Recent comments

Agreeing with Amarillobymorning : "It's kind of mind-boggling to me (and OK, I admit to being easily boggled) that a national park could be closed to the majority of the people who own it -- that's us, the taxpayers -- for an event staged by a for-profit organization involving only a minority slice of us"

Taking over national parks/monuments for private commercial interests to hold their own event is beyond the pale. Today its a bicycle race. Tomorrow car racing. Maybe Bank of American and Wells Fargo will start taking over national parks for their own private big wig events too. This type of activity has nothing to do with the mission or spirit of our national park system.

Visited here last month. Well worth seeing, especially if you can't hike major distances. Many petroglyphs are very accessible, especially Boca Negra Canyon.

Thank you KBenzer for that article. It speaks volumes. The idea that "tens of thousands" of people would want to crowd into an area very difficult to reach and then to leave again was ludicrous.

Durango's experience mirrors that of Ogden, Utah a couple of summers ago when a similar professional bike race clogged the city completely. A few merchants may have realized some extra profits that day, but the race messed up traffic so completely that many others simply closed because customers and clients couldn't get to them. My dentist finally had to reschedule all his appointments and then was stranded as he tried to go home.

From personal experience, I can testify that many -- if not most -- of the "race fans" lining the streets were frustrated motorists who had no choice but to park and wait for the race to pass. There were many loud howls of protest directed toward race monitors and the poor police officers who were trying desperately to cut down on the confusion and reduce hopeless traffic jams.

It was really funny that after all the hype from our city officials and race supporters, there was nothing but almost complete silence aftewards.

I think if it were a Local Monument instead of a National Monument then the locals could have veto power, but since it is not than there is no way this would or should happen. As for the bike race I see both sides. ecbuck, you make good points but it would be interesting to see how it fits the mission statement of National Monuments or Parks. It also would be nice to see if it could have a smaller impact than 10's of thousands. Also what percent of roads would be closed and for how long. To me it seems like sharing the park on a race day would be to big a burden in my opinion. I do appreciate your view and it does make me think about it.

Sara, you've amazed me again. Thanks.

I knew that NPS and other agencies had to be paying the reservation companies in some way and you've explained it here. To my old head -- and battered pocketbook -- paying a fee for camping that includes the reservation fee is somehow much easier to take than seeing it glaring at me from the bill I'll receive.

I just returned from City of Rocks and learned that the camping fees there are paid entirely to the state of Idaho. Idaho even charges sales tax on campsite fees. When a visitor uses the reservation system, the visitor foots the bill. The governor up there has decreed that anyone using state services will pay the full cost and the state won't be left picking up any of the tab. Probably good management, but can you imagine the uproar if that happened in some of our national parks where visitors have become accustomed to certain "entitlements?"

Your argument was that Colorado Monument didn't have places to "stage large crowds" or restroom facilities and that they would be forced into flat desert like places. The experience of Independence Pass is that it didn't have plases to state "large crowds" didn't have extensive restroom facilities (probably less than Co NM) and people weren't forced into desert like places. Your argument was shown completely false, though that went over Rick's head, so you tried to shift to a different argument. If anything, CONM is more conducive to the race than Independence Pass. I would guess more people were "inconvenienced" by Independence Pass being closed than go through CONM on a daily basis. Except, they probably weren't really inconvenienced. They were there and enjoyed the excitement of the race.

As to the "few people" - the race last year had over 1 million spectators over 7 stages. That averages more than 100K per stage. I don't think 10s of thousands for a stage through CONM would be an exaggeration at all. A normal summer day in CONM would see a couple thousand. How many of those would be people unaware of the race or unable to come a different day would be a minor fraction of that. So a few hundred "inconvenienced" versus 10s of thousands enjoying the race I think qualifies as "a few".

Unwashed? You mean the 47% who supposedly don't pay taxes? Actually, I think most of us who oppose the race are actually rooting for the common folks, so it appears you've turned mtliving's point around backwards. I sorta think he's arguing for the unwashed among us. You know, the farm family from Iowa who finally got to take a vacation or the retired veteran or teacher or firefighter or nurse who might have only one chance to visit the park.

Somehow, I think there are many more Americans who would prefer not to spend hours trying to find a place to park only to have to ride a crowded shuttle bus, hike awhile and try to find a place to stand in the sun while waiting for a couple of hours for the privilege of watching a horde of sweaty bicyclists swoop by and disappear at dizzying speed, and then turn around and hike back to their car or the bus stop and then fight their way through traffic to get out of the place than there are who would be willing to endure so much for so little other than the chance to help line some promoter's pockets.

But to each his own. That's just not my idea of enjoyable. I'd almost rather go to see a Transformers movie.

Not sure which "original argument" you supposedly "blew away," but my point has been the same all along: all places are not the same in terms of resources and suitability for large, commercial events. As you suggest, a highway like the one over Independence Pass is a good choice for such events attracting a large crowd; a park road in a special and more confined area like Colorado NM isn't. "Why not vice versa?" is because the two sites aren't managed for the same public purposes.

As to changing positions, I notice you decided not to address the fact that closing the monument would impact more than just a few people. If that's the position you mention, I'll stand by my assertion that the monument can handle a couple of thousand people spread out over the entire park for a full day vs. the "tens of thousands" you predict would show up at one time to line the road for a race.

Sounds like a good place for the event, and confirms that there are plenty of good choices that don't involve closing park roads. Those who enjoy the competetive race atmosphere can go to places like Independence Pass, and those who enjoy a lower key experience in a park can go to places like Colorado NM. No need to try to make every place fit every possible activity. The climate for serious racing in August would also be a lot more enjoyable at Independence Pass than in the Grand Junction area :-)

ec - lots of assumptions there about what race watchers might be doing while waiting for the race to come by. I'm not an expert on the park, having only visited it a few times, but it seems likely given the terrain the only place along the park road to accommodate large numbers of people would be on the relatively flat (and frankly uninteresting) open desert terrain near the two park entrances. Not much to see and do there for picnics, hikes, etc. in the heat of a typical August day.

Once you get up into the scenic interior of the park along the steep and winding two-lane road, there just aren't a lot of places to stage big crowds for hours at a time, especially since they would need reasonable access to facilities like rest rooms. As to leaving the roadside for a hike or other activities while waiting for the race to pass, maybe you'd give up a prime viewing location for the race to go take a hike :-)

As to "giving 10s of thousands a new opportunity to enjoy the area far outweighs the incovenience a few might encounter," that also assumes two things: (1) "10's of thousands" could be accommodated for the day in the scenic interior of the park (very questionable). and (2) only a "few" visitors who wanted to visit the park for reasons other than the bike race would be incovenienced by being turned away due to the event. Makes me wonder if you've bothered to check on the park visitation in August, which is a lot more than a "few." A daily number in four figures is more like it.

I have no real problem with the monuument staff and the community sitting together to talk about what kinds of activities are appropriate in the area. One thing for sure: the bike race is not appropriate. The 2006 management policies say a permit cannot be issued for an event unless there is a meaningful association between the area and the event and the event will contribute to the visitor's understanding of the area. The bike race fails both these standards. Moreover, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regualations states that a request for a permit must be denied if it primarily benefits a for-profit organization and if it awards more than nominal prizes to the winners.

The tens of thousands of visitors that ec mentions are not there to see the monument; they are there to see professional bike races rip down hills at 60 miles an hour. There is nothing wrong with that. It just shouldn't happen in an area of the national park system.

Rick