"DEFAMATORY" SAYS MATT MOORE

Hello Jim,

My name is Matt Moore, owner of the canyoneering company you wrote about in the Aug/Sept 2002 Zephyr.

First let me say that I agree with the two basic premises of your article: That Arches National Park has a "weak climbing policy" and a (basically) "non-existent commercial permitting system." However, it's not these points I want to discuss here. Instead, I want to inform your readers (and everyone else out there) of the libelous statements and representations you chose to make which have defamed me and my business.

Perhaps the most ridiculous of your accusations is that my company created a particular social trail in Arches (as depicted by the photo with the caption "A new 'trail' created by the commercial company..."). You claim the trail did not exist in 1998, or in 1999, but let's take a quick look at the history of this trail. The first time I hiked it was in December 2000, a year after you last hiked it. I've talked with several locals and visitors who've hiked that trail since the 1980's. When I worked at Arches in 1997, several park personnel who had hiked that trail told me about it. Later, over the course of at least four days in 1998, members of Arches' Search and Rescue team hiked back and forth on that trail each day on their way to a nearby mesa from which to conduct training. In addition, the trail, which you state did not exist in 1998 and which I first hiked in 2000, clearly appears on an aerial photograph taken July 4th, 1997 for the USGS orthophoto project. Jim, I don't know who created that trail or when, but for you to state that my company created it, even though plenty of evidence exists to the contrary, is ludicrous and downright defamatory. Even your lawyer friend (read more about her below) believes I did not create that trail.

You also state that if a ban on new fixed anchors, like at Canyonlands, were "applied to Arches, it would have eliminated most of the commercial routes that are now offered." I have proposed to NPS superintendents on several occasions to implement such a ban since I, too, have concerns about fixed anchors and their damage. However, all the routes offered can be done without adversely damaging the environment. They can be done not only without bolts, but without leaving anything behind--all possible because of what you call the "self-removing anchor" which, incidentally, I invented and have a patent pending. You seem insistent on portraying me as an irresponsible person with a cavalier approach to safety and environmental ethics. Had you not declined all thirteen invitations that I extended to you over the past two years to go hiking with me, you would know that much of what you've written about these trips is not true.

A couple days after your article appeared, I received a call from Bill Love. Mr. Love is a local who was concerned about my activities based on the article you published. He apparently took it as truth so, as you know, many emails ensued between Mr. Love, you, NPS personnel and myself. As a result, we scheduled a meeting on 08/26/2002 to discuss the commercial permitting process in Arches. Though you were conspicuously absent, Julie Bryan, a friend of yours who is an attorney in Salt Lake City, was present. Though she made some good points in regards to the NPS' lax permitting system--points I agree with--she also found time to assail my business. While maintaining that her arguments were directed at commercial activity in general and weren't personally directed at me, she nonetheless criticized--on two occasions--the price I charge! It was obvious she disapproves of my charging $120. What does what I charge have to do with the Arches commercial permitting process? Wouldn't I like to know what Ms. Bryan charges for 10 hours of work! But I didn't question her fees; it didn't matter, since her fees, like mine, had no relevance to the meeting.

Speaking of getting personal, Ms. Bryan, a professional attorney, even had the audacity to call me "Sweetie" during the meeting. Perhaps that's a legal term. To witness her unbecoming conduct, while she lambasted my business in front of the superintendents of southeast Utah's group of national parks, was disgusting to say the least.

In another lapse of good journalistic judgment in your Aug/Sept 2002 Zephyr, you decided to misquote me in your article about "BASS jumping." And while a misquote is bad enough, you decided to take it a step lower by claiming to your readers that you made certain statements to me which, in fact, are completely different than the statements you actually made! I find it very interesting that the words in your email to me aren't the same

as what you published in the Zephyr. It makes me wonder what other journalism ethics you're willing to breach in order to twist an article to your liking?

Jim, it's OK for you to dislike commercial activities in the backcountry of national parks. It's OK for you to dislike BASE jumping. You have a right to those opinions and I respect them. But to stoop so low as to lie, misquote, mislead and falsify statements in your widely circulated publication in an effort to defame or otherwise harm the reputation of others is a right that you do not have--and it's certainly not the type of journalism I respect. Such blatant disregard of the truth undermines your credibility as a responsible journalist.

There's so much more to explain, but unfortunately you have limited me to 1000 words. Therefore, I encourage your readers to visit my website, where I'll post all the details of this matter, including an unabridged version of this letter. Emails, NPS documents, everything. Visit: http://209.238.223.63/zephyr/zephyr.htm

You'll need to type in the numeric IP address because Jim won't post my business name.

Matt Moore

Moab, Utah

Editor's Note: See page 4.

ANOTHER VIEW ON COMMERCIAL CANYONEERING

Dear Zephyr,

In August, Superintendents Jerry Banta and Rock Smith hosted a discussion on the commercial canyoneering permit issued for Arches’ backcountry, which was attended by park employees and by representatives of the Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club, Living Rivers and the commercial canyoneering company.

What was the point? Does anyone really care about commercial enterprise in park backcountry? Absolutely. For starters, Congress cares. Consequently, in 1998 the Concessions Management Improvement Act replaced obsolete concessions laws. The National Park Service also cares. Accordingly, the NPS 2001 Management Policies contain cautious parameters for commercial use. This means that, after a generation of promoting commercial use of parks, even folks without remarkable powers of perception, like Congress, recognize that such use has unique, and not always good, consequences. Thus, the new laws and policies compliment the seasoned NEPA process to mandate careful deliberation before a commercial use becomes established in a park.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss whether such deliberation preceded the commercial permit in Arches’ backcountry---a permit that the canyoneering company’s website declares makes it the only canyoneering and hiking guide service permitted and insured in Arches" (emphasis in the original). The website then invites many to become "one of the few who will ever visit this spectacular and lonely place."

The discussion centered on the permit and permitting system. For instance, the permit is a form of Special Use Permit. Once a use is authorized with such a permit, all applications of the same type must be authorized---until the land's carrying capacity is exceeded. Thus, Special Use Permits can turn a spectacular, lonely place into a zoo. Such cancerous growth potential likely spawned the NPS Order requiring concessions to be authorized under concessions laws not as special uses. Thus, the permit that allegedly entitles the operator to self-proclaimed status as Arches’ only authorized guide service isn't authorized by National Park policies.

The NEPA analysis underlying the permit was also discussed. That analysis was thoroughly explored in the Zephyr article "Arches, Loopholes and the NPS." Suffice it to say, like the article, the discussion focused on questionable findings that led to the decision to "categorically exclude" the permit from detailed NEPA study.

That should not, and did not, lead to the conclusion that the NPS is uncommitted. It was clear that Arches' commercial permitting system needs revision. However, managing parks lately has not been easy. Staff and time limits leave little opportunity for planning required by new laws. The park faced a determined applicant. When concerns raised about commercial canyoneering led the park to conclude that some NEPA analysis should precede a permit, the operator notified the Park Service that an attorney was involved and declared that it:

"support[ed] NEPA for any commercial activity in the park... Arches NEEDS it. But if activities currently allowed are prohibited until [a NEPA analysis is conducted] it may disrupt plans already in effect...[including a plan] to fly folks from the press and other international visitors in town for the [Olympic] games...for day trips into the parks."

In other words, Olympic-sized aspirations outweighed the operator's support of environmental laws. Under those circumstances, the commercial company acquired the opportunity to declare itself the only permitted Arches guide.

In fact, at the meeting, the Park Service emphasized that it did not intend the permit to give preferential rights or to set any precedent. The Park Service is committed to updating Arches' commercial plan. The meeting at Arches adjourned when the Park Service confirmed that the permit, which expires in December, has no precedential value mandating renewal of that permit or issuance of any other. The NPS understands that there is concern over commercial backcountry use and is prepared to consider the concern. With that, there is no current interest in a legal challenge to the permit, which would be in its infancy when the permit expires and would occupy park staff needed for planning.

However, the future of Arches backcountry remains at issue. Before that fate is decided, consider the following: Arches is a relatively small park: 20% Canyonlands' size. In 1987, 484,618 people visited Arches and the Park Service estimated that number would increase 36% by 2005. In 2001, 757,530 people visited the park---a 62% increase over 1987. Visitor concentration is ten times that of Canyonlands' and has approached that of Zion, which now requires entry via a transportation system. However, Arches' development has focused on the front country.

The canyoneering operator inferred that the public is too irresponsible to enter the backcountry without guides. Notwithstanding that opinion, parks are for the people. People may, and will continue to, enter public land without guides. Thus, commercial tours do not lighten the land's load. Education, not guides, is the answer to irresponsible use. Recognizing that, laws allow liberal access for education. Moreover, the NPS offers inexpensive tours in sensitive areas of Arches that have low carrying capacities. Such tours leave people of unequal pocketbooks with equal access and avoid the potential for a private and commercial impasse of the sort made famous by Grand Canyon river controversy.

In the end, lets hope to learn from the past. It may be argued, legitimately, that most commercial guides have impeccable land-use techniques. Thank goodness for them. It cannot be argued that when wilderness excursions become commercial enterprises the land is not effected. Wilderness experiences transform into recreational experiences and lands become more populated with those that fancy the latter at the expense of those who enjoyed the former. There is something (including recreation) for everyone in Arches. However, there will be fewer spectacular, lonely places in Arches in the future if careful consideration is not given to the costs attendant commercializing such places in this small, popular park.

Sincerely,

Julie Bryan

Salt Lake City. UT