Last Rap in the Subway - intervention?

Back somewhat on topic.

On one recent trip, we encountered multiple groups celebrating their once in a lifetime hike to the international destination "Zion Subway" with impairment inducing substances. While I doubt anyone is packing enough beer to be significantly impaired, the weed smokers might? I know that we made it out at dusk and they were behind us.

Has anyone else noticed increased impairment for the lower subway?

So much to unpack in the A-F response. I'll attempt my best. If this was an adult conversation and I missed it; I'll try better next time. All in fun and joking, Tom you are correct, to have any productive dialogue we need quantifiable data, models, research and moral support if we are going to improve perceived issues in Zion.

It's only a different interpretation of the language of the bureaucracy.

Thanks for the bump. I'd really like to help entertain you, but.... I'm too busy doing canyons.

You left out.... and the mysterious-glorified "mountain-man do-gooder" is really this guy =>


On a more serious yet authoritarian note. Granted most of you have been in the Subway more times in a summer than I've been in total, but there hasn't been a time I rambled through that our group didn't run across somebody (or bodies) that really shouldn't have been there. Agreeing that neither fees or permits will keep the unprepared away.

Shh...they think they're saving the planet.

I'm always impressed (disturbed, revolted) that some people think they know who should or should not be in a certain place. I guess moral certainty has never been my strong point, except in regard to bolts.

Tom

My apologies for being revolting. Although you did ask to "stir the bees" and liven things up a bit, eh?

Here goes my reasoning, but get ready for more repugnance.

My use of the authoritarian adjective, though tongue-in-cheek, was somewhat implied. So, we may just disagree on this point or at the very least in principle.

I find it difficult to believe that as many trips as you've been on you haven't had that revolting-disturbing thought about a participant - in or out of the group. Not even once? (And no, I'm not calling you out.)

Level of difficulty ratings are intended to do just that - screen the participants. A quasi self-evaluation "should I really go there"? An attempt to get one to be honest, before embarking. Hopefully saving yourself (and others) grief, aggravation, pain, jeopardized safety... (the list is lengthy) if/when you in fact realize you aren't qualified to be there. This can be technical, gear, supplies, physical fitness... (another lengthy list), same principles apply.

I have never told anyone they shouldn't be in 'a place' - not vocally. And especially not outdoors. (I don't have a very good poker face, though.) Their inalienable rights are just as valid as are mine. The breach occurs when they cross into my sphere of rights. Good Samaritan? Yes, always try to be, and will do my level best to save your bacon, and mine. But it doesn't keep me from thinking it about others - occasionally. Hell, I've even thought it about myself a time or two!

"Hey ump?" "If I called you an idiot would you toss me out of the game?" "Yes, I most certainly would!" "How about if I think it?" "No, you can think what you want." "Okay then.... I think you're an idiot."

Not sure I would wish that on my worst enemy...

I was under the impression the permit system was put in place after the Kolob tragedy, as a means to indemnify the park from being sued over such deaths, as they were following said incident?

Yes and no.

The permit system evolved through several steps (the first few of which I was not here for). Most of my firm statements are made in relation to the current permit/quota system, which was implemented as part of the Wilderness Management Plan circa 2006 - thus the intention was stated publicly when I was around, and I believe 'em.

Previous steps in the permit system are related to things like the Kolob Tragedy, and a purported bus of 60 tourists that pulled over and sent people down the Subway... or was it Boy Scouts??? Yes, Kolob still has a separate permit process that includes testifying that you have called the water district. The permit system up to 2006 was developed in response to various incidents... the actual management plan process, however flawed, is a better way to develop management systems.

Tom

It was boy scouts and it was reported that there were approximately 800 of them that went through the Subway in a day, rather than just 60. It was during their World Jamboree. This year they are having another World Jamboree at the Quail Creek Scout Camp/Zion Base Camp, but hopefully they won't all go to the same canyon this time.

Or both. There was certainly at least a rumor of a tour bus sending its contents down The Subway, back in the day.

Tom

Why? Why not have all but one rappel on meat and then when they see there is only one of you left hopefully they'll let you play through.

It is so disappointing to hear that Zion LEO's think it is appropriate in a Wilderness Setting to make law enforcement "stops" in the backcountry. And here I thought LE stops required 'reasonable suspicion'. I think Zion LE has too much enforcement - it is contrary to the Wilderness Experience that, in theory, the permit system is supposed to foster.

Law Enforcement is not SUPPOSED to use LE for generating revenue. Fines are supposed to discourage corrupt behavior.

There are plenty of uncrowded places in Zion. Expecting to find not-crowded on a summer day in Zion's second most popular canyon hike is... unlikely to be fulfilled.

Did Spry Canyon yesterday - not a lot of crowds in there. But it is also good to explore other areas.

Tom

I've been carded in the top parking lot nearly every time I've done the Subway. Often get carded at the top of Pine Creek too. And many times coming out of the Narrows too (Mystery, Narrows, Orderville, Imlay). It's pretty hard to hide the fact that you're a canyoneer from a ranger. If the packs and helmets don't give you away, the fact that you're moving 4 times faster than anyone else usually does.

An LE STOP still requires 'reasonable suspicion'. Jus' sayin'

Ranger Volunteer: Sir....can I see your permit?
Ram: I don't have one and I don't need one.
Ranger Volunteer: Yes you do.
Ram: No I don't. I am going to climb North Guardian
Ranger Volunteer: You still need a permit
Ram: Call your boss. I am off before it gets too warm.

I might not lean as libertarian as you do, but being in the Subway seems like reasonable suspicion to me given that a certain percentage of people there are poaching it. I'm certainly not offended or particularly slowed by having to whip out my legitimate permit.

Not gonna work when I have eight 14 year olds in tow.

Wilderness Solitude: Beyond the Social-Spatial Perspective
by Hollenhorst, Steven J.; Jones, Christopher D. 2001.
In: Freimund, Wayne A.; Cole, David N., comps. 2001. Visitor use density and wilderness experience: proceedings; 2000 June 1-3; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 56-61. Wilderness.Net Research Library Publication Number 2173

Abstract:
The current scholarly and management approach to wilderness solitude has relied on substitute measures such as crowding and privacy to measure solitude. Lackluster findings have been only partially explained by additional social-spatial factors such as encounter norms, displacement, product shift, and rationalization. Missing from the discussion has been an exploration of the meaning of solitude and a questioning of the basic assumption of its social-spatial structure. In this paper, the concept of solitude is approached from an attitudinal perspective that emphasizes psychological detachment from society. We argue that solitude may result more from lack of management regulation and control than from low visitor use density.

Excerpted from the conclusions:
Policy and Management Implications
The 1964 Wilderness Act defines wilderness as containing *outstanding opportunities for solitude.* By including this phrase, it appears that Howard Zahnizer understood that wilderness and solitude were metaphorically bound together in the American psyche as physical and mental regions untrammeled by society. Ostensibly, the Wilderness Act counterbalances the relentless forces of increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization on the natural world. Yet in a deeper symbolic sense, the Wilderness Act also affirms the humanistic notion of individual will and self determination in the face of ever greater pressure to become socialized.

Drawing on this symbolic tradition, we have argued that solitude is psychological detachment from society. This detachment serves two primary functions: (1) affirmation of individual will and self-determination, and (2) cultivating the inner world of the self. As such, the wilderness solitude experience compensates for the limitations of social interaction and social institutions in the search for meaning, happiness, self-awareness, and emotional maturity.

Such a perspective has significant wilderness policy and management implications. First, we have generally assumed that a relationship existed between solitude and spatial variables such as density, encounters, and perceptions of crowding and privacy. Yet we have shown here that solitude may have little or no theoretical relationship with these variables. While managers have some control over use density, crowding, and encounters, and recognizing that management of these variables is defendable for other reasons, we probably need to look beyond such management tools in our efforts to enhance opportunities for solitude.

Secondly, while we recognize that limited encounters may help catalyze the solitude experience, there are other important factors related to social disengagement and opportunities for contemplative reflection that demand more managerial and research attention. What can we do to enhance visitor freedom, to maximize opportunities for attunement with self and nature, and to promote reflective thought and creative expression?

Thirdly, it seems that the paradox of wilderness management extends to a *paradox of solitude management.* Solitude is a psychological condition that by definition implies freedom from social influences and constraint, yet management implies intervention from the very social institutions and mechanisms that solitude is supposed to be free from.Ironically, to the extent that we impose social controls on wilderness visitors, opportunities for solitude may be diminished. In our effort to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude, we may have overemphasized the impact of encounters with other visitors, while ignoring the greater threat of government control and regulation.

If we are truly interested in providing solitude benefits, we should turn our management and research gaze away from crowding and encounter norms towards our own management tendencies to impose constraints on visitor freedoms and independence. Wilderness visitors have always stood apart from the general run of American life. It is critical that we recognize and accommodate their need for independence in their personal and social lives. A management culture that resists all deviations, or even attempted deviations, from its uniformities is antithetical to solitude. It seems the great challenge we face is to find the means of respecting visitors’ need for freedom and independence while protecting the ecological values of the wilderness resource.

Why is that? Please explain.