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
You don't buy tickets, its free. 10s of thousands (who are "owners") would be in the Park, 5x+ the normal number of "owners".
BTW,where you here crying when parts of Yellowstone was shut down so the Obama family could visit? Or are political purposes OK - (as long as they are left leaning)?
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.
Yes, we have absolutely no interest in getting 10s of thousands of people to spend hours in our national park system.
So Mountain Hiker what do you think of this:
http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/projects/over-the-river#.UZgK-sokTT0
And Amirillo thought he was being funny with his rubber duckies.
Ec - the event may be free to spectators, probably because with this format it would be virtually impossible to control admission. It is, however, a commercial sports competition, which the company website says involves "riders from sixteen international, professional teams."
Not everyone is happy with this event, as illustrated by this comment from a business owner in Boulder, Colorado, posted on the website for last year's race:
"We were just informed today that, because of this event, we will not be able to drive our car in to work, unless we pay $30 to park. The same goes for all of our clients scheduled that day. We are not allowed to put our signs for our business on the mall ... The event organizers have already admitted that this will probably be bad for retail business on the mall (although the restaurants and hotels will do great...)."
As to closing parts of Yellowstone or any other park to accommodate security concerns for a presidential visit, I'll take your bait for more silly discussion. Such closures have been standard practice for many years, regardless of who's in the White House, and are under the overall direction of the Secret Service, not the NPS. It's a sad reality of today's world that security for heads of state requires increased levels of security, whether they are visiting a national park or any other location.
Perhaps you'd suggest that it would be prudent to simply disregard those security concerns for any president, but it's easy to be flippant about those issues when you aren't the one who would be held responsible for an incident.
ecbuck -- you said: "Yes, we have absolutely no interest in getting 10s of thousands of people to spend hours in our national park system."
Tens of thousands of people *already* spend hours in our national park system -- as the parks were designed. But suddenly we should have private interests take up park space to run their commercial car racing or commercial rodeos or commercial mega music concerts? Madison Square Gardens or the Indy 500 in Great Smoky Mountains National Park or Grand Teton National Park? Absolutely not. John Muir would be rolling over in his grave. That is not at all the mission or spirit of the national park system. There are thousands of private locations to accomodate all those commercial events.
But not at CONM - which is the unit we are talking about. Do you really believe that the Indy 500 is the qualitative equivalent of a bike race? Is anyone proposing Indy like events over Independence Pass where the pro challange has already ridden?
BTW in 2010 they did the Ride The Rockies bike event through CONM. Same impact on the monument but that was OK but this isn't purely because its "commercial"?
Rodeo? Is that qualitatively differenent than a commerical ice skating rink or a golf course? Mega concerts? Ever heard of Wolf Trap?
Face it. Your only real objection is that you don't like people making money.
Oh my god no, its "commercial'. How horrible.
No, I would suggest you be consistent. In the Presdident's case many were inconveninced for few. In the bike race, few (relatively speaking) will be inconvenciened for many. Yet the former is ok? My suggestion is the bike race should be OK or the President shouldn't go to the park.
ec, will you tell us what the purpose of Wolf Trap really is?
And can you prove to the rest of us that allegations of blatant promoter exaggerations of attendance at these bike races are untrue?
Finally, what is the primary purpose of a national park area? Is it to preserve an irreplaceable resource or to make money for someone?
No one here is trying to say that it is wrong for people to profit from activities like the race. What we are saying is that there are appropriate places and times to profit and there are also some where it is not appropriate.
Face it, your only real objection is that you don't like governance of any kind that might hamper your sense of entitlement.