picking up trash, trail building, etc.. Folks who do not give a second thought to damaging trails, polluting water ways and being loud and obnoxious in places where folks go to have a little space and peace...I choose not to share.


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

I agree. Most bottom feeders that trash things out or disturb others, IE... Ignore long standing social contracts, aren't going to figure out where to go by themselves. They need Beta to figure out things to do.

The FS, BLM, Nat'l Parks spew any Beta they get because the more visitors, the more they can grow their empire of funding, personnel, pet projects, etc.

There's also many private sites offering beta ( With Mtn. Buzz being one of those ). When something hits those, and goes on the internet, and if it is easy and safe, it goes viral.

I learned a long time ago that if something is good, and easy, and something you want to keep doing in the future, Don't spew beta on the internet about it or even take anyone there that isn't sworn to secrecy.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

stuntmansteve said:


> We've seen the same thing here in NM. Tent Rocks used to be a nice BLM trail getting only moderate use that was mainly only known to locals until Obama made it a Nat'l Monument. Now they've set up an entrance station so you get to pay for the privilege of hiking with hordes (not hoards) of tourists. To top it off, they close the trail well before sundown so now you have to make it to the overlook before 3:30pm else be escorted out by a ranger (usually right before reaching the end). I hope they rescind its Nat'l Monument status and go back to what it used to be, but the cat's out of the bag and I doubt it would cut down on the tourist #'s much at this point.
> 
> As for Moab, I've seen it change over the years and not for the better. At least there's more to do in town now...


So much misinformation in this post it's sad....

Kasha Katuwe is a Native American site adjacent to the Cochiti Pueblo on BLM lands and is managed by the Cochiti Tribe in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management. The governor has determined it best to close before sunset to protect their cultural resources from damage at hard to enforce times of day. I traveled to DC with the governor of the Cochiti Pueblo to defend monument designations made by virtually all of our Presidents under the Antiquities Act. While it might not be the most convenient arrangement for city dwellers from Albuquerque, I can assure you it has been a beneficial situation for the tribe, bringing in a significant source of funding which has went a long way to helping provide education to the community.

The proclamation was made 16 years ago by Bill Clinton..... so your blaming of Obama holds NO WATER. He had NOTHING to do with the Kasha Katuwe (Tent Rocks) National Monument designation.


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

So please, keep sharing legitimate information. Knowledge may be power, but a common
desire to protect what is ours to visit for only a short time, is what comes from understanding.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

lmyers said:


> So much misinformation in this post it's sad....
> 
> Kasha Katuwe is a Native American site adjacent to the Cochiti Pueblo on BLM lands and is managed by the Cochiti Tribe in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management. The governor has determined it best to close before sunset to protect their cultural resources from damage at hard to enforce times of day. I traveled to DC with the governor of the Cochiti Pueblo to defend monument designations made by virtually all of our Presidents under the Antiquities Act. While it might not be the most convenient arrangement for city dwellers from Albuquerque, I can assure you it has been a beneficial situation for the tribe, bringing in a significant source of funding which has went a long way to helping provide education to the community.
> 
> The proclamation was made 16 years ago by Bill Clinton..... so your blaming of Obama holds NO WATER. He had NOTHING to do with the Kasha Katuwe (Tent Rocks) National Monument designation.


I don't know much about Tent Rocks but I fully trust your expertise on that subject. As you know, I have critiqued designations in the past but I think my concern and ideas can exist fully alongside your wisdom and skill set. I also think we clearly share similar values about fostering greater tribal participation and honoring them as important stakeholders in land management. I want to make that clear, especially in regards to BENM, because its disheartening and historically tragic to see that hard work lost to partisan bickering.

And, I also think we are at an important crossroads in National Monument designation. I mention that as there was one rhetorical flourish in your comment that I think is wrong or glossed over. I understand wanting to state that "virtually all" presidents have designated monuments under the Antiquities Act. A majority clearly have in its 111 years history: 15 Presidents have used the power delegated in the Act while 3 have abstained. That 17% who haven't may not seem like a big deal until you realize all of them have been in the last 50 years. Or stated differently, 38% of Presidents since 1969 have not used the tool. Specifically, 2 of those Presidents didn't designate monuments in what many see as a rebuke of Carter's expansive use of the power. 

How is that related to the OP's post? I think modern designations are a double edged sword that are cutting away at the very purpose of the Act, ie "to protect significant natural, cultural, or scientific features". I say this for two reasons. First, anti-monument sentiment has been galvanized to a fever pitch because of how some were implemented. This isn't new but the rhetoric and partisanship is more severe than ever. We know that the Act was amended twice in the past to limit unilateral presidental designation of land in Wyoming and Alaska, ie limiting designations without Congressional approval to 5,000 acres. I would wager we will see similar attempts in Utah given the rebuke in Zinke's statements this last week. And reliable sources are claiming BENM is about to reduced to 12% of Obama's designation and GSENM is likely to be drastically reduced.

Two, we know monuments attract major crowds that radically alter both visitor experience and resource protection. Designations are a major player in the loving it to death phenomena. 

This continues to make me believe we need a paradigm shift in conservation and preservation. If our tools and policies are galvanizing successful resistance, they are, and leading to heavy impact then aren't we challenged as conservationists to adapt and do better? Is a 111 year old tool really worth clinging onto given the partisan tension of that last 50 years? I ask because conservation requires buy-in from multiple stakeholders, including locals. In Utah, that is not happening enough and many are actively fighting back and winning. This undermines any long-term benefit and potential efforts. 

This is clearly complex and I won't posit simple answers. But something has to give if we want to move forward in not only protecting more land and resources but also truly maintaining existing protections against the inherent whims of our federal government (ie turnover in ideology every 2-8 years doesn't foster sustainable action).

Thoughts?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

The Antiquities Act is not a perfect piece of legislation. It's a document written by men a long time ago and similar to the Declaration of Independence, there are a lot of different perceptions of the original intentions. My personal belief is that areas designated as Monuments were already popular enough to be on their way to being "loved to death" anyway, so in the long term having some protections in place guarantee the natural resources to remain the same for the next generation. Perhaps some have been excessive in size and initiated before they were truly "necessary", but overall the intentions are nobel in my opinion. 

I do absolutely agree that we are reaching a cross roads where things are going to change. Hopefully to a system of managing and protecting public lands that allows for even more direct communication between all stake holders to determine the best possible options for everyone. I felt like BLM's planning 2.0 was a step in that direction before Congress killed it...


----------



## 3d3vart (Apr 15, 2010)

restrac2000 said:


> Two, we know monuments attract major crowds that radically alter both visitor experience and resource protection. Designations are a major player in the loving it to death phenomena.
> 
> ?


For what it's worth, I just spent four days camping and hiking in four different National Monuments and one National Park in CO and UT and encountered exactly three people on the trail. I did not experience a single traffic jam, I parked wherever I wanted, and I only saw one other group of car-campers. Yes park visitation is at an all-time high, and yes the popular parks (for good reason) are crowded, particularly their roads and developed campgrounds, but finding solitude and adventure in our parks is still pretty damn easy, if that's what you're looking for. 

I for one find it funny when people blame the crowds on the designation. "Don't protect Bears Ears, people will discover it and it'll turn into another Moab!". No. It's not the designations fault that these places have been discovered and are popular. (Grand Gulch has had a permit system for at least the last two decades...people have been loving Bears Ears since before you read about it online and people have been trying to protect it for more than 50 years). Last I checked places all over the west that have no protective designations are being "loved to death" too. (See the Wasatch, Fruita, San Rafael Swell, Lake Powell, Sedona, Lake Tahoe, Colorado River Corridor, etc etc etc.). At least the designations give the land managers some leverage to enact protections, and provide in many cases avenues for more funding to be spent in mitigating the impacts of this visitation. Moab is a disneyland traffic nightmare not simply because Arches and Canyonlands National Parks are fucking incredible. But also because, and likely more so because, so much of the surrounding, also incredible, land has been turned into a outdoor recreation free-for-all. From jeeps, to mountain bikers, to slack-liners, climbers, base-jumpers, and car-campers, Moab has something for everyone. And a lot of it. Not many of those folks come to Moab for to do their thing in Arches or Canyonlands, they're coming for the surrounding BLM lands, on which, until recently, there was little regulation. 

The popularity of our public lands is certainly something we should be thinking about and trying to mitigate. But popularity is not rationale for not protecting a place. I don't think anybody could argue that, say, Zion would be less popular or less damaged if Taft hadn't proclaimed it a National Monument in 1909. What it would certainly be is more impacted by humans and an even bigger shit show no doubt.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

3d3vart said:


> For what it's worth, I just spent four days camping and hiking in four different National Monuments and one National Park in CO and UT and encountered exactly three people on the trail. I did not experience a single traffic jam, I parked wherever I wanted, and I only saw one other group of car-campers. Yes park visitation is at an all-time high, and yes the popular parks (for good reason) are crowded, particularly their roads and developed campgrounds, but finding solitude and adventure in our parks is still pretty damn easy, if that's what you're looking for.
> 
> I for one find it funny when people blame the crowds on the designation. "Don't protect Bears Ears, people will discover it and it'll turn into another Moab!". No. It's not the designations fault that these places have been discovered and are popular. (Grand Gulch has had a permit system for at least the last two decades...people have been loving Bears Ears since before you read about it online and people have been trying to protect it for more than 50 years). Last I checked places all over the west that have no protective designations are being "loved to death" too. (See the Wasatch, Fruita, San Rafael Swell, Lake Powell, Sedona, Lake Tahoe, Colorado River Corridor, etc etc etc.). At least the designations give the land managers some leverage to enact protections, and provide in many cases avenues for more funding to be spent in mitigating the impacts of this visitation. Moab is a disneyland traffic nightmare not simply because Arches and Canyonlands National Parks are fucking incredible. But also because, and likely more so because, so much of the surrounding, also incredible, land has been turned into a outdoor recreation free-for-all. From jeeps, to mountain bikers, to slack-liners, climbers, base-jumpers, and car-campers, Moab has something for everyone. And a lot of it. Not many of those folks come to Moab for to do their thing in Arches or Canyonlands, they're coming for the surrounding BLM lands, on which, until recently, there was little regulation.
> 
> The popularity of our public lands is certainly something we should be thinking about and trying to mitigate. But popularity is not rationale for not protecting a place. I don't think anybody could argue that, say, Zion would be less popular or less damaged if Taft hadn't proclaimed it a National Monument in 1909. What it would certainly be is more impacted by humans and an even bigger shit show no doubt.


I think when you read my ideas in a sequence you will see that I agree with you in some ways. I think nuance is important. But I also think we have to recognize that designation is a variable that accelerates impact and visitation. The numbers bear that out in many places across the West. Designation alongside advertising is exponentially worse. 

Part of this is the way we couple tourism with wildlands. Take the way in which organizations like Patagonia have been heavily advertising much of the Utah landscape. Its centered on core values that I think the owner and the company truly harbor but it also comes with increased visibility and then visitation. That is exactly what they want because we still have an industry that thinks more people is better for protection and preservation. Its an antiquated model from the 70s. But we also have to recognize that even though most outdoor companies value conservation in some form they also exist to consume it and they thrive off of the novelty we have highlighted. The mechanisms of tourism and recreation are often presented as critical to protection but presented in superficial ways that have yet to be mitigated fully. 

I am clearly not against protecting land as I have stated that we need to do so, just under a better system. And I agree that places have been slowly being loved to death for at least the last 40 years. And some have clearly gotten better because of intentional educational campaigns to change our ethics, like LNT and Tread Lightly. I wholeheartedly agree with LMyers about the unfortunate loss of 2.0 as I think it was a great next step. But I also think we have to be careful about over generalizing. Places like the Wasatch, San Rafael Swell, Colorado River Corridor all have protective measures in place that offer a range of alternatives to monuments. The Moab Daily environs has drastically changed with designated campsites, both dispersed for rafters and car camping. The Wasatch has had a local community that has worked hard to buy land and protect it without or alongside federal measures. And the San Rafael Swell employs a range of options that has definitely helped, like closing roads in sensitive environs ( like the Dirty Devil River by Hidden Splendor Mine which was actually opposed even by non-motorized recreationist because it lengthened approach times). And as you pointed out the environs of BENM always had some protections in place and to be honest I have yet to hear a way in which higher level protections are possible with a monument. That is especially true given the constant issue of frozen or decreasing budgets. What a place like BENM truly needs is tons of employees monitoring sites on a regular basis (ie backcountry not roadside) and that hasn't happened on most federal lands in decades because of budgetary restrictions and the way fees are mandated to be used (mostly structural). And we know we can't even enforce existing law in that region regarding antiquities given the disastrous recent attempts. The monument status does not change that, which I think is the #1 threat to the region.

Its never a binary either-or situation. I know folks like LMyers work hard and are truly value oriented to protect lands. Same goes for the work of AW folks who spend tons of time working with local officials and DC. But what if we as a nation can give them better tools that create longer term sustainability while also reducing the "love it to death" aspect of tourism? What if we challenged the outdoor industry to be more thoughtful of constantly applying the lust of novel locations in their marketing? What if we found ways to help "locals" transition to recreation based economies so we fostered buy-in instead of resistance? Just to name a few. None of those are panacea's or easy but I think we are at a point that the use of some of our past tools (Antiquities Act is just the most famous) has actually made even maintaining conservation measures difficult and adding lands nearly impossible. From reliable sources we are about to see the first major reduction in these protection since WWI and I think this is just the beginning (well actually the maturation of long term resistance). 

I think we are up to the task of finding new solutions that account for these problems that didn't exist when most of these laws were created.


----------

