You are here

Organizations Want Veto Power Over National Park Service At Colorado National Monument

Share

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

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.


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.

"Highway" over Independence Pass???? It would appear you have never been over Independence Pass.

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".


Highway" over Independence Pass???? It would appear you have never been over Independence Pass.

Well, I guess it's possible there is more than one Independence Pass in Colorado, but last time I drove over one by that name east of Aspen, I used Colorado Highway 82, a pretty nice paved road :-)


a pretty nice paved road

You mean like Rim Rock Road? Independence Pass is no more paved or "nicer".


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.


Some relevant background about this particular cycling event is summarized in this editorial from the November 24, 2012 Durango Herald:

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121124/OPINION01/121129798/0/SEARCH/Bicycle-race

My home town of Durango was the starting line for the 2012 race. The organizers promised so many visitors that the city waived some of its ordinances to allow private homeowners to rent out rooms without the usual permits, since all the hotels were expected to be full. The city erected new statuary, removed some speed bumps, hung banners, and sat back to await the money that was promised to flow abundantly into local coffers.

Didn't happen. The hotels were not full, the visitors did not come in the promised numbers, and there was no increase in sales tax sufficient to offset the city's extra expenses. In fact some measures were down because of people who stayed away from what they expected would be an overcrowded destination.

Folks in Grand Junction who want to have the Monument used for the race because they think it will bring in tons of bucks would do well to look a little more closely.


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.


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 (people who are interested in buying tickets to go and stand in August heat to watch bicyclists go by fast. Once.)

I think it's bad policy to even have the possibility of a national park or monument closed to the public for any special-interest activity, profit or non-profit, desired by the local community or not. Because then somebody has to decide whether the activity is "appropriate" for the park in question and that, my friends, is subjective. My idea of suitable or appropriate might well be your idea of desecration in the extreme!

For example: Let's get a couple thousand of those rubber duckies and sell chances on them. Turn them loose on the Colorado river. First one through the Grand Canyon, the "owner" gets half the pot and the other half goes to fight breast cancer or child abuse or something.

That wouldn't even require the whole park to be closed, just the river part. Hmm, wonder what the squawk level would be!

Interest groups already vie for our precious public spaces: hikers, horseback riders, trail bikers, wilderness advocates, accessibility advocates, drivers, hikers, boaters, campers. Why would we want to shut down a monument or park for even a single day so a private company can make money. IMO, a bad precedent!


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.