Should the National Park Service allow a professional bike race to pedal through Zion National Park, up the steep, twisting Zion-Mount Carmel Highway and out the east entrance of the park?/Kurt Repanshek
National Park Service officials are evaluating a request to allow a professional bike race to launch its first stage with a steep climb out of Zion National Park in southwestern Utah.
It's months off, and details haven't been finalized, but organizers of the annual Tour of Utah bicycle race hope to start the week-long race through the park's red-rock canyon.
Professional bike racing and national parks long have been controversial -- years ago Yosemite National Park officials declined a request to run a race through Yosemite Valley, and more recently the Park Service declined a request for a pro bike race to weave through Colorado National Monument -- but the appeal of peletons streaming through the grandeur of a national park keeps race organizers coming back again and again to seek permission.
In the case of the 2016 Tour of Utah, organizers hope to start at Zion Canyon Village just outside the park's Springdale entrance, head through the park and the Zion-Mount Carmel Tunnel, out of the park, and then north on U.S. 89 to Cedar City.
"We're not quite sure how we're getting [to Cedar] yet," Jenn Andrs, the Tour's executive director, said Thursday when the 2016 tour was announced. "We've worked closely with the national parks in the past, and we do have a good relationship there, so we're hopeful."
The tour has been somewhat controversial with its national park connections in the past. In 2013, the tour's decision to pedal along Utah 12 through Bryce Canyon National Park and Utah 143 through Cedar Breaks National Monument -- drew complaints from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The group's concern was that if the Park Service stood quietly back when it came to the Tour of Utah simply because the race will follow state-branded highways, would the agency permit a similar bike race down U.S. 191, which passes through a section of Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park, one through Great Smoky Mountains National Park via U.S. 441, aka the Newfound Gap Road, or around Acadia National Park via State Route 3?
At the time, the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks (then known as the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees), sided with PEER and wished out loud that, "it would have been helpful for the National Park Service to work with the race organizers to issue a clear public message regarding the Tour of Utah and why it is being permitted on roads in the two park units."
Intermountain Regional Director Sue Masica said Thursday evening from her Denver office that the Park Service was reviewing the request, but hadn't made a decision for or against the race rolling through Zion.
"What we’ve tried to have is a structured process by which parks go through and evaluate the potential impacts and look at what’s proposed. Each race is different, each park is different, and we try to work through the regulatory and policy framework as to whether those events would be appropriate for the issuance of a special use permit for the event to proceed," she said.
Zion Superintendent Jeff Bradybaugh, in an email, said, "We have been working with them to clarify the planning requirements associated with this event, specifically those involving public safety and traffic management concerns, which require resolution before the process could move forward."
In March 2011, during a public debate over whether the Quiznos Pro Challenge could run a leg through Colorado National Monument, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said such an event was "neither necessary nor appropriate" for a unit of the National Park System.
“Closing the park to accommodate the needs of a commercial bike race goes against our management policies, would adversely impact park resources, and would deny access to the park to other visitors,” said the director at the time. “Federal law and NPS policy restrict commercial activities in national parks to those that are ‘necessary and appropriate’ to park purposes. This bike race is neither necessary nor appropriate in the park."
Comments
Of course there will be expenses, EC, but which expenses are appropriate? At 4,000 feet, I might plow the roads. At 10,000 feet, I wouldn't bother. Besides, should that road even exist, given what the Tioga Road did to Yosemite's high country?
Trains can and would fix that. How? Because 90 percent of America's auto-addicted population would never be caught dead on a train. Trains are a learning experience, and we have forgotten the lesson of what it means to take a train. Those lessons came from a country that understood community far better than we.
There used to be a billboard east of Seattle that read like this: "At 10 pm, it's news. At 11 pm, it's history." There is America's knowledge of history. Anything older than an hour and I needn't bother.
I am sorry to report that the national parks have been around for 150 years. Nothing about that history was meant to facilitate a bicycle race. All of it was meant for nature. In those instances when Congress caved, good people stepped forward and saved the day--most of the time, at least. As that gets harder, the parks get less natural. That is the shutdown I wish to avoid.
First, I think the timing of this event, particularly in 2016, would be extremely bad because of all the anniversary events. Just about the worst possible time to pile another event on top of everything!
Second, I bet that people who actually want to stay in the lodge or campgrounds have already made their reservations and plans. Our experience at any of the major parks has been that the tourist-season acommodations fill up almost as soon as the reservations open. So these people now have no choice; they've cast their die and if the bike race is held, their arrival or departure is delayed, or their navigation within the park during the race is restricted.
Working folks often have few options about when they can take their vacation. Everywhere I've worked, you put in your 2 or 3 choices of dates, hope you get your first choice, and once the schedule is drawn up, that's it.
Sure, floods, fires, urgent highway repairs, etc., can wreak havoc on accessibility and throw a monkey wrench into the best-laid plans. But most of those circumstances are unplanned and uncontrolled. Stuff happens.
One other thing: Will the race organizers provide immediate cleanup crews following to pick up the discarded water bottles, flat tires and other debris? Even if there aren't a lot of spectators, racers shed this stuff and somebody better pick it up!
I have queasy feelings about allowing private, profit entities (whether or not they are actually making a profit!) use our treasured national parks. When that is proposed to happen at the height of tourist time, and the centennial celebration, my gut really starts to churn!
Alfred Runte writes "All of you are missing the point. The whole purpose of this bike race is a human event; the whole purpose of the national parks is to make room for natural events."
That is the purpose of park Wilderness, not of Park roads. The purpose of Park roads is quite the opposite: to facilitate visitation.
Each year, Olympic NP close its most popular entrance, Hurricane Ridge Road, to host "Ride the Hurricane" event that attracts over 700 local riders. They are Park visitors, too, just as much as anyone piloting a big RV is. The Park's purpose is not to ban visitation, as you wish, but simply to separate visitors on bikes from RVs and cars for safety, by devoting one day a year to bicyclists. This is an excellent way to appreciate Olympic NP.
Once upon a time not so very long ago, Olympic National Park was also logged. The Park Service has never been in love with absolute wilderness, so yes, roads are meant to facilitate "visitation"--and in this case logging of the park.
The proper way to see a road is "access," not "visitation." Visitation in some peoples' eyes just means numbers. Access means the right to see the park.
No one is denying anyone that right, are they? They are simply asking for restraint. Restrain yourselves, good people. Think where you are. This is not the Super Bowl but a national park.
But no, some Americans want a dramatic backdrop. They want to say they jumped off El Capitan! In Frederick Law Olmsted's words (remember him?), all they want is a "rope-walking, diving, brass bands, fireworks display" from nature. They want Niagara Falls with another wax museum. They couldn't care less about the falls as nature.
That is how we got our national parks. Our forebears began by destroying Niagara Falls. We learned from that--at least some people did. They didn't want to see Yosemite and Yellowstone with another wax museum.
The worst way to think of our national parks is to think that wilderness begins just beyond the road. No, the road is wilderness, too. The only mountain lion I have ever seen in the wild was standing in the middle of a road. In Yellowstone, bison clog the roads, and what do the "visitors" do? Those accepting wilderness enjoy every moment of it. Those on a schedule just get pissed off. I have seen those "visitors" beep their horns and attempt to drive off the animals. They don't want access; they simply want their way.
As I understand the closing of Hurricane Ridge, it is for access and not an "event." It is also announced months in advance. It is borderline, but I think most people would accept it, in that there are no spectators or commercial aims per se.
But another Niagara Falls just because someone wants a spectacular backdrop? Again, the Park Service was formed to say no to that. If you want it to say yes, you have every right to ask. It is just that history is not on your side.
The important question to ask here is whether or not Jon Jarvis will allow the "process" and "framework" to be applied without him interjecting his personal opinions about issues into park management decisions and allowing himself to be influenced by people who have access to him rather than DO THE RIGHT THING And walk the walk in terms of supporting the regional and local economies. Will he actually admit he may have been wrong in the case of CoLM, particularly in the shadow of Budweiser sponsorships, Rose Bowl Parade, and who knows what other "commercial" bed fellows he has taken advantage of to accomplish his personal goals. Perhaps he has no choice but to establish more consistent policy and process that the parks can utilize and let those determine decisions, for a change!
You ask some good questions, Diffpersp. While we might not agree on the answers, some consistency across the system would be good to see. But that's part of a larger story...
There are lots of parks in the National Park System that have special pupose like Wolf Trap National park for the Performing Arts. Maybe bicyclists need their own park or parkway dedicated to their use. But Zion does not have that special purpose. And the 10-15 thousand Daily visiters to Zion in August should not be bothered by this either. That's my opionion.