Arches

So over New Year's my boyfriend and I went out to Arches National Park in the Red Rocks country of southern Utah. And it was beautiful and relaxing and immensely enjoyable. Far nicer than going to an overcrowded bar and paying way too much for drinks. While there were far more people than I would have expected for the middle of winter, the park was by no means crowded. In fact it was quite easy to avoid people entirely by taking trails that were even moderately difficult or by getting started for the day at sunrise while others waited for it to get warmer. (The weather in December and January is generally quite nice, highs in the 40s and lows in the 20s, much nicer than the regular 100+ days present in the summer season). While I often started the day with several layers, and finished it the same way, once I started hiking and the sun got higher I quickly shed them for lighter gear. Much more pleasant and easier to try to get warm than stay cool, though the dry air, even when cold, dehydrates you faster than you realize.

While we didn't slip and fall this sign is quite accurate, the rocks are very slippery.

For a park that is only three hours from Salt Lake and six from Denver and has a high yearly attendance, going at a time that minimizes crowds certainly is a priority. This is another point in favor of going in the off-season. Many trails are loops or out-and-back and therefore quite prone to congestion and crowding. As it was there was one place, Delicate Arch (famous from Utah's license plate) where the number of people all wanting to get photographed with the formation almost prevented us from getting a quality picture (I snuck mine in during the only 30 second window no one was standing in it). The rest of the park generally had some people, we were only alone on our early hikes, though there was none of the traffic or half-mile car lines waiting to park at some trailheads that some road signs indicated could occur during summer.

 

Delicate Arch

The amenities in the park are quite good. A new visitor center has excellent and interactive geology and wildlife exhibits that are accessible to kids but not boring to adults. There are also, during summer, numerous ranger-led programs including tours of the Fiery Furnace area of the park (off-limits without a special permit and inadvisable to those without knowledge of the area due to its maze-like nature and the fragility of the desert soils). Sadly we were not able to hike in the Fiery Furnace or do backcountry camping or hiking. Those will have to wait until our next visit, perhaps one that will add Colorado National Monument and Canyonlands, both nearby. There is only one campground that is first come, first served in the winter and by reservation in summer. It is quite beautiful (the best views are from the sites 20-25) but could be improved by better enforcement of park policies and the separation of trailers/RVs from tents, but those are minor issues in the grand scheme and were addressed more fully in my most recent post.

Part of the Fiery Furnace

In addition to its stunning geology the park also has the standard desert flora and fauna (we didn't see any rare ones but did see plenty of critters and the beautifully weathered desert plants, especially Utah juniper). It also has easily accessible prehistoric petroglyphs and rock art, as well as markings made by Spanish explorers and settlers. Unfortunately these are faded now because they were vandalized in the 1980s and the restoration process reduced their vibrancy. Still, well worth seeing (and a surprise to us).

Seeing cacti covered with snow was unexpected.

Junipers are long-lived and self-prune dramatically to conserve water leading to their beautiful, weathered appearance.

 

Some of the petroglyphs at Arches

It really doesn't do much justice to the park to describe it or even to post pictures, particularly since when you are there almost everything you see is so stunning you feel the need to photograph it. Indeed, it is difficult at times to put the camera away and just appreciate the place for what it is, but I did manage to do that at least a few times while I was there. I'll post a few more pictures of my trip but you'll just have to go for yourself.

Sunset from our campsite

The famous Landscape Arch

The spectacular Double Arch with Andrew for scale

Me looking off during a break on the Dark Angel trail

Campground Etiquette

On my New Year's trip to Arches National Park I stayed in the only campground in the park. It has nice, well-maintained, spacious sites with spectacular views. They are pretty close together, though some are semi-sheltered by large rocks and juniper trees. In the winter it is only half open, but at peak season it could easily have 300 people or more at any time. As it was, the available spaces were almost filled every night. It also had trash disposal and some recycling collection as well as modern bathrooms with dishwashing space. Unfortunately it also is a mixed tent/RV/trailer site with no designated areas for different types of camping and, at least in winter, little to no enforcement of noise and generator curfews. This significantly detracted from the overall experience, especially since we had initially planned on trying to get a backcountry permit at the park office. They are available but there aren't any designated sites or areas and in the winter we didn't want to deal with that without doing a bit more research. Perhaps next time we are out there.

Unless you happen to live in the vicinity, you are going to need to stay somewhere when you visit a park. Generally the options are camping in some form in the park, camping at a BLM, Forest Service, or state park in the area, or staying at a hotel in a nearby community. In the case of Arches, all are options and the town of Moab is actually a neat place, at least in the winter when it isn't overrun by tourists. It even has identifiable local businesses and eateries that actual residents support. However, many people, myself included, view camping as a major reason for visiting a park and an essential part of the experience. While sleeping in a tent and cooking on a stove or fire is real camping, it is not for everyone and there are different degrees of alternatives. Some involve elaborate tent cities and grills. Others involve unpowered camper trailers or truck bed campers. Some people use RVs or powered trailers. All of them do have conceivable uses and some people actually do other things in a park besides sit in or around their vehicles (though I did see some who appeared to spend the entire time in their trailer). But there are some guidelines people should follow to maximize the enjoyment of everyone that come down to basic courtesy and common sense.

• Keep the electronics to a minimum. Yes, I know you really want to listen to the Cowboys game or have a dance party or watch a movie on your laptop, but you can do that at home, or in a motel, or anywhere else. You may not appreciate the experience and the location, but there are many others around you who are trying. Don't disrupt them, and if you cannot last, keep it quiet and use headphones.
• On the same topic, lots of the ridiculous things you might have brought and inexplicably find essential require power. If you use your car or a generator please try to park in a cluster with others in a similar situation and leave at least part of the campground free for those who want a quieter experience and absolutely abide by the posted curfews for shutoff. Yes, it's a drag having to use a flashlight or firelight or even sit in the dark or sleep once the sun goes down, but that's part of the deal. There are great stars in the world's darker places, try looking at them.
• Please keep your pets on leash and clean up after them. I love and own dogs and have gone camping with them, but in a campground even the best behaved ones can create a problem if not controlled, especially if there are several. They love playing and exploring and it can quickly create a culture where other polices slip, waste accumulates, and the quality of the campground deteriorates. Campgrounds, especially in parks, are often islands in a sensitive ecosystem. While many people don't take warnings about fragile soils seriously, animals have no awareness of it whatsoever, nor do they have any reservation about digging or hunting indigenous wildlife. As for the people who have cats in their campers, that's just weird.
• Get your kids involved. Good for you bringing your kids out to experience the natural world, even in one of its Disneyfied, theme park forms. Now try to build an appreciation by getting them to engage with different aspects of the experience. Star gazing. Fire building. Assembling a campsite. Cooking on a stove. Taking nature walks (at Arches there is a great one that essentially leaves from the campground and can take all day if you do it in its entirety, another one gives you a few hours). Get them to do things they couldn't or wouldn't do at home. Kudos to the family that brought their bikes with them so they could take the road through the red rocks. That was much better behavior than our neighbors at the campground who brought their gymboree in their pickup and let their kids watch DVDs all night (probably to alleviate the screaming fury that resulted from any dissatisfaction).
• Clean up after yourself. At Arches the campground was generally pretty clean but I've been to some where there is garbage everywhere (don't burn it, for a lot of reasons) and it is repulsive. Additionally, just because something is food doesn't mean it is "natural" and doesn't mean it will "compost." Composting takes time and some things will not decompose in all ecosystems. You also don't want to attract animals to campgrounds. They can be nuisances and it can be unsafe for people and for the animals (many get hit by cars after being attracted to food). It is also bad to get them acculturated to human food in some seasons only to have it disappear later in the year.
•  Finally, everyone likes sex, but if you must have sex in a campground, remember that it is a semi-public space and you are in close proximity to others with very little sound barrier, so have some discretion. Loud, screaming sex is generally inappropriate for such a campground. If you want to engage in that, pick a remote, backcountry site or a hotel.

So there are some general rules of etiquette for large campgrounds. It's not exhaustive and not particularly original, but you would be shocked how many people don't realize that they are doing anything inconsiderate at all. Perhaps this will help.

P.S. Despite our immediate neighbors, the rest of the experience in the Arches campground was fantastic and I give it (in its winter form) a solid four stars, segregating tents from RVs and enforcing generator limits are the only major things I'd change.

DeChristopher Convicted

Tim DeChristopher, the environmental activist who bid on oil and gas leases to prevent development of sensitive tracts near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, was convicted yesterday on both counts (false statements and impeding a federal auction). This is not surprising as he had admitted to the acts and he was barred from discussing his motives. The New York Times' reporter Kirk Johnson asked "Do Motives Matter?" in a blog post about the verdict. Legally, in this case, the answer is no. Without the ability to argue necessity any discussion of his motives, technically speaking, would be irrelevant to proving the charges; the government asked the jury "did he do it?" and reminded them that it didn't matter why. (Aside: motive is almost always irrelevant in criminal prosecutions (though it can be relevant in sentencing), a misconception that is perpetuated by pop culture portrayals of trial. Cops rely on motive in investigations, but in the courtroom it is rarely an element that must be proved).

Mr. Johnson is asking the wrong question. Rather, he should be asking "why was this case brought?" Prosecutorial discretion is the principle that the executive has the right to determine which cases are tried, which suspects tried, and what the priorities of enforcement will be. First, the Obama administration pulled the tracts in question from development, negating the auctions, so there was no harm to the government. Second, his motives were honorable. This is the case of a non-violent student engaging in civil disobedience. That he would be prosecuted and now faces up to 10 years in prison for this is unconscionable, especially from an administration that, despite its abysmal record in many areas, actually has a relatively good (though far from exemplary) record on environmental issues. However, what it comes down to is corporate power and money and, as DeChristopher said after his conviction, "I can't point to many examples where they've sided with future generations over corporate interests." It's just another in a long list of examples of Obama siding with the rich and powerful instead of supporting meaningful systemic reform.

At least he was convicted of dealing only with the Bureau of Livestock and Mining and not the historically (even more) corrupt Minerals Management Service (now Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement). That would have been intolerable. And perhaps he will raise the profile of the continued problems of widespread oil and gas leasing, climate change, and environmental degradation (especially near sensitive lands) and serve as a martyr. The first hero in a long fight.

DeChristopher Trial

Tim DeChristopher's trial is being conducted this week. DeChristopher is the environmental activist who prevented oil and gas drilling on lands near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks by bidding on and winning $1.8 million dollars worth of leases on BLM land in 2008. Unfortunately he has been barred by Judge Dee Benson from discussing his motives during his trial. While this is not particularly surprising, it makes it highly likely that he will be convicted. The statutes under which he is being charged require a "knowing" or "intentional" standard and the court rejected his "necessity defense." In other words, it said that even if all the evidence he planned to present in court were believed, it would not meet the requirements to legally justify his actions as preventing a greater harm. In its order barring discussion of necessity, the court held that he could not establish that he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils, that he couldn't show enough of a connection between the leases and the threat of climate change, and that he had other legal alternatives.

At trial, however, his defense team managed to get an allusion to his motivations into the courtroom, though that line of questioning was quickly shut down and the court cleared. Despite being only a brief mention, and even if Judge Benson instructs the jury to disregard, the practical effect is that this idea is now in the minds of the jurors (if it wasn't there already). Whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly an open question (this is Utah we are talking about), but orders to disregard are generally meaningless since one cannot unhear testimony or actively purge ideas. "The jury shall not think of a pink elephant." His defense team's efforts to claim he didn't intend to disrupt the bidding process or knowingly misrepresent himself as a bidder in good faith are less persuasive. "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse" is something every first year law student is repeatedly told, and while it is often difficult to prove state of mind, the facts (signed document with explicit promises, clear course of action, no plan for payment, personal statements of intent) make the government's burden quite easy to meet.

His best shot at acquittal is through jury nullification: the jury deciding that even though the government has proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt it will not convict him because it feels he has done nothing wrong/is morally justified/otherwise excused. It is perfectly legal for juries to do this, though for obvious reasons the government is careful to keep it quiet and I am sure that in jury selection the prosecutors weeded out most of the environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and other likely sympathizers.

On an unrelated note: the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage has been, as one would expect, fairly biased against DeChristopher. Referring to him as an "admitted monkey-wrencher" and, pejoratively as a "'true believer' of the environmental movement." I suppose this is to be expected of a Utah paper.