CANYONEERING COMPANY ACCUSES ZEPHYR OF 'LIBEL'

The owner of a Moab canyoneering company has accused The Zephyr of 'libel' after a story that appeared in the August/September issue. In an email to the Zephyr on August 17, 2002, and in a letter to The Zephyr which appears on page 36 of this issue, Matt Moore claims that The Zephyr has "defamed me and my business already."

At issue is the story, "Arches, Loopholes, and the NPS." Since 1998 a canyoneering company has operated hundreds of tours off-trail in the arches backcountry. Until 2002, the National Park Service didn't even require a permit for such commercial activities. When it finally did require the company to apply for an Incidental Business permit, the NPS in the view of many, violated its own permitting process and failed to determine the long-term impacts of commercial day tours. That was the main focus of the story and Mr. Moore agreed, writing, "I realize that the article was primarily about the climbing policy and the commercial permitting system, and on these issues I agree with you."

But Moore took issue with other aspects of the article and felt he had been badly portrayed. Here were his main points:

BOLTS: According to Moore, "...You erroneously state in the Z that if such an anchor ban were applied, 'it would have eliminated most of the commercial routes that are now offered.' Truth is, it wouldn't have affected a thing. Sure, there are existing bolts out there in Arches which predate the Canyonlands ban, but all the routes I guide can be done without bolts and without leaving anything behind."

This story depended primarily on documents obtained from the National Park Service through a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents I received included copies of the screening forms, letters from Moore to the NPS, intra-staff memos, and a copy of Moore's permit, dated March 2, 2002. Included are a series of topographic maps that apparently Mr. Moore himself used to locate and describe the five trips that he runs inside the park. On three of the five routes, he refers to existing bolt stations and even takes credit for one of those stations, writing "bolt placed by Matt Moore in 1995." On some routes he clearly points out that he uses "The Slick," the self-retrieving anchor that leaves nothing behind. On another route, he acknowledges bolt stations left by previous climbers, and insists, "we do not use these bolts," but never clearly explains if he's able to perform the rappel with his "Slick" or whether he created another bolt station.

That is exactly what he did at another rappel point. In his permit, Moore identifies a bolt station "originally placed in 1993" and attributes its placement to another climber. But in an email to me from Moore on August 12, 2000, he told a different story. Describing that same rappel point, Moore wrote, "The second rappel is from two bolts...I did place those two bolts a couple years ago. There was an existing single bolt which was usable, but it was placed in a location where non-rappelling hikers could see it and the accompanying sling and placed the new bolts where you can not see them or the sling from below."

Since the spring of 2002, perhaps Mr. Moore has found ways to bypass ALL the bolt stations, but when he applied for his permit, bolt stations by his own estimate were a critical part of the tours. And finally, as recently as mid-September, Moore's own web site says this about the use of anchors: "Large trees are common anchors, as are expansion bolts. These bolt anchors are used where no natural anchors are available. They consist of two or three securely-placed bolts which are equalized with slings to distribute the load among them. They are already in place and left there for the next group to use."

Mr. Moore is particularly proud of his "Slick," the self-retrieving anchor that he says he invented and which he has submitted to the U.S. Patent Office. And we commend him for his efforts. But what led Moore to search for alternatives? In September 2000, he was still leaving ropes and slings and climbing hardware wrapped around a pinyon tree, when I visited and photographed one of his rappel sites and took those pictures to SE Utah Group Superintendent Jerry Banta. NPS staff later removed the anchor ropes and the following spring, Moore began using his Slick. In an August 24, 2001 email from Moore, he insisted, "My goal is to conduct my personal and professional actions on public lands in a manner that is viewed as being most environmentally-friendly...I invented a retrievable rappel anchor that allows you to not leave anything behind including webbing."

That's terrific. But earlier in the year, after I had first publicized his pinyon tree anchor, Moore conceded to me via email, "Your disgust, to a certain degree, was the reason I invented the equipment."

So whoever gets the kudos, his "Slick" is an improvement over the bolts that he and many others have hammered into the rock and this publication must take at least partial credit for inspiring Mr. Moore to create his invention. We ask that all royalties be donated to Negative Population Growth.

SOCIAL TRAILS: On the topic of "trails," Moore insists that he did not "create" the trail that was depicted in the article. He claims that in 1998, "NPS high-angle SAR teams conducted training up there, crossing the basin back and forth on their way to the top of the mesa." Indeed, there is no doubt that over the years, other hikers and climbers have infrequently followed the same route. But that was four years ago. Common sense clearly suggests that when groups of five or eight or ten people walk the same route, over the same terrain, again and again, sometimes several times a week, permanent impacts are the result. Ultimately, to recall the title of a Zephyr story that appeared in April 2001, "It's the Numbers, Stupid." Hordes of well-meaning hikers and the guides that lead them, will destroy the very places they claim to love. Moore's company led 42 trips over that ground in 2001. These commercial tours never give the land the chance to recover. And the land will recover, if given the chance to be left alone.

And now to the extremely silly...

MY FRIEND, ATTORNEY JULIE BRYAN: Moore complains about the tactics and comments of an attorney from Salt Lake City, Julie Bryan who he encountered at an NPS meeting in late August. Yes, I have many friends who are attorneys and most of them, including Ms. Bryan, are honest and skilled. My favorite attorney is my pal from Lexington, Judge Paisley, who helped me become a Kentucky Colonel. But Ms. Bryan's interest in this topic was not solicited; she's very self-motivated. In fact, Ms. Bryan pretty much does as she damn well pleases.

HER USE OF THE TERM "SWEETIE:" Apparently, at the August meeting, Ms. Bryan addressed Moore as "sweetie." Yes, I've noticed that Ms. Bryan uses that expression frequently. She even called me "sweetie" once. I think it's a term of endearment. I don't think her use of the word makes her "audacious," as Matt Moore claims, but I do think it might make her BO-dacious.

THE BASS JUMP MISQUOTE/LIE: Mr. Moore claims I misquoted him in a parody I wrote in that same issue about extreme sports called "BASS Jumping." But the quoted conversation was unattributed---Mr. Moore's name was never mentioned and I believe there are other BASE jumpers on the planet besides him. I've asked several BASE people how they feel about the concept of flying like a bird. And of course, ultimately, the topic of "BASS jumping" with a fish has nothing to do with the commercial services permitting system at Arches National Park.

1000 WORD LIMIT: Moore complained that I only gave him 1000 words to respond to the approximately 50 words he disputes in the 3000 word article. It seems to me he has done an incredible job of squandering paragraphs of it on earth-shaking topics like BASS jumping and being called "sweetie."

Good grief, Matt.

The Zephyr takes "libel and defamation" accusations seriously even when they're ridiculous. While this response is a bit lengthy, many of the words are Matt Moore's--I gave him "extra words" just to set the record straight. And I've offered to post the long-version of his letter on The Zephyr web site.

Jim Stiles

WHERE CAN YOU HIKE AT ARCHES NATIONAL PARK?

While the discussion of commercial backcountry use at Arches continues, a few of us are wondering where an individual can hike within the park boundary. On a recent visit to Arches I was surprised to find more than a dozen signs posted along the main park road. At almost every pullout, gravel or paved, between the park entrance and Balanced Rock, official signs were bolted to the ground and provided the following warning:

STOP...THIS IS NOT A TRAIL

When you walk off trail, you cause

extensive damage to Arches' vegetation

and cryptobiotic crust.

Please do your part by staying on designated trails

Beside the text (see photo) is a traditional circle with a slash across the symbol, in this case, a footprint, which to almost any park visitor, suggests it is illegal to walk anywhere in the park except on designated trails.

But that's not true, and at the August 26 meeting, NPS administrators made it clear that the signs are intended to discourage but not ban backcountry hiking by individuals. Still, whether by accident or design, two of the only pullouts that do not have one of these signs are the two "trailheads" that the commercial canyoneering company uses to access the backcountry. Why would the NPS not discourage off trail use at these locations? Nowhere else are the impacts more severe. Some consistency from Arches National Park in the application of its own rules would improve its credibility right now.

OUTSIDE MAGAZINE HITS NEW LOW

I gave up on Outside Magazine about 20 years ago as anything but a shamelessly exploitative rip-off of the natural world. For decades this glossy rag has trumpeted an endless list of "Last Best Kept Secrets." Its apparent soul purpose is to find forgotten or unknown remnants of America that still retain a touch of honest and untrammeled beauty and then broadcast its discovery to the mindless masses of recreationalists, who arrive in numbers far beyond the land's capacity to absorb the shock. And ruin it. Physically and metaphysically. It's what Outside does.

Now Outside has even out-done itself. A feature story in the August issue called "Go Stake Your Claim," moves the mag into the arena of real estate. "(Here) are six elemental landscapes," it proclaims, "forest, desert, inland waterfront, prairie, mountain, and coast--featuring 18 blissfully unsullied locales...Our survey largely showcases undeveloped private land, which remains plentiful and cheap." Included, of course, are even some "unsullied locales" in southern Utah.

It does warn that potential buyers may be put off by the remoteness ("Forget it if you can't live without Macy's.").

I think I can live without Outside.