Arches National Park closed to backpacking?

[Outdoors24]

https://www.nps.gov/arch/planyourvisit/backpacking_moratorium.htm
I was checking out Arches website when I saw that they had stopped issuing backpacking permits. It said it was closed for a special project. Has anyone else heard of this? What are your thoughts?

 

[Venchka]

Shame on me. Coulda. Shoulda. Woulda. Gone sooner.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brendan S]

Sounds like they're just not issuing permits while they update the bc use plan. I do find it a little surprising they would stop issuing permits in the meantime...I've gotten backcountry permits maybe 3 times at Arches and each time it definitely does not seem like a routine thing for them (and looking at the logs it's often been days since they'd issued one). I've never seen another backpacker and aside from the main trails very little signs of use. That said, since it's a small park a lot of that use is probably in a select few areas it is a bit different situation than say Canyonlands. Very underrated backcountry in Arches though...

 

[SKLund]

https://www.nps.gov/arch/planyourvisit/backpacking_moratorium.htm
I was checking out Arches website when I saw that they had stopped issuing backpacking permits. It said it was closed for a special project. Has anyone else heard of this? What are your thoughts?

The crypto is probably getting stomped.

 

[Deleted User]

I never wanted to backpack in Arches. Can't have a fire and too many whoopsters. I have only backpacked in two national parks, Denali and Zion. Arches is great for day trips and astrophotography because the road side stuff is easy to access and the visitors are gone. Road was open all night the last time I was down there. But I have never considered it a backpacking destination.

 

[slc_dan]

I've mostly not considered Arches for backpacking due to lack of water. Dry camps blow.

I have wanted to explore some lesser known parts though, could be cool.

 

[JoshuaDyal]

Also because it's really small. You can see most of it without camping overnight somewhere.

On the other hand, you could always just plan you trip such that you set up camp on the BLM land just on the other side of the boundary, I would think.

 

[Jackson]

Each of the two times I've been on the Devil's Garden Loop, I've seen backpackers either heading in or heading out. Only one group each time. I've got no idea where they go, but it seems like you could find some decent places back in there away from the trails. Probably not much more than an overnighter, though, especially considering the lack of water, like @slc_dan said. I'd never have thought there were enough people doing it to have a real impact though. I imagine they'll come out with a more restrictive permit system once the moratorium is over.

 

[Kmatjhwy]

Now do think this is interesting as for backpacking in Arches NP. I am like others that Arches NP is for myself to small for nice long backpacking trips. I like for instance the Greater Escalante and Kaiparowits Plateau where one can disappear for days and days on end and lots less regulations. But another thing, the increasing regulations in various National Parks when it comes to backpacking. Most backpackers are very consciousness people it seems. But now so many National Parks have soooo many regulations for backpackers. And also have fees just to stay overnight in the backcounty and more. Do think the Grand Canyon was one of the first places for this in paying fees to camp overnight, and now this is everywhere in the National Parks. I have a friend who was put on 3 years probation and more just for hiking and camping in a National Park without a permit and paying the fee. Anymore most of my hiking and camping is outside of a National Park with being on Forest Service or BLM property or such with much more freedom, less regulation, and no fees. I was gonna go and do some hiking in Olympic Park on the ocean beaches, and one had to have those bear food kegs when they went backpacking because of the raccoons. There is still a lot of country out there that is empty and wild if one only looks and we will never see it all.

 

[Brendan S]

The thing with places like Arches and most parks (at least in Utah) is 99.99% of people stay on the trails. Yeah, Arches is small and you can dayhike to most places, but it's an easy bet that most of Arches sees less traffic than a lot of Escalante outside of the Lower East Side stuff. I did a ~60 mile loop around Arches several years ago and saw zero people and zero footprints (and didn't even do much in the Lost Spring system, which is probably the best backpacking area in the park). Sure I could have dayhiked to a lot of those places but dayhiking is kinda lame imo and I wanted to see if it was possible to have a 'wilderness' experience in a place I'd written off as ruined. It was a super rewarding experience and it has some super cool little corners. Same is true in Capitol Reef, etc.

As far as increasing regulations, most backpackers might be thoughtful folks but there are a lot of morons out there (and a lot of ignorance, especially in fragile desert ecosystems). There's a reason they're requiring wag bags in Needles now. I had to pass through a short section of Coyote Gulch a couple years ago on a big trip and the amount of TP I saw in like two miles was insane, and that's a canyon with a fing toilet in the canyon. In Olympic NP that rule had to happen because people don't keep clean camps. In Grand Canyon, when you apply for a permit for a big trip, they have to send you a letter telling you you are probably going to die because they have to spend the money and human resources to rescue people every single damn day down there.

I guess my main point is increased use does require management and just because there's heavy use in a concentrated area doesn't mean that adjacent areas can't be awesome. I'll speak for myself that making a conscious decision to try to tone down my curmudgeonly instincts and keep an open mind has allowed me to find some of the best and least traveled wilderness anywhere over the last couple years (much of it around Glen Canyon, another 'ruined' place) as well as enjoy the busier places too (had a great trip last fall in Olympic with the fam actually).

 

[Joey]

but it's an easy bet that most of Arches sees less traffic than a lot of Escalante outside of the Lower East Side stuff.

I'll take that bet. How many of those canyons in the Escalante have you actually been in?

 

[Brendan S]

I'll take that bet. How many of those canyons in the Escalante have you actually been in?

Most of them. Don't get me wrong, Escalante is one of my favorite places and has some of the wildest places anywhere but there's a massive difference between areas like the Hydra or the upper forks of Georgie's Camp and Neon. To be more specific for the point I'm making, I'll say HITR from town to Coyote (at least the canyon bottoms). I mean I've seen 30+ vehicles at the Egypt TH. I'm comparing that scene to, say, lower Salt Wash that sees practically nobody.

And maybe "most of Arches" isn't fair, but my point is there are narratives that I've found aren't true (Arches has nothing to see and is all busy and you won't see anyone in Escalante) . Again, I'm not dogging Escalante at all, I love it, and I if I were planning a trip to Utah I'd never choose Arches over Escalante. Just feel like the perceptions of some places aren't completely accurate and Arches has some really great, diverse stuff with very few people. Cheers.

 

[LarryBoy]

Stealth away, friends!