You are here

Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, National Parks Conservation Association Oppose Bike Race At Colorado National Monument

Share

Both the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and the National Parks Conservation Association are encouraging the National Park Service to remain adamant that Colorado National Monument is not an appropriate venue for a professional bike race. NPS photos.

Editor's note: Pressure continues to be exerted on the National Park Service to allow a professional bike race to run a stage through Colorado National Monument in August of 2012. As the Traveler has pointed out, such a commercial activity, one that would close the monument to the general public for at least 12 hours, is inappropriate in the monument. Park Service officials soon will sit down with race proponents to discuss their proposal. Both the Coalition of National Park Service retirees and the National Parks Conservation Association, hoping the Park Service holds the line against this race, made clear their rationale in the following comments.

Rick Smith, chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees' Executive Council

The 780 members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees are very disappointed that a small, narrowly-focused group of powerful people in Grand Junction are trying to force a commercial pro bike race on Colorado National Monument. We are further disappointed that this same group has leveraged its political muscle with U.S. Sen. Mark Udall and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper to force the bike race into the discussions about a national park designation for Colorado National Monument. We certainly understand the need to discuss both, but they should not be connected.

It strikes us as especially odd that Senator Udall, the chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee and member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, would even suggest that a modern-day mega sporting event, a commercial bike race, should take place inside a national monument, contrary to existing federal law and policy. If the race is forced on Colorado National Monument, it will be precedent-setting for every single one of the 394 units of the National Park System. In times of such harsh budget constraints, how can National Park Service staffs be expected to devote their limited time to helping a commercial venture gobble up endless time and federal taxpayer resources? 

The National Park Service Management Policies, adopted in 2006 after national public involvement and 45,000 public comments, clearly state that a special event may be permitted “when there is a meaningful association between the park area and the event” and “when the event will contribute to visitor understanding of the park area.”  The Quiznos Pro Challenge bike race fails both of these criteria.  Moreover, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations that governs what occurs in all areas of the National Park System requires that the Park Service deny permits for events that are “conducted primarily for the material or financial benefit of a for-profit entity; or awards participants an appearance fee or prizes of more than nominal value…” 

When I read the Quiznos Pro Challenge tag line on their website -- “60 miles an hour on one inch of rubber” -- it is apparent what the pro race is looking for: maximum speed and thrill. All understandable for a commercial professional mega sporting event that Quiznos is trying to host throughout Colorado. But it is not appropriate to take place in a national monument or a national park.

Colorado National Monument Superintendent Joan Anzelmo is simply implementing regulations and policy in denying the permit for a stage of the race to take place in the monument.   She has graciously offered the monument for a ceremonial lap by the racers without the attendant helicopters, small airplanes, and race support vehicles that are part of the pro-race.  I hope the race organizers accept her offer and end their attempt to hold a stage of the race in the monument.

David Nimkin, NPCA Southwest Regional Director

Dear Senator Udall and Governor Hickenlooper:

I am the Southwest Regional Director for the National Parks Conservation Association ( NPCA), well known to Senator Udall but perhaps not quite so well known to Governor Hickenlooper. For over 90 years, NPCA, a national, non-profit organization with over 325,000 members across the country, has been the leading voice for the protection of our national parks. For the past few weeks we have been reviewing the communication between the National Park Service and the organizers of the Quiznos Pro Challenge Bike Race proposed for Colorado National Monument.

Your recent communication to National Park Service Intermountain Regional Director, John Wessels, to convene a meeting to forge a compromise position would seem appropriate were it not for the fact that the Park Service should not compromise their position on this issue. Their responsibility and authority is clear and their offer of an alternative for a ceremonial event appears to be an appropriate compromise.

We believe that the leadership of the Park Service (both Superintendent Anzelmo and Regional Director Wessels) has carefully and thoughtfully reviewed the request to host a high profile bike race at the monument and based upon their own national management policies that were reviewed, revised and adopted in 2006 and Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Superintendent Anzelmo determined appropriately that the nature of the proposed bike race is clearly not appropriate or authorized under the stipulations of both park management policies. Superintendent Anzelmo proposed an alternative option that would enable modest use of the park without compromising the fundamental and intrinsic values she as a park manager is obligated to protect.

A great debate about how our national parks are to be managed was waged just a few short years ago. The NPS Management Policies reaffirm the special place and significance we hold for our national parks. They are not places that can be sold, rented or commercialized. They are to be protected and valued so their most intrinsic values can be sustained for the future enjoyment of our grandchildren.

Perhaps the greatest threat to our parks is the apparent modest activities that individually appear quite benign but in the aggregate lead to fundamental impacts that are immutable. One of these modest, small, time centered incursions is the commercialization of our parks. Other issues that the superintendent identified in her communication to the race organizers clearly demonstrates the other impacts she is obligated to defend against.

Although race organizers' proposal might seem a modest request, one exception here leads to another there. In fact, Superintendent Anzelmo cited a similar request by the same bike racer organizer that was denied by the leadership at Yosemite National Park only last year. That decision was based upon principle as this one has been. We strongly support the National Park Service's position on this matter and encourage you to honor and support their honest and sincere efforts to accommodate the bike race organizers within the scope of their responsibilities and authority.

We also want to complement Senator Udall for his efforts to renew consideration of national park status for Colorado National Monument. While we will support the outcome of any additional study and analysis, it is important to note that whether a national monument or national park, the responsibilities of the National Park Service to protect their resources are the same. We would caution conflation of the bike race decision with any continued consideration of national park status for the monument.

Colorado National Monument is a treasured landscape. In its centennial year, we should honor the vision of those who worked to protect it by sustaining its enduring special qualities. It is the special nature of this magnificent place - protected - that will continue to attract visitors from across the country and the world to the West Slope of Colorado and continue to be a place of enjoyment for local residents.

To voice your opinions, here are the requisite addresses:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240

National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240

Intermountain Regional Director John Wessels
National Park Service
12795 W. Alameda Parkway
Lakewood, Colorado 80228

Featured Article

Comments

If proper, reasonable, restrictions are placed upon the race to assuage legitimate concerns, this could be a great event for your area that would promote the park without undue damage. It would highlight the beauty of the area while showcasing the grace, power, and ability of the professional athletes as they deal with it.. The juxtaposition would be wonderful.

I have seen nothing in any press release, or news report, that even remotely suggests that Quiznos (or anyone else) would be buying any rights to the monument park, or the roads through it, in any way, shape, or form. It isn't as if the permit would be granted for time immemorial – it’s a one day deal. If it turns out after reviewing the event in retrospect that it was not worth it for legitimate reasons, then never again. And the park service would be far better positioned to deny it, and events like it, in the future. On the other hand, you just might discover that it was a fabulous event.

So, I say, put the ownness where it needs to be: on the race organization.. But don't assume that everyone associated with the event, and all of the spectators and cycling fans, are immature, rude, property wrecking nincompoops who do not value the natural beauty of the park! Your self-righteous comment about "those who truly love the monument" presupposes that others do not value it to the same extent you do. That is a bizarre, relativistic, subjective assertion that has zero means of being demonstrated. Under such a myopic worldview you could argue the moon ought not be explored because those who “truly love the way it looks” might be offended to know a human has set foot upon its pristine surface... Good grief.

The question here ought not be 'why should the race be allowed,' but rather 'why not?' The stewards of the park must answer this in a coherent and justified way based on reason and rationality – not subjective rhetoric. Seems all I have heard so far is the citing of non-specific subjective rules, interpreted to make it sound like a professional peloton rolling through the park would in fact violate such provisions and in one single day ruin it for a millennia. I for one am not buying it – someone needs to demonstrate this as fact, rather than an unsubstantiated bad dream..

As to the number of unruly spectators potentially spread across the 23 miles of road, and any potential damage that might be done, this is pure speculation and fear mongering. Could there be damage? Could someone get injured? Of course. For example, in the Tour de France you see the mess of people who camp out on the passes for a couple days who are inebriated and unruly - clearly not what you want in your park I would suspect! That is a legitimate concern, but the park can prevent such concerns by simply banning overnight camping along the road (which I assume is already the case), and fully enforcing the rules and laws they currently have, and to the extent there are additional costs by park personnel in that regard the race ought to rightfully bear them. Last time I was in the park, I saw a lot of rocks… it’s pretty sturdy, albeit beautiful, stuff! You could allow spectating on the climb in, and in safe areas on the descent out – it’s not that complicated.

Your concern on the liability front is somewhat legitimate, but can be rectified by contractual insurance agreements.. The mere fact that the potential exists doesn't create the reality. If the park or the race were found to actually be negligent, and someone was injured because of that negligence, then insurance that is already in place (or could be procured) would come into play. Taxpayers have likely already paid for such insurance, but the bottom line would be to discuss it with the insurers of record for the Park AND the race organization. Again, this is an issue that reasonable people can come to an agreement over, but it ought not be something that pops up as a potential problem and therefore a deal breaker..

Even if it is a realistic concern (which I am personally doubtful about) it could be solved by either having viewing areas as a condition of access by the race, or simply not allowing spectators on particularly troublesome sections (inherently dangerous).. and make it clear that the race organizers would bear their share costs to police control over those areas.. I have ridden that road, and it seems to me that there are plenty of excellent viewing areas to accommodate fans who would/could make the trip up the hill.. Seems to me you can have it both ways here, you just need to start with the idea that it COULD work, instead of assuming it cannot.. Or, for some ideological reason, ought not. To the extent there are law breakers who see fit to act badly, they would be subject to whatever the law proscribes. Those are exceptions, and not the rule - we ought not engage in crafting restrictions on people's liberty simply because of a few nutjobs.

Next, I do have a sense of costs associated with an event running through a community. But all you seem to focus on are possible problems, and supposed exorbitant costs (that may not even be issues at all), and yet you cannot apparently even imagine any benefits.. That's not being very fair-minded, or objective. If you're concerns are valid, then why would Denver, Colorado Springs, Vail, Aspen, Steamboat, and Crested Butte be all fired up to allow it? And, by the way, why is Fort Collins and a few other front range communities very disappointed that their towns were not selected? Well, the answer is that they understand there are benefits that outweigh the costs.. An event like this is a way to showcase the Grand Junction / Fruita area, support a grand cycling event, and drive some additional tourist revenue your way. Your local businesses have a great opportunity to make some money, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with making money!

Frankly I think you really need to rethink your premise.. and look at this as an opportunity to bring new faces and attention to your neck of the woods. Otherwise, just raise your finger to everyone passing on I70 and put up a sign that says "look but don't touch, and please keep a safe distance from our town."


So how would you feel if the race were run through other parts of the Grand Valley area but didn't go through the Monument? There are some other beautiful areas around the valley, like the Grand Mesa and wine country - all great for cycling. Plus the park has offered a victory lap. Does it have to be full race over the Monument or all bets are off? Let's face it, there are park rules that were put in place for a reason and if anyone doesn't like the decision from the NPS, they need to deal with the laws/rules first.

Yes, the local area could use an economic shot in the arm - no one argues that. But is there a way to get that and allow some reasonable compromise? Economically, Grand Junction can't hold a candle to any of the other communities that have said yes to the race. And there is a legitimate question of what it costs the city to support it. GJ has been hit pretty hard and the city is hard pressed to balance the budget. Is it able to provide all the support and deal with the expense this race will impose on it? What exactly are those demands? What will it cost the city and taxpayers to bring this race to town and can we afford it? Let's step aside from the Monument question and look at this race in terms of both sides of the balance sheet - not only what the local area might get, but also what it must pay. I'm skeptical of what economic value it will bring vis-a-vis what it will cost a town that, frankly, isn't able to fund things far more important than a bike race.


This is an interesting debate to say the least. I would hope it could remain respectful. Every person is entitled to their opinion and individually each will see it through their own lens of personal interest. There are some facts that don't seem to be making it in the dialogue. The old bike race, the Coors Classic happened in the 1980s. It drew around just 500 spectators at the height of its popularity and at a time when regular visitors were less numerous than they are today. As I read the blogs and see news reports, according the park manager the policies have changed since the times of the Coors Classic race. The promoters of the new race claim that there will be 30,000 to 50,000 spectators. Hard to imagine how a national park area accommodates those numbers without great impact to the land, wildlife and the public. Harder yet to imagine what the race promoters suggest in terms of spectators will come even close to that. This is the first year of the brand new race, the Quiznos Pro Challenge, and it coming to Colorado this summer. Who knows how it will play out. By 2012, the year the Grand Junction locals want the race so badly, it might already be in the history books for lack of enough sponsorships in tough economic times. Just as the Coors Classic dissolved for lack of financial support as well as several other American pro bike races.
As a Coloradan, I have been following this debate closely for months and think it is simply ludicrous to mix up the discussion about national park designation for Colorado National Monument with all the Quiznos race hoopla -because they are unrelated topics. One is pure hoopla and one is about recognizing the significance of the resources at Colorado National Monument and elevating their preservation as a national park.


IT'S A TIE !

Can I do that ?

Great discussion and so dag gone respectfull it almost makes you sick. Didn't think there were any people like that left. Got to go to that place and see those folks for my self.


 

As an employee of the U.S. Geological Survey, I was assigned to the Santa Fe, NM, office from 1965-72 and became a member of the office's bowling team. One of the opposing teams consisted of members of the National Park Service, also located in Santa Fe. I became friends with all of N.P.S. bowlers, including a young man who later moved to Yellowstone as an Assistant Superintendent.  Later, we visited him there and received a tour of the facilities. Eventually, we lost contact and it was rumored that he had become the Superintendent at Grand Teton and eventually Director of the N.P.S. After almost fifty years, I do not remember his name. Any help?                                                                                                  . 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.