I read with interest Michael Liss’s impassioned letter concerning access to Arches National Park. While his commitment is admirable, and even though I share some of his concerns, I believe several of his points require further clarification and examination as the underlying facts do not seem to support many of the assertions made in his July 12, 2023, commentary.
Mr. Liss argues that Arches National Park is essentially empty, and our children will never get to see it due to the advanced reservation system. However, visitor survey data paints a different picture. 57% of summer visitors reported the timed-entry program improved their overall experience, with 84% expressing a preference for a similar system on future visits. Importantly, the vast majority were successful in acquiring a ticket, with only 4% unable to do so. Mr. Liss also fails to mention that the reservations are only required for entry into the park from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., and that Arches specifically sets aside 40% of tickets to be made available one day prior to entry to account for people who may not have the luxury of planning their trips several months ahead of time. An often overlooked benefit of this system has been the impact on local residents. Anecdotally, long-time and lifelong locals, who had previously avoided the park due to overcrowding issues, are finally beginning to revisit and reconnect with this extraordinary landscape. Their ability to do so is a testament to the success of the managed visitation strategy.
We must also recognize that the National Park Service’s primary mission is to conserve natural and cultural resources unimpaired for future generations. The agency’s responsibility extends far beyond providing recreational opportunities; it is also tasked with safeguarding a rich and diverse range of national and international programs dedicated to natural and cultural resource conservation. While recreational activities often help fund conservation efforts, they can also conflict with the overarching goal of preservation. Encouraging unreserved entry and increasing infrastructure, as suggested by Mr. Liss, may risk overuse and degradation of delicate ecosystems.
Mr. Liss criticizes Superintendent Patricia Trap for her role in the reservation system. However, it is important to note that the challenges the park faces, including a $10 million maintenance backlog on an annual budget of roughly $2.5 million, are due to systemic issues well beyond the control of a single superintendent. These include widespread underfunding across the National Park System by Congress, which stood at an estimated $22.3 billion in deferred repair needs at the end of the 2022 fiscal year. Such realities necessitate a strategic, rather than reactionary, approach to park management.
When pointing to Yosemite National Park eliminating its advanced reservation requirement Mr. Liss implies that the National Park Service, “told us honestly that it does not work”; however, there is actually nothing in the referenced article to support this representation on behalf of the NPS. While Yosemite has temporarily lifted its reservation system, this should not be misinterpreted as an admission of failure. On the contrary, due to severe congestion issues in 2023, park officials are likely to reintroduce the reservation system next year, while continuing to develop a comprehensive Visitor Access Management Plan.
It is also worth addressing Mr. Liss’s claim about the discriminatory nature of the reservation system. The existing research, including the article he references, does not support his assertion as it pertains to extremely limited campground reservations, not park access. Low-income families are not being denied access to our National Parks; instead, their visitor experience is being enhanced by managing the number of visitors.
While comparisons between Arches National Park and Dead Horse Point State Park can be instructive, they do not account for the different challenges, funding sources and management each park faces. State parks and national parks operate under different mandates, budgets, and usage pressures. The size and popularity of Arches present unique considerations, including environmental protection and heritage preservation.
The key to improving our National Parks lies in balancing our desire for unrestricted access with the need to preserve these remarkable landmarks for future generations. Yes, we should consider options like additional hiking trails and cycling paths, but they must be part of a comprehensive, thoughtful plan rather than a knee-jerk reaction.
Improving our National Parks is a worthy goal, but doing so requires nuance, understanding, and thoughtful policy making. This includes advocating for increased and sustainable funding from Congress. Let’s focus our efforts on supporting these initiatives instead of criticizing those who work tirelessly within their means to preserve these national treasures. After all, ensuring these marvels of nature endure for future generations is a shared responsibility.
(Luke Wojciechowski)
Luke Wojciechowski is on the Moab City Council. The views expressed are his own and are not meant to be representative of the rest of the council or of the city of Moab.
