Should running be banned in the Grand Canyon? Many say yes

Mules are required to bring supplies to Phantom Ranch and other ranger stations and outposts at the bottom of the canyon, right?

And there's still an admission fee to gain access into the park. I don't know what the best solution is, or if anything needs to change, though it's not unprecedented for the National Parks to place limits and require passes to access some parts. For example, to summit Mt. Whitney.

Riverdale Runner wrote:

Roflcopterzncheese wrote:

If overcrowding is the issue, just limit the number of people allowed to be in at the same time. Simple.

How do you propose to count them?

Here are some ideas I came up with in 30 seconds of thinking:

1) Passes; only a certain number can be out at the same time. This even gives you a way to know if you need to go look for someone at the end of the day. You could even have a gps chip in the things so you can pinpoint where they are.

2) Reservations; Only so many for a certain time frame. Online, call, etc. The rangers are there. All things considered, it'll save them time and money.

3) I hate to say it, but paid tickets. $20 to go on the canyon trails. Adding a price to something always keeps out a large number of people that go somewhere for recreation. And like for the aforementioned reservations, only so many for a certain time.

rojo wrote:

http://running.competitor.com/2014/07/news/grand-canyon_108186

I wonder what Wejo says. He knew that girl that died that is mentioned in the article.

Sounds like there are just too many people.

Any experts on here know? What do you think?

I ran through many years ago. My healht has taken a turn and I've gained 85 lbs. I don't know what happened , my memory is fuzzy, and my wife left after my bought with drug addiction. I hope to get back to work, but with my criminal record it is difficult.

"A runner also has more impacts on more trail miles and trail users than a hiker, horse or mule because of the greater speed of travel." Yes and Yes, really you must be no fan of physics. My 170 pound frame at 6 mph will tear the trail up more than a 1200 pound horse or mule, or a 170 pound backpacker with an 80 pound pack? Come on, lets get real.

I've never seen any trash from runners like GU packets. I'm not saying there hasn't been and if I see a piece of trash I'll pick it up regardless of the source.

Talk about the girl who died. As sad and tragic as that is, a dozen people die there each year (see book Death In The Canyon). what, so we close the Park so nobody drives around and launches their car off the rim in a suicide?

I have never seen a runner with ear-buds but I've seen day hikers aplenty. Not a good idea for anybody. 10,000,000 visitors per year and you're worried about a few thousand runners stretched over 8-months. I fail to see any logic in a proposal to limit runners.

Roflcopterzncheese wrote:

Here are some ideas I came up with in 30 seconds of thinking:

1) Passes; only a certain number can be out at the same time. This even gives you a way to know if you need to go look for someone at the end of the day. You could even have a gps chip in the things so you can pinpoint where they are.

2) Reservations; Only so many for a certain time frame. Online, call, etc. The rangers are there. All things considered, it'll save them time and money.

I backpack in the sierras and this is the system used there. We make reservations in March for some trails. It's pretty cheap. It's nice because you don't have to deal with a bunch of people on the trails. you are required to check in to pick up the permit and you can be asked at any time by a ranger on the trail to see your permit. i'm not sure what happens if you don't have one but i suspect it's a hefty fine.

It's not going to completely solve the problem because people will try and get around it but requiring reservations, permits, and checking in will cut down on the crowds because a lot of people just won't take the time to do it.

The article is misleading at points.

"They’re using the Grand Canyon as their gymnasium"

No, they're not. A gymnasium is a place for workouts, usually on a regular basis. Nobody goes there to run repeats or tempos. Running the big ditch isn't merely a workout for the day. It's usually a lifetime event, a bucket list item like others on this thread have mentioned. And as someone else mentioned, how do you regulate who is going too fast on the trail and define who is a hiker and who is a runner?

"The North Rim is only open from May 15 to Oct. 15 each year"

Technically true, but misleading. You can't drive to there, it is closed at those times, but the north kaibab trail to the north rim is open year round, but the water is shut off. When I did r2r2r, I went after the water was shut off on the north and it was great because the trail was vacant.

Also, part of the problem is that the friggin Bright Angel trail is like Disneyland. Tour buses dump everyone off there and they hike 2-3 miles down the trail and back up. The problem on the BA isn't the runners, but all the idiots hiking obliviously with headphones or complaining that they can't get cell service for their iPhones. The top 3 miles of the BA is one of the most miserable hikes in the US because that's the tourist stretch. Use the south kaibab instead.

And yes, as others have said, Runners, please don't be jerks. Don't litter. Be polite. It might be a life event for you to run the GC, but it might be someone else's just to waddle a mile down the trail and back up.

No.

rojo wrote:

http://running.competitor.com/2014/07/news/grand-canyon_108186

I wonder what Wejo says. He knew that girl that died that is mentioned in the article.

Sounds like there are just too many people.

Any experts on here know? What do you think?

Sorry my statement was not clear and was not interpreted correctly. By trail mile impacts I did not mean impacts to the trail tread itself. I meant those who travel faster potentially create more human presence impacts (on wildlife along the trail and experiences of other humans) than those who travel more slowly.

Regarding trail use impact and the R2R2R …

I hiked/ran the R2R2R in 2011. Late April, perfect weather (20 overnight, 40s on the rim, 70s in the ditch), and about 50 of us R2R2Rers (I was there on my own after an aborted PCT hike due to—get this—too much snow, everyone else happened to pick the same day). The day before I went to inquire about the trip at the backcountry office given the number of signs which said "DO NOT ATTEMPT TO HIKE TO THE RIVER AND BACK IN A DAY." The issue, of course, is that unprepared hikers with no water and a few extra pounds would have no issue going downhill 7 miles, but would then be overwhelmed by going uphill in hot temperatures and require evacuation. (This is not the case with most hiking trips, where the climb weeds out the unprepared at the start and the weather gets cooler towards the top.) Their response: "if you've done enough research to be asking these questions, you'll be fine."

A group of us left around sunrise and were at the river by 7 a.m. and were the only ones on the trail going down. Beyond Phantom Ranch, there were just the R2R2Rers: few backpackers, no day hikers from the North Rim. Most of us ran alone or in small, impromptu groups, everyone carried enough water, and there was great camaraderie: chatting about ultras while jogging along Bright Angel Creek. Then it was back to Phantom Ranch, and a slog up the Bright Angel Trail (late enough in the day that I didn't run in to the hordes of hikers near the rim).

Here's the thing: the Kaibabs and the Bright Angel Trails are called the "corridor" for a reason: they get a lot of use, and they are designed for it. The impact of a couple thousand R2R2Rers a year—maybe a few dozen on a couple of busy fall and spring weekend days, most of the year far fewer—pales in comparison to the near-the-rim use and to the mules. Curtailing running is a solution looking for a problem: runners mostly leave before dawn or shortly thereafter, long before the hordes descend below the rim. By the time they return, they're moving slowly uphill and spread out. Most R2R2Rers run when the North Rim is closed, and appreciate the solitude beyond Phantom Ranch.

That's the sort-of 30,000 foot view. But when it comes to managing areas with high backcountry impact, there are two major issues: human waste disposal and trail impact. Over the years I've seen this dealt with in many instances, from hiking the Appalachian Trail to managing backcountry huts in the White Mountains in New Hampshire. And good golly, if you want to see high impact, come to the Whites on a busy weekend where a single trail (in the fragile alpine zone) can see 1000 hikers in a day. Beyond that come things like visual impact, trash removal and the like. But the two big ones are human waste disposal and tread impact.

So back to the Whites. Human waste disposal is a big deal there. Along most of the Appalachian Trail, waste can be handled by dispersal (many shelters down south have designated toilet areas where you dig a hole, do your business, stir the product and cover it and it decomposes) and most others have pit toilets with crude composting systems. When the hole gets filled, the privy is moved, the old waste decomposes, and everything is good. It's moist and generally gets warm enough to decompose the waste relatively quickly (including any TP you bury) and as long as it's not near water sources, you're fine. (In the desert, toilet paper should be carried out, but you need much more education regarding why you should walk along with a bag of poop-covered paper until you reach a trash can.)

This is an example of how dispersal works in many instances. However, in areas with very high use, dispersal becomes a liability. With too many users, dispersal begins to either impact too large an area, or too frequently impacts the same area, leading to problems of overuse. This is when "concentration and management" is the best policy. This is what Phantom Ranch and the campgrounds along the route already do: people are encouraged (by the real facilities where you can dispose of things like toilet paper) to use them, and the waste is managed (by staff and septic systems, although they would probably do better with composting toilets, but that's a whole different discussion). And trail runners? Who creates more waste: a trail runner who is below the rim for 8-16 hours, or an overnight hiker who is down there for two or three days?

(In the White Mountains, use first peaked in the late 1960s and in to the 70s, when "tent cities" sprung up at several sites, including alpine areas near backcountry hut facilities. Before that time, waste was buried in gaboons and tin pits, and each shelter or campsite below treeline had a "goat" for food waste. Now, camping is restricted above treeline and encouraged at established shelters and tentsites which have platforms, hardened pads and managed composting toilets, and huts now compost as much food as possible, have composting toilets [for the most part; above treeline it is too cold to compost waste, so it is stored and flown out] and trails, which ranged up to 30 feet wide in the 1970s, have been lined with "scree walls" to keep people on one narrow section and allow the trail to revegetate. Use has continued to increase; on a busy day above-treeline backcountry areas will see hundreds or perhaps thousands of hikers, mainly due to proximity to population centers nearby. The facilities encourage some of this use, but without them there would be high use and no management. Oh, and while some food is flown in by helicopter, fresh food is packed in—uphill, mind you—on the backs of humans; mules were last used in the '60s)

Concentration and management works for trails as well. The Corridor trails are very well maintained for the high traffic they see, especially from mules. The activity of even a couple thousand R2R2Rers is negligible compared with the daily plodding of the mules. Trails are well built, and again, it comes to concentration and management. If anything, runners should be encouraged to use these hardened, drained trails which are built for use and frequently maintained.

Other impacts: 40 R2R2Rers over 40 miles is one per mile. The visual impact is minimal. R2R2Rers better be conscientious enough to carry out their goddamn gel packs and water bottles. Perhaps the park service could establish an animal-proof "day storage" unit at Phantom Ranch and Cottonwood, where runners could leave supplies for a few hours during the out-and-back part of the hike. Use could require a backcountry tag or permit be attached to a bag containing such food, so that miscreants leaving food behind could be identified (or something of the sort). And education to make sure that no one is littering (although I would bet a lot of the gel packets are fat tourists who suck three down two miles down the trail and throw them by the wayside). There are some cantankerous hikers who bristle at anyone going faster than them on the trail. "You won't have knees when you're my age" they yell, as you swoop on by. Runners should be courteous in passing other users—especially in narrow areas—but shouldn't be singled out for their speed. If we want to get rid of some users, horses and mules, which require other users to vacate the trail completely, should be studied.

Trail running is increasing, and we shouldn't ban it just because people haven't done it as much before. For a lot of runners, the R2R2R is something to train for for months, instead of, say, a marathon or an ultra race. These people are fitter and healthier because of this goal. This should be encouraged. The Park Service, instead of a reactionary policy, should create one which acknowledges that these activities are going to take place, and encourages users who undertake them to be prepared and safe. (This article in Appalachia does a good job of describing the increase in trail running.) Trail runners should be ambassadors for the trails, as well. They should make sure that fellow runners in trouble are helped (or don't get in to trouble in the first place) and that impacts are minimized and avoided. Permits—particularly if they require travel on certain days and times—may well create situations where unprepared runners undertake the trip because they got a permit, or people take trips on days with adverse conditions because they can't wait a day for temperatures to drop or weather to clear. It's reasonable to build trail running in to the Grand Canyon plan. It's illogical to talk about somehow curtailing it all together.

fdsfadsfasdffff wrote:

Man I hate those trail runners who leave GU packets everywhere. They're making a terrible reputation for the rest of us.

It is much worse than leaving GU packets. Almost none of these runners pack their poop out--the extra weight slows them down too much. They magically hold in all their poo for a day long run.

Any runner who goes out for a day long run, and starts with almost nothing--water, t.p., food, jacket, sunscreen, etc--is an idiot who deserves to banned from all trail running.

Some parks near to where I live have banned running groups.

Permits are required for groups of 25 or more hikers or 2 or more runners. All requests for permits for group runs have been denied. The reason given for the permit denial is that runners cause overcrowding.