when your enjoyment means destruction visible to others then yes I am definitely in favor of controlling destructive behaviors of people who don't know or don't care what they are destroying.
Glen Canyon National "Recreation" Area
- Thread starter Halls'65
- Start date
- Status
when your enjoyment means destruction visible to others then yes I am definitely in favor of controlling destructive behaviors of people who don't know or don't care what they are destroying.
upthecreek
Well-Known Member
This is the kind of confusion I was talking about earlier. The closure isnt about fragile western landscapes or hundred year old tracks. Not that those are not worth discussing, they are. This is below high water. There isnt any hundred year fragility left there anymore.
I don’t think any poster in this thread denied there was damage above the high water mark in these areas. What people did dispute is any permanent damage below the high water mark and whether people camping and fishing along the shore were responsible for any damage above the high water mark. Once again. It is two separate populations of users with very little overlap!
Marina Bum
Escalante-Class Member
Do any of you know if this affects Warm Creek on the South End where you can drive in from Big Water, was that mentioned by NPS?
Yes. Warm Creek shorelines including access via Crosby Canyon are considered closed.
There are maps of the individual closed areas at the bottom of this page -
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
All a very interesting discussion.
The head-scratching part of this for me is what is the significance of the 3670 lake level to mark the closure point in the road? There's at least some logic to a benchmark of 3700 as the high water mark of the lake. That being said, there's lots of examples around the lake where controlled access is already allowed below 3700 (and even 3670), notably at the marinas. Some of the improvements below 3700/3670 are extensive, parking areas being a notable example, such as at Bullfrog.
On the flip side, you can argue that roads should be open all the way to the lake, whatever the current shoreline might be. The problem there is that in places like Blue Notch, any former road in the zone closest to the lake might be difficult to follow because the re-contouring done by the lake over the years, leading to multiple tracks being created in that dynamic area in order to reach the lake.
So again, why 3670? It feels arbitrary, or at least not well-explained. And of course, the last thing anybody likes or trusts are arbitrary rules, especially ones that can't be explained. That's usually a surefire formula for deliberate violation, which leads to other problems...
Digging back into the charts that trace the history of lake levels at Powell in search of a possible solution, here's what you learn. From 1963-1999, the surface of Lake Powell exceeded 3670 a little over 40% of the time. In other words, it was always plausible that in short order, it might actually reach full pool. But since then, drought has characterized the region. In the 21st century, the lake has only exceeded 3670 a little over 1% of the time--only 116 days total. The last time it reached 3670 was on July 27, 2001, nearly a quarter century ago. It's reasonable to guess that the entire staff at NPS responsible for managing the GCNRA has turned over since that time, and that nobody there now has any institutional memory of a time when the lake might be that full. It's not something they consider to be realistic. It's quite possible that, even as the lake has continued to drop and trends remain pointing downward, they've come to the conclusion it will likely never reach that level again. And for that reason, they feel comfortable keeping the road open down to the 3670 level, especially if it aligns with the settlement with regard to SUWA's recent lawsuit.
Now of course this is all speculation on my part, but it's a narrative that at least seems plausible. Whether or not it's an effective management strategy is another discussion. As others have pointed out, the most important aspect of minimizing damage to lands above the lakeshore (however you define "lakeshore") is to make sure vehicles remain on the authorized access road rather than scatter indiscriminately across the desert. As for the area between where the lake is now and 3670, I'm guessing this no-man's land is now seen by many as a land in restoration, an area where the lake will become increasingly unlikely to encroach, so the management goal is to leave it alone as much as possible. Hence the road closure. And yet, they know they need to maintain access to the lake, but they don't want to commit to creating a defined roadway through the unstable area. In that context, allowing folks to reach the shore to unload (on what path?) is a sort of awkward but necessary compromise, but not particularly effective as a restoration strategy, if that's really the goal. Better signage with clear instructions at the "closure" point would be helpful to everyone. As it is, it's a sort of road closure with a wink and a nod, an approach seemingly designed to sow the seeds of anger and confusion on the part of everyone...
The more hopeful among us may disagree with the assessment that the lake is unlikely to ever fully rebound, and that the lake may someday return to full pool, but the data of the past quarter century is compelling, and until we see a definite turnaround in that long-term trend (i.e., something like at least three well above average snow years in a row, something that last occurred from 1997-99), planning for the restoration of the upper portions of what used to be Lake Powell is at least logical to consider...
Marina Bum
Escalante-Class Member
That sucks, I spoke to a "Big Water local" friend tonight and asked him if he'd heard of this? He asked me in retort if I'd heard that all the signs and barricades had been torn down and are gone? He went onto say that apparently the locals aren't to happy about the situation, I guess notYes. Warm Creek shorelines including access via Crosby Canyon are considered closed.
There are maps of the individual closed areas at the bottom of this page -
Last edited:
Marina Bum
Escalante-Class Member
I read the info on the Park Service site that Bart provided the link for.
Question: Why do they refer to the GCNRA as "The Park?"
Am I missing something, are they correct in saying that? Last I knew they were Rangers in a Recreation Area not a National Park. It seems confusing to interchange the glossary so much especially on official documents or is it just me? Is GCNRA a Park?
Question: Why do they refer to the GCNRA as "The Park?"
Am I missing something, are they correct in saying that? Last I knew they were Rangers in a Recreation Area not a National Park. It seems confusing to interchange the glossary so much especially on official documents or is it just me? Is GCNRA a Park?
Last edited:
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
The GCNRA is one of 40 National Recreation Areas in the country. Depending on what they are for (and where they are), they are administered by the either the BLM, USFS, or the NPS. GCNRA is one of 18 run by the NPS, which means it has Park Rangers. I'm guessing that because it's in the domain of the Park Service, and "park" rangers can be transferred anywhere within the system, they probably naturally just refer to it internally as a "park"...
The first NRA was Lake Mead, established in 1936... The concept of a "National Recreation Area" arose from an agreement between the USBR and the NPS at that time, since Hoover Dam was operated by the USBR, but it had no experience in managing outdoor visitation, so the NPS got involved because they knew a thing or two about doing that...
Shredhook
Well-Known Member
It seems that this should answer it. Conventional motor vehicle is an insured registered vehicle. Im guessing its like driving on beaches that do not allow ohv/atv. I am hoping this is the case. It also does not state that you can not park the conventional vehicle at the shoreline...
Canyon Glen
Well-Known Member
So looking forward to when you can buy a SIdeXSide sized drone. that floats on water too!!!
From stories I've heard, they try and do for the most part treat GCNRA as a "park". However, there are major differences from my understanding, for instance hunting is allowed in this and other recreation areas.
Marina Bum
Escalante-Class Member
I think I understand, again Park Service is playing loose and fast with the vague language and contradictory terms that are confusing. Words Matter! Their Park, not really a National Park but we want to run it like it is; We will just keep calling it The Park. "Closed Road," not really but yeah our sign says closed, no further explanation required! Maybe that photo copied laminated map pinned up there will tell them more? How long will that last in the desert sun and wind? Words matter on signs too! That sign is misleading at best It's almost like their intention is to close the road to all? Maybe they should reconsider that the R in GCNRA stands for recreation.
I was ticketed a few years ago here in Flagstaff by an overzealous forrest ranger almost in my own back yard for riding my mountain bike in the national forrest. The trails had been closed due to a distant fire but their fear was flash flooding as a result. It was announced that the trails were reopened after monsoons ended so I went for a ride. At the gate there were still the closed signs up and a map taped to a concrete baricade. I made entry and 30 minutes or so into my ride a tree cop in a green pick up was patrolling on a service road and sees me on a trail. He lights me up and tells me I'm riding in a closed area and writes me a ticket. Apperantly If I had reading glasses with me and had dropped to my knees and studied the little taped up map I would have realized that West of the service road was still closed. I was shocked at what a jerk he was and I remained polite and compliant. I asked for a warning but he said it was out of his control.
I had to go to court twice, I was charged with a misdemeanor crime. I had to go downtown and wait for hours with the dregs of society. On the second visit I got in front of a judge who said that this is a terrible overreach but how do I plead. I said guilty so I can just stop coming to court, I'll pay my fine and move on. He said that I had a perfect record, that I'd never been in any kind of trouble and that if he accepts that I will have a mark. He went onto say that if I come back for the finally the ticket would likely be dismissed.
In the course of my business I sometimes do government work, State of Arizona, Universities, I've worked inside Crime Labs and once inside an FBI facility. I have to clear basic background checks before I get hired, me and every employee who will have access. A "Crime" on my permanent record may have affected those jobs, The FBI had no sense of humor on their job. (Serious people) The charge carried a big potential penalty like time in jail and up to $10,000 in fines. We compromised, the good judge accepted my plea, fined me $150 and then told me how to fill out papers to have it expunged from my record, I did. He said it was the stupidest ticket he'd ever seen, he kept asking me what I was doing, did I start a fire, was I riding a motorcycle etc? You were riding your bicycle next to the road? Yeah
So these rules by NPS and others become defacto laws and can affect people lives and livelihoods. At the very least they owe us clear language and good solid signage not overstatements with paper maps taped to them.
Also for us dynastic locals to the region
(I'm 6th generation here) being denied access or being pushed around on our precious public lands doesn't feel right. I think that's what Halls65 was talking about when he said his Grandfather had helped build roads in the area, that he'd been running around here all of his life and had unfettered access before he saw this sign.
I like side by sides but in the end I say just buy a Jeep. It's street legal, has AC and you can drive there and back, go where you want to go
Last edited:
That's why Matt is in business. The government needs to get out of the business of rescuing people from their own stupidity. There are many awesome places in the country that are limited access due to rescue issues. People who are capable should not be limited to where they go do to people who are incapable. It may seem.
Heartless But I don't feel I should pay for people's stupidity. Whenever I go I make sure unless it is a medical issue that I can self rescue.Or I have people ready to come rescue me. When I hiked into Lava falls in the Grand Canyon.I bought a fishing permit .I had no intention of fishing. That gave me access to the rescue pool of money. I basically paid for rescue insurance myself. People who are incapable should pay the Price not the taxpayers.
I don’t think SxS were ever allowed to drive into Blue Notch. But obviously rules never stopped them. I’ve never seen a SxS camped at the lake however. Just a lot of tracks. Both before and after the closure. Since any enforcement will come from rangers on the lake the only people afraid of punishment are people camping next to their truck.
upthecreek
Well-Known Member
I dont remember ever seeing that rule anywhere. If thats the case, then they never posted it very well.
For information only - not a political statement - the new U.S. administration cancelled several executive orders from the previous administration that affect recreational access to public lands. Someone inside the new administration even reached out directly to the Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC) for input. Detailed in this email blast that @Squirrel referenced -
Also, BRC has just released their Five Priorities for Lake Powell in 2025 which I found informative -
Also, BRC has just released their Five Priorities for Lake Powell in 2025 which I found informative -
Marina Bum
Escalante-Class Member
Good news for sure. It's been noticed also that some of the Park Service folks who've been working from home for years are now present and accounted for in Page once again. Glad to hear they reached out at least to the Blue Ribbon Panel, that's cool
Whichever politician keeps more water in Powell, like 3589 minimum, if anyone ever does that we should build a statue to them at both ends of Castle Rock Cut! Just Say'n
RichieW13
Well-Known Member
Park Service employees were "working" from home? That's hilarious.
- Status