Utah's congressional delegation opposes a reservation system for visitors at Zion National Park/NPS
U.S. Sens. Mitt Romney and Mike Lee and the rest of Utah's congressional delegation told Interior Secretary David Bernhardt they don't want to see a reservation system established at Zion National Park because it could adversely impact the local economy.
Overcrowding at Zion has been an issue for many years, placing a stress not only on park staff but also park resources. In an effort to seek a solution to managing the crowds, park staff for some years has been exploring various approaches to managing visitation. Some of those approaches have touched on either a park-wide reservation system or reservations for specific areas in the park, such as Angels Landing or the Temple of Sinawava.
Problems with crowding have included the creation of roughly 30 miles of "social trails" in Zion Canyon, where there are only 13 miles of official foot paths, and challenges to keep restrooms clean.
The congressional delegation, though, hopes the Park Service can find ways other than reservations to manage crowds and protect the park's resources.
"If the (Zion National Park) Capacity Study concluded that a reservation system is nececessary to meet new capacity standards were necessary and recommended a reservation system to implement the standards, it would likely result in reduced visitation and negative economic impacts," the senators and congressmen wrote.
"We strongly urge the Department (of Interior) to find solutions that will preserve access to ZNP while enhancing the visitor experience," they added. "State and local leaders have proposed several solutions including improved public outreach and use of the state's marketing resources, state and local investment in trails or road infrastructure alternatives outside of Zion Canyon, and shuttle system changes to manage peak visitation."
Interior and Park Service officials, they concluded, should explore the ideas suggested by stakeholders "to improve the visitor experience without severely restricting visitors from accessing ZNP. We urge the Department to carefully evaluate these proposals rather than pursuing burdensome visitor limitations and reservation systems."
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Perhaps our fine Legislators from the Great State of Utah would then be willing to have their State coffers supplement the financial shortcomings we now face even more under this Administration, to assist in alleviating the financial burder thair argumants demand. Or is their "solution" to simply let America run untethered throughout what will then become yet another destroyed part of History?
That's right - if we simply ignore the ongoing issues, they WILL most certainly fad away....
They are simply using up the National Park units in their state, with no concern for future generations or the preservation of our "NATIONAL" heritage!
Nothing but GREEED runs through their veins!
Ranger - Could you explain how the legislators personally benefit by opposing a reservation system?
Buck, a reservation system would preserve and protect the park by capping the number of visitors in the park at any one time. This would protect the park by reducing severe spikes in visitor impacts and spreading those impacts over a longer timespan, essentially allowing the park environment to heal a bit. A reservation system would similarly cap spikes in the workload of overloaded park personnel, particularly the LEOs, to a level closer to what they can handle given limited manpower and budget.
The greed part comes in because capping the number of visitors in the park at any one time would also similarly cap the money being spent by those visitors both within the park and with local businesses. Park concessionaires and local businesses don't like that; they are greedy for all the revenues they can get and thus want all the visitors that can be packed into the park and its local environs all the time.
Politicians whose constituencies include park concessionaires and local businesses personally benefit from opposing reservation systems because their opposition to those systems pleases park concessionaires and local businesses who then support them through influence or contributions in subsequent election cycles.
What I want to know is why you need an explanation of these factors and relationships. I mean you are always, always, always offering emphatic assertions and strong opinions about park management and economics in general; yet, you have to ask about such elementary fundamentals of how the parks and the associated businesses operate? I would have assumed that you'd already be something of an expert in this regard given your constant imperious comments on these kinds of topics.
How would reservations be handled? How do we ensure they are not monetized (for ex., some people paying to get other‘s reservations)? Will slots go to Americans first since we pay for the parks? Would there be a provision for some set asides for locals? Would there be a cap on preferred hikes (for ex., 1 or 2 hikes on Angel’sLanding in a calendar yea)? Would it coordinate with lodge reservations? This is a complicated issue. New park units or proposed ones like the one in backcountry Maine are often sold on the basis that parks will pay for themselves via tourist dollars in place of industries replaced by the parks. Here’s a park that does pay for itself and that’s a problem too.
Rump - once again with the baseless accusations. First, campaign contributions go to the campaign, not to the pockets of the candidate. Second here are the contributors for Lee and Romney.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N000316...
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/contributors?cycle=2018&id=UTS1&spec=N
Xanterra, the prime concesssionaire in Zion, doesn't show up in the top twenty of contributors for either Lee or Romney, The numbers are getting pretty small when you get down to #20 so if there were any contribution it would hardly meet the standard of "greed".
Come on, Buck; it sure seems you're bent on being either disingenuous or just outright dense. Campaign contributions may technically go to the campaign; but, they are most certainly a benefit (yes, a personal benefit) to the candidate. Why stoop to trying to confuse the public on something that obvious? And, you have to know that neither a park concessionaire nor a politician with that park concessionaire in his/her constituency is going to want a direct contribution standing out and attracting attention. Local businesses might be that direct; but, larger park concessionaires and their management are going to use indirect support, by contributing to the party in ways that benefit the politician's campaign, by contributing as individuals, by influencing others to contribute, by influencing or contributing to an industry group or other form of PAC, or even by providing contrived job positions to party operatives who take home high salaries for doing party work on company time. Come on, Buck; you've got to know all of this. Just voice honest arguments for a change and stop trying to confuse the issues and corrupt the discussions.
Rump, once again you distort the facts. The links I provided include contributions of companies, PACs and individuals If an employee of Xanterra contributed, it would show up under Xanterra. Furthermore, are we to believe that Microsoft, Halliburton, Sullivan and Cromwell, the AZ Diamondbacks are so foolish to be exposed while NPA concessionaires stealthily skirt the system so they can remain undetected? The fact is, you don't have a bit of evidence that Xanterra has funneled a penny to these candidates, much less made them wealthy nor that these candidates have based their positions on this issue due to such influence. It just more of your baseless conspiracy theory accusations. A much more rational explaination would be that the inputs from the constitutents (the voters) has indicated they are against a reservation system.
Buck, how dumb do you think people here are? Xanterra is owned by Philip Anschutz, one of the richest people in the west. He has donated to all the Utah Republicans umpteen different ways, directly (as in the case of Lee and former Sen. Hatch) and through multiple PACs. But I'm sure being on the Anschutz payroll to spread disinfo is lucrative for you. Time to post somewhere else for your next paymaster.
https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/philip-anschutz.as...
https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/philip-anschutz.as...
Well, Not on payroll, I'm sure you're getting close to the truth because that's so much the way folks like Anschutz have always operated. But, why doesn't Buck just come out and speak the truth? He knows what's true and what isn't. Do you think that he, Runte too for that matter, are actually trying to deliberately mislead people? That would be so obviously unethical; but, although I don't have hard evidence of any kind of concerted effort, it sure looks like that's being perpetrated here.
Rump - I'm slowly becoming convinced that Buck either truly doesn't know what he is talking about (like our President) but he thinks he does because the right-wing websites validate his beliefs and if you repeat them often enough they become true. Either that or he's just stirring the pot in here cause he doesn't have anything better to do. It matters not the amount of evidence you provide - he'll either ignore it, change the subject to something else, or tell you in a mostly polite way how stupid you are for not grasping his superior knowledge of, well, pretty much everything. Some days it's amusing - most days it's not. I know he's an intellegent guy - but he's not willing to ever enagage in an honest discussion or admit that he has learned something new here.
Rump & Glad ----- You both sound adult enough, educated enough, and sane enough to not get thrown off stride by the little barkie dog nipping your pants cuffs. I enjoy your comments even when you don't engage with the barkie dog.
Wow Not on Payroll, Anshutz contributed a whopping $2,400 to Mike Lee and none to Romney. I'm sure the "greed" of Lee let that $2,400 totally cloud his thoughts regarding a Zion reservation system and that is exactly why Anshutz gave him the money, to make him change his mind. I wonder why Romney didn't get money for thinking that way? If he thought giving $2,400 would change people's minds, why didn't he give it to every Senator and Congressman that has a Park in their jurisdiction or has influence on Park policy. Perhaps, Anshutz gives money to Republicans not to change their minds or influence their decisions but because Republicans ALREADY support the policies that Anshutz likes. I know when I give money, I have no expectation of favors or of influencing policy. But then I only give money to those that ALREADY think and vote as I do - or at least more so than not.
Well, gladtoberetired, I don't know whether Buck realizes it or not, whether he admits it or not, or whether "he has learned something" or not; but, in his last post (5:28pm), he pretty much conceded the core of the discussion. I'll take and run before he figures it out. And, thanks, Rick B.; we try and so do you. Personally, I just don't want to be culpable for abandoning the conversation and letting the misinformation and disinformation to dominate the scene without any resistance at all.
When the little country boy went to the military base for his older brother's graduation from basic training he was standing on the curb to watch the troops pass by, his young voice rang high and true above the others in the crowd to call out, "Look Ma! Everyone is out of step but Johnny!" That may have been a little someone you recognise, starting a lifelong pattern. Not marching in unidorm [serving his nation in uniform wasn't his style" No profit in it. Picking a minority [yet self serving] opinion and attempting to convince everyone else tthat THEY are the ones out of step. That has been long been observed to be more his pattern.
Conceded the core of the discussion? The claim was that concessionaires pay to influence politician's decisions and politicians take the money because they are greedy. My comment refuted and dispelled both myths. The evidence shows Anshutz contributes to a wide spectrum of candidates that already stand for the policies he supports. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone has changed a stance or vote due to a contribution from Anshutz. Furthermore the record shows there are hundreds of individuals that could influence NPS policy that Anshutz hasn't contributed to. If his purpose is to buy votes, why wouldn't he have contributed to them? Once again the facts just don't support your conclusions.