There's a story in western Colorado involving Colorado National Monument that bears watching. The gist of the story is that some local community organizations are in support of redesignating the monument as a national park, but only if they can veto Park Service decisions on what uses the monument is appropriate for.
Onlookers believe that this ties in to past efforts to have a professional bike race -- the 2013 USA Pro Challenge -- course through the national monument along the 23-mile-long Rim Rock Drive. In the past, officials all the way up to the director of the National Park Service have said that would be an inappropriate use of the national monument.
Now, earlier this spring the West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association passed a resolution in support of renaming the monument a national park. That resolution was similar to one adopted earlier by the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce, as well as one passed by the Grand Junction Economic Partnership. The kicker is that the groups want the legislation to give community stakeholders veto power over any Park Service decisions on uses the agency finds are inappropriate for the monument...such as a professional bike race.
Whether legislation will be introduced into Congress this summer by either U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton or U.S. Sen. Mark Udall to redesignate the monument as a national park remains to be seen.
Park advocacy groups, though, are keeping an eye on this issue and are stressing that the Park Service's hands should not be tied when it comes to what is appropriate for Colorado National Monument.
At the National Parks Conservation Association, officials have said it is good for the Park Service to meet with local stakeholders to discuss the future of Colorado National Monument. But David Nimkin, senior director for NPCA's Southwest regional office, has made it clear that NPCA strongly opposes a professional bike race through the monument.
Simply put, he says, the commercialization of the national monument is out of bounds.
Also watching the issue is the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, which also opposes a professional bike race in the monument. While that group believes it is doubtful that Sen. Udall would offer legislation that would provide local stakeholders veto power over the Park Service, the Coalition nevertheless has notified him of its position on the matter. If the senator or any other congressional representative offers legislation to rename the monument as a national park for the significant natural resources and history of Colorado National Monument, the coalition will offer its official position on the matter at that time.
Comments
Now that is funny comming from someone that has lived off the government all his life. Please identify anything that I have claimed I am entitled to other than those "rights" granted by our constitution.
ecbuck: Do you really believe that the Indy 500 is the qualitative equivalent of a bike race?
They're both commercial sports events. Neither one belongs inside a National Park or National Monument. There are thousands of private/commercial locations to hold commercial sports events.
ecbuck: Face it. Your only real objection is that you don't like people making money.
I love it when people make money -- from Bank of America, the Indy 500 and Super Bowl, to the Kentucky Derby, rodeos and manufacturing businesses. They aren't running their commercial events inside our National Parks, however. John Muir's philosophy, to a large degree, lives on. Thank goodness for that.
It's not too difficult to recognize from its name that the Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts was added by politicians to the NPS system for a very specific, and unique, purpose. Mega concerts and similar events are clearly appropriate there, but that doesn't mean they would be equally appropriate in all other NPS sites.
If you read the proclamation of May 11, 1911, which established Colorado National Monument, it's clear that action was due to the area's "extraordinary" natural features. Would the scenery in Colorado National Monument be a nice backdrop for a bike race? Sure, as it would for an almost unlimited list of other activities.
Once you decide to close the park for a bike race, what reason is there to deny any other special event? How many closures of a park for special interests then become too many?
One of the problems is the attempt in this and many other cases to try to accommodate almost every possible kind of activity on every piece of public land. To do so fails to recognize that some areas, such as national parks, have unique qualities that provide opportunities for experiences that are not available anywhere else. You can't duplicate the unique views and experiences at the Grand Canyon, or the Tetons, or Colorado National Monument, anywhere else ...but there are a host of other roads where you can invite a huge crowd to watch a bike race.
The fact that a bike race would draw a big crowd isn't justification for holding it in a unique site such as Colorado National Monument. If you were to set up a couple of portable basketball goals in the main sanctuary of the National Cathedral and host an NBA all-stars free-throw shooting contest, you could probably fill the place up. That doesn't mean it would be a great idea.
And already has been. Did you complain in 2010? Or are you only complaining because this is a "commercial" venture?
The ability to reason. Putting a blanket ban just because it is "commercial" has no sound basis. It seems to me, people should be able to make a rational decision based on the merits. If it does not harm and actually increases the attendance and interest in the what unit could possibly be wrong with allowing it to occur. BTW CONM is not a Park and it isn't "closed" . There would be thousands of people entering and enjoying the monument. The same people (only more) whose taxes go into the NPS system - but apparently not the people you want.
I don't know, if you got more people exposed to the Church doing it, it might not be a bad idea at all.
Jim Burnett: there are a host of other roads where you can invite a huge crowd to watch a bike race.
Exactly. The national parks mission and purpose have nothing to do with holding sports events for private interests. If you want to ride your own bicycle on national park roads, fine, that's a great way to enjoy our national parks. But big sports events for special private interests? Nope. Find other venues -- they are plentiful.
If one reads the mission of the National Cathedral, holding an NBA All-star game clearly violates that mission. In short, the National Cathedral would become a site for incommensurable activities, and those activies defined by its mission take precedence. (Jim, thanks for an analogy that should (one would reasonably imagine) right the ship here.)
ec - as you well know as a frequent user of this site, we frequently use the term "park" in a generic sense to refer to any NPS unit; it simply allows for brevity.
Any yes, I'd object to any commercial use that had no connection to the purpose of the area and which prevented the general public from using the area for the activities which normally occur there. In this case, the "thousands of people" entering the monument during such a bike event would certainly would not have not the ability to travel thoughout the park and enjoy the trails or overlooks of their choice along the entire 23-mile scenic drive, accurately described as "one of the grandest scenic drives in the American West."
You complained previously about others being "elitist" in terms of who should be allowed in a park, but if this race were held and entry to the park was restricted as a result, the only ones able to get very far into the interior of the park would be those with the time and fitness for a long and steep trek on foot - or more likely, limited to those willing to ante up an added fee for a bus ride to only pre-planned destinations in the park.
Given those restrictions, I'd hardly call the park "open" to anyone not interested in the bike race.
Since the question of "entitlements" has come up, there is an element of that in this discussion. Every type of user of public lands, whether it be hikers, dirt bike riders, ATV riders, horseback riders, bicycle riders, motorcycle clubs, tent campers, RV campers, wilderness backpackers, wildlife watchers, or bike racers - the list goes on and on - want to exercise their "right" to engage in their particular activity on public lands.
There is space throughout this country for all of those activities, but not all of them are compatible on the same piece of ground, and they can't all occur everywhere if the users are to have a satisfactory experience. The attempt to "homogonize" our parks by making them nothing more than another venue for your favorite activity in the end diminishes their value, and every privately-organized event doesn't have to occur on public lands.
In the case of this race, the event website says there are more towns vying for this race than can be scheduled, so there's no compelling reason to try to force it onto an NPS area. The primary motivation is the hope it will bring more business to some merchants in the vicinity – but as noted by earlier comments, that's not a given, and not all business owners or residents of areas affected by the race are happy with the results.
As to the subject of "entitlement-thinking" and the original subject of this story, local business interests such as the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce and the Grand Junction Economic Partnership are rightly delighted the have the taxpayers pay the tab to operate Colorado National Monument, which attracts plenty of business to their area. One local source places the direct economic impact of the monument on the local economy at $23 million a year.
Now, those same groups want all of us to continue to foot the bill for the monument but redesignate it a "national park" to attract even more business .... while giving the locals veto power over decisions about the management of the area? Sounds like a sweet deal for the locals if they can pull it off, but the rest of us - and other NPS areas by reason of a dangerous precedent - would be the losers.