Big Thumbs Up?

[Dan Denning]

Superintendent Ingram,

Hello! Will you be giving another presentation this spring similar to the one you recently gave to the League of Women Voters in Estes Park? I saw in the local media coverage that Timed Entry for 2026 was given 'a big thumbs up.' 

May I ask, by whom, and based on what?

I won't repeat the other questions I've asked before (why RMNP is persisting with Timed Entry when other Parks with more visitors have found less restrictive solutions...why a no-show rate of 30% is a 'success' and why you refuse to release unused reservations on a same-day basis). But I do hope to attend whatever public event you might be at so I can ask in person.

Alternatively, if your invitation to meet in person from earlier this year still stands, I'm happy to come down to Estes for a visit before Timed Entry is in full swing. I would genuinely like to hear, first hand, why RMNP believes in a program that all other National Parks have basically ditched for better, more reasonable alternatives. Please let me know if you're available, or plan on speaking before the Town of Estes Park sometime soon. I'm happy to work around your schedule (you are probably a lot busier). 

All the best,

Dan Denning

P.S. I've yet to see any notice of formal and public quarterly meetings organized or hosted by your designated Gateway Community Coordinator, Kyle Patterson Have you reached the decision or been otherwise advised that the current informal and periodic briefings made by Ms. Patterson satisfy the requirements of the Secretary's Order from last year? 

I ask because RMNP, the Town of Estes Park, and Larimer County seem to have shown almost no interest in a more formal, transparent, and regular kind of planning and collaboration over all Park issues (the Secretary's Order requires this, it doesn't suggest it). I know everyone is busy. But somehow they have found time for it in Arches, Yosemite, Zion, Glacier, and Yellowstone. 

Even Teton County got in on the act here in Wyoming, if only to send a strongly worded letter that it thought the Department of the Interior had its priorities wrong...and that Teton County official were quite happy with the status quo. I expect that's the case with Estes and Larimer elected officials. But you never know!

I was personally impressed with how condescending Teton County officials managed to sound in their letter, drawing a false distinction between visiting the National Parks for solitude versus visiting them for amusement. There is a determined and entrenched perspective among certain people that visitation is the enemy of preservation. And that if people are going to visit our National Parks, they must do so under the 'desired conditions' set out by Park planners (like Ms Patterson and former Superintendent Sidles). Is this your view as well? 

[Mark Igel]

Dan,

I remain interested in the answers to the questions you're asking, and I believe the communication has improved with the Park, likely in part due to your articulate questions and persistence.

I will continue to ask questions on my own, on behalf of the community, and watch with interest how the Park responds. I do not think that the park is an independent, isolated, standalone entity in purpose, even though it feels that way sometimes. I'll stay engaged to work on that relationship with our community, and hope that you stay in touch with me directly as things evolve.

Mark Igel, Trustee

Town of Estes Park  |  PO Box 1200  |  Estes Park, Colorado 80517

www.estes.org
Direct voice mail: 970-577-3713

Notice: This email and your reply may be subject to inspection by the public under CORA, the Colorado Open Records Act. Include the word PRIVATE in the subject line if your message is intended to be kept confidential, and although it will not be included in the public email portal, it will most likely remain available through a CORA request.

The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing accessible information and services. If you need any accommodations to view or interact with this email, please reply with your request or contact me at the phone number listed above.

[Dan Denning]

Will do Mark, thanks. I know people have different views on Timed Entry. But it seems to me the creation of the Gateway Community Coordinator position is an opportunity that the Town and the Park and the county can't afford to waste. It's the Federal government telling local communities they have an important and meaningful voice in long-term planning and management decisions. This is where government SHOULD work better, at the local level. 

If they were held properly, four times a year as the Secretary's Order requires, that's not too onerous as an additional responsibility for those involved. The Park can build consensus behind its plans...while consulting with all stakeholders in good faith (rather than presenting plans as settled, which the public can 'choose' from). It is, frankly, much more democratic than what former Superintendent Sidles and Kyle Patterson have created (they both have said on record the Park isn't run like a democracy...which may be part of the problem.) Closed-door private meetings with elected officials may satisfy the Park and the locals...but it's not exactly transparent, inclusive, and in the spirit of cooperation. 

Of course the people who manage public lands have expertise and knowledge which the general public may not. That's why I think more open and regular and formal communication and planning would help. For example, visitation to RMNP is down by half a million people since the  peak in 2019, or 10.6%. Last year's total visitation was exactly 15,515 visits higher than 2015--almost no change in ten years.

It would be helpful to understand exactly why RMNP leadership believes 4.1 million visits in 2015 was manageable but 4.1 million in 2025 requires reservations. Are the visitation caps set by what the Park has determined to be its own operational capacity? For sure I suspect that the number of people working at the Park has declined since 2015. Do they feel they cannot operate 'safely' with higher numbers? And what do they mean by safety? For Park employees and volunteers...or for the visiting public? For the elk? 

I've attached a document prepared for the GCC partnership in Grand County, Utah. I like the way that they have systematically and pragmatically addressed different kinds of issues: physical infrastructure and access, the different varieties of visitor experience, and long-term preservation of natural resources in concert with visitation, tourism, and the economic impact of Park policies on gateway communities. It's all very collaborative and allows for people of differing views to constructively disagree and discuss on a regular basis...and help our Parks solve their problems (which are OUR problems too...because they're OUR public lands).

Good luck! 

I will continue to share with you what I find. I'm aware that at the City and County level, Colorado politicians and elected officials seem content to let NPS manage things on its own. They are happy with the status quo and generally support Timed Entry and the Park's leadership. Also, some of them refuse to believe than any initiative coming from this Executive Branch could possibly result in better management of public lands to support the mutual goals of preservation and visitation. But other communities are seizing the opportunity with both hands to the benefit of ALL stakeholders. And all of them are doing it without Park wide reservations! Something RMNP seems dogmatically committed to in the absence of any reporting or data showing what it has achieved.

Anyway, all the best Mark. 

Dan

P.S. As you know, I grew up in Estes Park and worked a variety of summer jobs that put me in regular contact with visitors to RMNP. I started off bussing tables at the Mountain Man (before Ed added the Cantina next door). I made malts and shakes and sundaes at the Old Malt Shoppe across from the Park Theater. I popped popcordn and sold movie tickets at the Stanley Village Cinemas. And in high school in college, I delivered ice (frozen water) to campgrounds, restaurants, Safeway and many other local businesses for Gary Mitchell and Ice of Estes. Gary put me behind the counter of the old Texaco station at Tiny Town and I worked the morning shift three summers in a row. My point?

People come to Estes Park for a lot of reasons. Their 'desired experience' is as diverse as where they're from. Families come for a day, never to return, and hope to get to Sprague Lake or Bear Lake or Ouzel Falls or Alberta Falls. Some people decide to take Trail Ridge Road instead of I-70 and stop for a photograph at Forrest Canyon Overlook or the Alpine Visitor's center. Some folks come for the fishing. Others for the long hikes to remoter parts of the Park and some much needed solitude.

My sense is that RMNP (and the people I've spoken to who support Timed Entry) value the 'solitude' and 'isolation' of the back country experience. Naturally, the fewer people there are and the quieter it is...the more solitude you get! Good for you. I love it too, from time to time. But I think it's a mistake to keep Timed Entry in place--especially when other Parks have found better solutions--because you think everyone wants the same thing as you. We shouldn't judge some desired visitor experiences as less valuable or necessary to protect because they aren't what WE desire. That's elitist...and condescending. 

It's nobody's role to tell individual Americans how they should enjoy the Park. You can tell people what the law is and not to break it and try to inform and educate them to minimize the impact of their visit. But to simply cap visits permanently because you think everyone is seeking the same experience...is wrong. And as you know, I continue to believe Timed Entry is unnecessary, undemocratic, and unfair to the one-time visitor or family who shows up at RMNP without a reservation but is turned away even when the Park is aware in real time of a 30% no-show rate which means there is plenty of room. And let's not even mention the low-income or minority visitors who RMNP acknowledged would be adversely and negatively affected by Timed Entry.

Surely we can do better and be more adaptable and flexible and equitable. That was something RMNP promised when they made their case for reservations with the NEPA process. Did they really mean that? If so, then why not get rid of non Bear Lake reservations this year and find a way to sell unused reservations on the same day? It's not like sending a spacecraft to the moon. I bet we could figure it out if we really tried...