Editors Note:
The Estes Valley Voice welcomes both letters to the editor and longer, opinion pieces. Publication of letters and op-eds does not mean the EVV endorses the opinions expressed, however we believe the media should be a platform for dialogue about important civic matters. Please submit letters (250 words or less) or longer think pieces (700-1,000 words) to news@estesvalleyvoice.com. Please include your name, email address and phone number so we can verify the authorship.
“You picked the wrong hill to die on buddy!”
“Don’t be such an a$$&213!”
“But our parks are being loved to death!”
Those are some of the things people yelled at me and my brothers four years ago on the Fourth of July. We were peacefully protesting in Bond Park against the National Park Service’s unilateral decision to require reservations to enter Rocky Mountain National Park. After four consecutive ‘Timed Entry Pilot’ systems over the next four years, the NPS has decided to make reservations permanent (click to read the final plan here).
Four years ago, we said the reservation system was unnecessary, unfair, and undemocratic–in particular that low-income and minority people would be excluded from making spontaneous trips to the Park.
We also said that under the guise of COVID, it would be used as a Trojan Horse to permanently change how the public accesses public lands. We brought these concerns directly to the attention of the small group of people leading the National Park Service in Estes Park.
The reservation system would not be permanent, Superintendent Darla Sidles assured us at the time. It was just ‘temporary’ said head of public relations Kyle Patterson.
Further specific queries were met with bland assurances, or brushed off entirely, as have been several Freedom of Information Act requests about the legality of Park’s actions). Here we are four years later, with the Park on the cusp of making reservations permanent.
But a recent 6-3 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court—the Chevron Deference—has unexpectedly validated the claim we’ve been making all along: that no matter how well-intentioned, Federal Agencies like the National Park Service aren’t judges or legislators and can’t make laws. They aren’t allowed to make up rules and regulations out of thin air and then require public compliance, with zero accountability for those decisions. It is not in the public interest for big decisions that affect the public to be immune from public review and oversight.
Not everyone will agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Chevron Case—three of the Justices didnot—but whatever you think of it, the principle is crystal clear: unelected and unaccountable Federal officials are not, despite whatever expertise they may have, the ultimate authority on whether their actions are legal.
This matters in respect to both the Timed Entry program and the long-term visitor use plan put forward by Rocky’s small cadre of leaders.
In case you missed it when the Park signed off on it earlier this spring, the long-term plan they have adopted gives someone in the Park—we’re not sure who, or why, or how—the authority to require you to make a reservation for any part of the Park, at any time of day, during any time of year, for any length of time.
But it gets worse.
The Park’s officials have reserved for themselves the right to close certain sections of the Park—trailheads, destinations, whole areas, or the entire Park itself—for any length of time. And it’s not clear why or how these decisions will be made.
In the document which the Park drafted to grant itself this unprecedented authority, it said it would use factors like “desired conditions” and “visitor experience.”
What are “desired conditions?” What is the preferred “visitor experience?” Who desires these conditions? Are all visitor experiences supposed to be the same, as defined solely by the Park’s insider?
Apparently, only the Park has the expertise to interpret its regulations and then determine how many people can hike to Mills Lake on a given day, or whether you should require a permit and training to hike to Longs Peak or Sky Pond. You are only allowed to enjoy public lands when the Park says, and in the way the Park believes is best.
We’re supposed to trust this kind of opaque language and non-transparent process because the Park insiders are the experts.
Surely the Park would only use this comprehensive authority for the common good, to protect our natural resources, and ensure we all have a great experience, right?
Well maybe not. The result of the last four years of “pilot” systems and the resulting long-term strategy give un-named Park officials more authority than Congress could ever have imagined when the 1916 Organic Act was passed and created the National Park System.
That legislation gave Park administrators a dual mandate to preserve the Park’s resources unimpaired for future generations and to facilitate public visitation so Americans could use and enjoy the Parks the way they were designed for.
On this Fourth of July weekend, I’d humbly suggest that public lands are now impaired for millions of Americans, thanks to the precedent set by the leaders of Rocky Mountain National Park.
These leaders, using their own internal rules and processes to effectively make new laws, have far exceeded their statutory authority in permanently requiring reservations on public lands. Their new plan gives them almost unlimited—and totally unaccountable authority—to close access to public lands at any time, for any reason, for any length of time, and in any place.
You couldn’t design a system that was more unfair, unnecessary, and undemocratic. The recent Supreme Court ruling puts all of this in a new light. Unelected Federal officials do not have a god-like authority to make new policies that have the effect of law, without any oversight from the courts, the legislature, and ultimately the people.
It may be that most people support some sort of timed entry system. But we’ve never been given that choice, only different options based on the Park’s conclusion that some sort of reservation system is required.
In my view, the Park has provided no real scientific evidence that reservations are necessary, much less fair. But whatever you think, it would be hard to argue that the Park’s process has been anything but transparent and is quite clearly, by design, not democratic.
Legal steps are now in motion to challenge the reservation system in court. A judge may decide the National Park Service has made the right decision to require permanent reservations. But that decision should be left to a court who recognizes the public has a legitimate right to be treated as an equal partner in the management of public lands.
Public lands belong to the people, not to unelected and unaccountable administrators.
Timed Entry isn’t a law. In fact, after repeated queries, Kyle Patterson has refused to say whether being in the Park without a reservation during Timed Entry is a crime, an offense, or some other violation of Park policy (and if so, what the punishment or penalty is).
I’m not advising you to enter the Park without a reservation and enjoy your freedom this Fourth of July weekend. But I’ll repeat what I’ve said all along, and which many thousands of people have agreed with, based on the number of people who’ve signed my petition against reservations: the National Park should scrap timed entry.
It should start all over with a fair process that treats the American public as a meaningful stakeholder. And it should acknowledge that in trying to preserve Park resources unimpaired for future generations, it has impaired access for the current generations and especially for the poor and minorities.
If I’ve seemed overly attacking or angry toward NPS officials, I hope you’ll understand why. Repeated questions and FOIA requests have gone unanswered.
In principle, the Park believes it, and only it, has the right to lock the gate on the American public for their own good.
In principle, I fundamentally disagree with this. Public lands belong to the people.
When someone tells you that “you picked the wrong hill to die on,” they mean that you’ve picked a fight that’s not worth it, or that you’re on the wrong side of that fight. The truth is, getting a reservation and paying a $2 fee doesn’t affect wealthy and retired people.
But it does affect many others, now and in the future. And those are the people I thought it was important to speak up for.
As someone who grew up with RMNP in my backyard out on Devil’s Gulch Road, I want future generations to be able to experience the natural beauty of Rocky as much as I did.
Giving a small group of unidentified Federal employees the authority to shut off access to public lands for vague reasons is bad policy.
No one is going to die opposing it. But standing up for a principle that public lands belong to the people and the people deserve a real choice in how to manage them? That’s worth standing up for.
[Author’s postscript: After multiple requests, and without notifying anyone, the Park has posted the public comments submitted on their long-range management plan. I just became aware of this as I finished writing this piece. You can read the 276 pages of public comments here. Click on the link at the bottom “Correspondences for RMNP DUVAS Management Plan and EA” to download the 276 pages of public comments.]
Dan Denning grew up in Estes Park, working summer jobs at the Mountain Man, Ed’s Cantina, Stanley Village Cinemas, and the Malt Shop. He graduated from Park High School in 1991. His Texas grandparents spent summers in Estes Park in the 1920s and 1930s. His parents met at Macgregor Ranch in the 1950s, were married at Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic church in 1958, and moved to the Estes Valley permanently in 1971. Dan currently lives in Laramie, Wyoming and is the Research Director of Open Road Publishing, which provides research and analysis to investors and retirees. He graduated from American University in 1995 with a BA in Literature and from St. John’s College in Santa Fe in 1997 with an MA in the Liberal Arts.
I like the timed entry and the reservation system. True, It keeps me from going into Bear lake corridor spontaneously but it makes me plan ahead , actually increasing my visits into the park. Also the experience is better because there aren’t as many people and cars. Minorities and low income people have exactly the same access as middle class and upper class people, because it is only a few dollars and reservations can be made on your phone anywhere there is WiFi
I’d like this news organization to find out what metrics NPS used to decide that a timed entry system was needed. Whatever that measurement may be, what were the values prior to timed entry and what are they now? In other words, is timed entry making a difference?
Let’s see some cold hard facts, please.
Nelson, thank you for your ideas. I am interested in doing a content analysis (classic journalism research, my j-school professors would approve!) of all the comments that the NPS received about the timed entry program. There are two very divided schools of thought on this. The NPS has a two fold mission: to preseve the public lands, and to make them accessible to the public. Balancing those two mandates are challenging and not necessairly compatable. I think the Estes Valley Voice will be diving deep into this. Patti
While convenience is important, it should not supersede democratic principles. The transfer of public lands to government control is a matter of great concern due to the potential irreversible consequences. It is crucial to address this primary concern before considering other related issues.