# GCPBA Poll



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

GCPBA's mission is to ensure the ability for all to obtain, on an equal and timely basis, an opportunity to experience a float trip through the Grand Canyon while protecting the resource and serving as the voice of the private boater.

Pursuant, to that mission, the GCPBA Board wants to know what boaters think, and is seeking information to help determine the short term goals and focus of discussions. The Board also wants to determine what, if any, issues may need to be addressed at the next CRMP review, and to determine the long term direction of GCPBA.

Whether you are a member or not (and we'd certainly urge you to consider joining) we are asking you to participate in our online poll. It consists of a list of 13 rather broad range topics. We are asking you to identify the 4 topics that you feel are the most important to you. 

After we get the results of this ranking, the Board plans to follow up with a more detailed poll of specific questions that are focused upon a few of the most important items. Plesase click on the link below, and participate in the GCPBA survey. We, will of course, share our findings.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SLZB7ZM

Thanks for your participation.

Rich Phillips, Secretary, GCPBA


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*"I have trouble paying much attention to how you think"*

Hi all, Just so folks know what the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association President thinks about membership opinions.... 

Was I bragging? Far from it... 

First I was told "we want to know what you think" and after speaking up, I am told " I have trouble paying much attention to how you think we should look at things". 

And So It Goes... yours, tom martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Wally Rist [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:23 PM
To: Tom Martin & Hazel Clark
Subject: Your attempted post

Tom,
As moderator I am not going to allow the post you just attempted. 

It is not being posted for the same reason you are on moderation, which is the use of our list to attempt to discredit GCPBA by posting repeatedly
untrue accusations.. Besides not being true, its a dead issue. Most of us
have moved on. I suggest you do as well.

If you are so dissatisfied with GCPBA why do you brag that you are a lifetime member.? 

As far the rest of your comments, they are full of your opinions. We are not interested in your interpretation of wilderness, equitable access, etc. We are interested in what is important to our members and think we have made a good first step here. You apparently ignored the part about follow up questionnaires about the most pressing issues.

While you referenced our mission statement you apparently skipped over the poll introduction which reiterates our dedication to it.

You are not on the GCPBA board so I have trouble paying much attention to how you think we should look at things. You are only one tiny singular voice out of many.

I am sorry the world is not run as you think it should be. 

wally 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Martin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:49 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: [gcpba] GCPBA wants your opinion......A Poll

Hi Wally, thank you so much for posting a poll about future GCPBA direction.
As a lifetime member of the GCPBA, I wanted you to know, the first 4 issues you should think about addressing are not listed on the poll. They include:

1) Should the GCPBA participate in another "Firewalk" meeting with the River Concessionaires Trade Association, The Commercial Motorboat Passengers Association, and American Whitewater, without letting the GCPBA membership know? 

As you are well aware, the GCPBA signed a ten year Memorandum of Understanding with the River Concessionaires. The agreement is posted here:
http://gcpba.org/2010/08/30/memorandum-of-agreement/

The membership found out about the agreement a year after it was signed, and not by an announcement from the GCPBA board. The GCPBA is still under the obligations of this agreement until the 26 day of January, 2015.

So issue number one will be to come clean with your membership. Does the GCPBA Board plan to repeat the above action again? 

2) Wilderness. Not mentioned once in the 9 available survey options, wilderness protection for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, and the Greater Grand Canyon, you would think, would rank somewhere on the list of issues to deal with. Wilderness means checks on commercialization and the spectrum of commercial concessionaire services, and wilderness means equitable access.

3) Equitable Access vs. More access. The survey notes "More access for private river runners, summer, winter, shoulder seasons, or over all." The question is not More. What if the river cannot handle More access? The question is about "timely" and "equitable" access. Neither are listed as issues of importance, but they are a part of the GCPBA mission statement. A whole host of river runners play and lose the lottery, year after year, while concessions passengers pay and go, year after year. And no one seems to mind that concessions passengers seem to be doing more than one river trip a year. That is neither "timely" nor "equitable" yet it is not listed as an issue.

4) Everything else. All the issues listed, including "other" and the issues just around the corner we are not yet aware of, are important. They all will need organizational advocacy. It's a big job. 

There you have it, thanks for asking. Yours, Tom


----------



## kikii875 (Oct 25, 2010)

Tom Martin said:


> And no one seems to mind that concessions passengers seem to be doing more than one river trip a year.


Tom, I agree with most everything that you said. However, as a commercial guide I would be interested to know your source of information for the above "seems" statement. The passenger list that is turned in to the NPS contains the names, birthdays, and addresses of each participant. Granted, someone paying to go on a trip could falsify their identity since driver's licenses are not shown at the ferry, but I have never heard of anyone doing this.

Thanks,
Tom H.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Tom H., Thanks for your note. Interestingly enough, I was told this by a river quide. The commercial passenger did just what you suggested. No photo id check, and off they went. Yours, tom


----------



## SummitSurfer (Jun 23, 2010)

Interesting! I think it's time for some transparency and conflict resolution.
****


----------



## kikii875 (Oct 25, 2010)

Tom Martin said:


> Hi Tom H., Thanks for your note. Interestingly enough, I was told this by a river quide. The commercial passenger did just what you suggested. No photo id check, and off they went. Yours, tom


Hmmm. If this has happened then maybe an ID check is required at the ferry. Most people fly there and have to show ID to pass security. They are told that we need the info for the one trip a year law so they shouldn't have a problem with this. Well, there is always that one that would throw a stink. But we have them sign a liability waiver, you don't sign, you don't go, no exceptions. Should be the same way with the ID. 
In thinking this through I imagine the park service has decided that it would not be worth the required manpower for the ID checks. I would be interested to know if it was discussed. I would think it was.
Tom


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

This poll is set up in a way that uses a unique identifier for the different internet venues where we advertised it. Please note this does not identify poll contributors; the Survey Monkey link is just different for each listserv, forum, or bulletin board where we announced it. 

As of yesterday, not a single Buzzard had taken this poll.

Agree or not with everything GCPBA does, this is an outreach effort that gives the boating community a chance for input -- to provide information that will be used when GCPBA's Board meets with Park officials and works on GC river issues.

Note that we didn't confine this poll to just GCPBA members. As a former GCPBA Vice President, and now Secretary, I can tell you that we value feedback and suggestions from the wider boating community as well. 

So if you want to have an influence on the thinking that goes into GCPBA's activities and its interaction with the Park, this is your opportunity. Please take a few minutes and go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SLZB7ZM

Thanks.

Rich Phillips
Secretary, GCPBA


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Rich - thanks for the reminder. Survey answered.

Maybe folks were distracted by the attempt to turn this thread into a pissing match.


----------



## BarryDingle (Mar 13, 2008)

Voted.

Stop the bitching(almost Every thread I read) and voice your opinion. It takes one minute.

The GC Escalade project is one of the biggest threats to this natural wonder of the world,IMO.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Took the poll. Tom seems to be passionate and knowledgeable. I don't know the full history but I would think treating him as a great resource with a different perspective rather than a nuisance would go a long way for all involved.


----------



## fdon (Jul 23, 2008)

Rich,

I did answer the GCPBA survey. I am a little confused at the structure of the questionnaire however.

With nine topics to rank from and only being able to choose four and the first selection being the most important and the fourth being the least important, could you explain to me just what is being asked. 

Does the structure assume my four choices to be my four most pressing concerns in desending order or does it mean my first choice is the most important to me and the fourth choice is having no interest at all and the middle two choices falling somewhere between?

TIA for clearing this up.

Don Farmer


----------



## slickhorn (Dec 15, 2005)

Wilderness protection for the GC river corridor. That's my #1, and maybe my only big issue on the GC. 

It's not a fight I expect to see contested, but IMHO that river was designated wilderness and that designation was exempted for the benefit of private, for-profit companies. 

NO MOTORS. Plenty of other places to go to use motors. Since I'm told I should only go to rivers without dogs since I don't like dogs, how about y'all take your motors somewhere more appropriate?

Edit: that survey format sucks and I couldn't complete it. 

the only issue listed I think ought to have priority is stopping the LCR confluence development debacle.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Don,

I didn't put the survey together, and it looked a little odd to me at first also. (The GCPBA Board took it as a test, and to give us a baseline against which to compare findings from the other venues we're polling.) But it's often hard for one person to set a priority order for a large number of topics, so this actually works pretty well. 

The approach here is to essentially force the participant to decide which four of the many suggested topics is most important to them. Not that the others are not important, but we're looking for the four top issues for each participant. When those top four individual selections are aggregated with all others, it results in an aggregated "sort" of all those multiple submissions.

Hope this helps.

Rich Phillips


----------



## BarryDingle (Mar 13, 2008)

richp said:


> we're looking for the four top issues for each participant.


That's kindve what I assumed. I enjoyed that format,fwiw....


----------



## mjibilian (Sep 9, 2008)

richp said:


> Hi,
> 
> ..... So if you want to have an influence on the thinking that goes into GCPBA's activities and its interaction with the Park, this is your opportunity. Please take a few minutes and go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SLZB7ZM
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for asking me to take the survey, I did take it.

So, could you context this survey for us - 

What prompted your board to initiate this survey, and what are they hoping to get (or even give) as a result of it?

Since you brought the survey to Mountain Buzz, will you post your results and analysis here please?

Will your board keep everyone apprised down the road, if they happen to use any of the results and analysis?

If your board chooses not to use the results and analysis, will they keep everyone informed of that, as well?

Ever hopeful,

Mark Jibilian
[email protected]


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Mark,

We decided to do this survey in advance of our upcoming Board meeting so that we could use its results in making sure we are tracking with GCPBA's membership specifically. We also wanted to see how we were tracking with the broader boating community in a more general way. Our job is to represent our members, but having a broader view is useful as well.

FYI, we've periodically taken other surveys over the years. Ususally they are included with the annual membership ballot, so we can keep tabs on what the paying members want us to do. But sometimes we try to get a wider cross-section of the boating community, as is the case with the current poll. 

This isn't the first wider-range poll we've done or participated in. If you'd like to see a few of the others, take a look at http://gcpba.org/gcpba-past-surveys/

Polls like this also help in deciding how to focus our limited resources in the coming year. We're an all volunteer organization, with Board members often paying their own way for GCPBA travel. So when we have to decide how to spend our time and GCPBA's very modest budget, its useful to know where other folks think our priorities ought to lie.

Our plan is discuss the results in detail at the upcoming Board meeting, and to publish the results on our web site. I can sure put that link up here on the Buzz if that would be helpful. At that time, I'll also be glad to try to provide as synopsis of how the poll was used. 

Hope this helps.

Rich Phillips
Secretary, GCPBA


----------



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

Completed the survey.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

glenn said:


> Took the poll. Tom seems to be passionate and knowledgeable. I don't know the full history but I would think treating him as a great resource with a different perspective rather than a nuisance would go a long way for all involved.


glenn,

Here's a bit of the history as I understand it, with links to some of the key documents where you can dig into the details. I may not have all the details correct and I'm sure Tom will be along soon enough to weigh in. If others who were involved have things to add, I welcome it. 

Tom Martin helped found the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCPBA) at a time when the river use allocation was stacked 2:1 in the commercial outfitters' favor and a waitlist over a decade long existed to get a Grand Canyon permit. Around the time Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) planning process had been restarted, GCPBA and AW polled their memberships and allowed non-member private boaters in general to participate. The results of the polls found that respondents overwhelmingly favored increasing private boaters' access to the Canyon over pursuing wilderness and a no-motors scenario. According to the AW poll, "74% would compromise on motors if the number of private launches increases." The results of the polls are here. A more recent GCPBA survey from 2011 also indicates over 75% of private boaters prefer spring and fall trips.

With the input of private boaters, the GCPBA Board at the time, many of whom had been recruited by Martin, voted 13-2 against adopting the pure no-motor agenda that Martin was urging and instead to pursue increased access for private boaters. Martin soon left the GCPBA and formed River Runners for Wilderness (RRFW).

RRFW provided scoping comments and proposed a no motors and alternative that would attempt to return the Grand Canyon to a pure wilderness environment. You'll see in the bullet points on page 2 of the scoping comments what RRFW is seeking. A lot of these sound really good when you first read them and many private boaters may wonder "what would be so difficult about eliminating motors, restoring a natural flow regime, variable temperature water, natural sediment load, native species, and so forth? I like the idea of visiting the Canyon as it was when Powell came down it, so why not?" They're basically demanding the removal of Glen Canyon Dam, which may be possible but would face some pretty stiff opposition. The last point in the scoping comments is very important: "GCNP must prescribe measurable indicators that will drive management actions when
degradation occurs and the imprint of human use becomes noticeable." That's a pretty high bar to set.

To their credit, RRFW also provided an alternative in the planning process that includes the no-motors scenario with two commercial and two private parties of 16 people each launching daily all year round. On the surface, this may sound pretty reasonable to the private boater. Equal access, all oars, 730 launch opportunities yearly for privates and outfitters alike, or a potential 1,460 trips a year going down the Canyon and a total potential of 483,900 user days in the canyon each year. There are currently 229,000 user days allotted between private and outfitters.

A couple of things to consider about RRFW's approach:

A) The most glaring is how to reconcile a proposal that includes up to 1,460 trips yearly and almost half a million potential user days, with a system that requires "management actions when degradation occurs and the imprint of human use becomes noticeable."

B) Having only oar powered trips would result in very long group to group contacts, thus making the Canyon seem more crowded. From what I understand, computer modeling indicated that under a "no motor" scenario, the pre-CRMP user day allocations would need to have been even further reduced to minimize the contact between trips and achieve an acceptable experience under Park guidelines. If you've ever been passed by a motor rig you know it goes by and is out of sight in a few minutes, whereas being passed by another oar trip takes a much longer time before they disappear around the bend.

Martin has long attacked GCPBA as selling out, and took on a much more antagonistic approach when it became evident that GCPBA was achieving a cooperative atmosphere with the commercial outfitters to produce a solution that the Park could adopt while attaining a 10-year "non-combat" environment. It should be noted that the first CRMP process was abandoned explicitly because the Superintendent threw up his hands and said it couldn't be done because of the intensity of the conflict between the two groups. The GCPBA worked with the outfitters and eventually brought everyone back to the table. Gradually a workable solution was developed and presented to the Park. Not perfect or satisfying in every respect to everyone. But acceptable as a compromise plan to accommodate many diverse views.

RRFW's alternative was not considered workable, GCPBA represents private boaters at the table and the number of private boaters' user days was increased from about 58,000 to about 113,400, and private trips increased from about 250 to about 500 trips yearly. This is a near doubling of private boater allocation of the user days and launches.

RRFW has since gone on to pursue their agenda through a lawsuit and has failed so badly the appeals court decision may make challenging future management decisions more difficult. Martin has repeatedly attacked GCPBA as selling out private boaters, alleged backroom deals, and a variety of other things while offering his version of wilderness without motors as if it's a feasible alternative despite his defeats in the planning process and in the courts. Martin has also demonstrated an unbending "my way or the highway" attitude. While the current agreement requires all signatories to defend it until the management plan comes up for 10-year review when changes will be considered by the parties, Martin has repeatedly attacked and accused GCPBA as selling out to the outfitters because GCPBA didn't join RRFW's lawsuit to change the system. The unfortunate effects of all this have been to splinter the private boating community and undermine the reputation and standing of the one group representing private boaters at the negotiating table. 

Passion and knowledge by themselves don't make one effective at the negotiating table without the ability to compromise and move forward after a setback.

Maybe Wally Rist wasn't dipolmatic or accurate in using the phrase "nuisance." He's dealt with Martin for years and I'm sure it's getting old by now. 

Thanks,

-AH


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Andy,

Pretty good summary of how this GCPBA/RRFW thing developed. I think you show pretty well how RRFW squandered an opportunity to work cooperatively with the rest of the GC boating community to achieve realistic gains for private boaters. Thanks for the effort that went into it.

You mentioned how the loss of three RRFW legal actions actually resulted a precedent that strengthens agency discretion in environmental areas -- an outcome that could make it harder for folks to challenge truly serious actions in the future. That's the sort of dysfunctional result you get when you pursue an ideal to the exclusion of all else. 

There's another illustration of where that kind of unrealistic approach gets you. In one of the many Federal court proceedings, the judge actually commented that -- if carried to its logical conclusion -- the RRFW position would lead to no human activity at all in the Grand Canyon. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
Secretary, GCPBA


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Andy, thanks for your post. Here is some more of the story you may be interested in…

_[“Tom Martin helped found the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCPBA) at a time when the river use allocation was stacked 2:1 in the commercial outfitters' favor and a waitlist over a decade long existed to get a Grand Canyon permit.”]_

Today, we still have a ratio of 2,270 self guided river runners to 14,385 concessions passengers (not counting guides) in the summer. And a lottery you may never win. Most folks will not win either. 

The “gains” for self guided river runners in access happened in the winter. 

_[” A more recent GCPBA survey from 2011 also indicates over 75% of private boaters prefer spring and fall trips.”]_


While I can’t say if the polls you cited lacked scientific rigger, we can look at the real permit application numbers for self guided river runners in the NPS based lottery figures. Here we see the majority of self guided river runners permit applications are in the summer, with a spike at the end of the motorized boat season. 

_[“voted 13-2”]_

Really? How about 7 to 6. The issue was contentious then, and still is. Almost half the board then left the organization. 

_]“They're basically demanding the removal of Glen Canyon Dam, which may be possible but would face some pretty stiff opposition.”]_

On this Rich and I agree that Dam management is important. We will disagree of what needs to be done, but we can’t ignore the fact of aging infrastructure with no $ to take care of it, leaving the entire Southwest in a precarious state. 

_[ “The last point in the scoping comments is very important: "GCNP must prescribe measurable indicators that will drive management actions when degradation occurs and the imprint of human use becomes noticeable." That's a pretty high bar to set.”]_

We are talking about Grand Canyon here. Why set a lower bar? 

_[“To their credit, RRFW also provided an alternative in the planning process that includes the no-motors scenario with two commercial and two private parties of 16 people each launching daily all year round. On the surface, this may sound pretty reasonable to the private boater. Equal access, all oars, 730 launch opportunities yearly for privates and outfitters alike, or a potential 1,460 trips a year going down the Canyon and a total potential of 483,900 user days in the canyon each year. There are currently 229,000 user days allotted between private and outfitters.

[“A couple of things to consider about RRFW's approach:_ _

“A) The most glaring is how to reconcile a proposal that includes up to 1,460 trips yearly and almost half a million potential user days, with a system that requires "management actions when degradation occurs and the imprint of human use becomes noticeable."]_ 

The key point here is a real 50-50 system. Not a system that puts self-guided boaters in the canyon in the winter and calls that 50-50. The RRFW proposed alternative was never seen as a take-it or leave it position. It just shows how other options could work. The present system has 150 user days each day in the canyon in the summer. The RRFW plan has 64. It simply spreads use out. 

_[“B) Having only oar powered trips would result in very long group to group contacts, thus making the Canyon seem more crowded.” ]_

Right now, we have very long group to group contacts between the oar trips on the water, AND additional motor rigs. 

_[“ From what I understand, computer modeling indicated that under a "no motor" scenario, the pre-CRMP user day allocations would need to have been even further reduced to minimize the contact between trips and achieve an acceptable experience under Park guidelines. “]_

The computer model was based on a mixed oar-motor data set and broke down the farther you went to an oar only system. We pointed that out in our comments. 

_[“Martin has long attacked GCPBA as selling out”]_

It’s not just me Andy. The GCPBA made a secret agreement, valid for 10 years, with the river concessionaires. Participants were hand picked to attend by the river concessionaires representative. For all we know, the same meetings are about to start up again for the next CRMP. This time, we may never know about it. The “achievement” only hurt self guided river runners and the very resource itself. More summer crowding, more winter crowding, a lottery you may never win, and the long term issues still unresolved. 

_[“It should be noted that the first CRMP process was abandoned explicitly because the Superintendent threw up his hands and said it couldn't be done because of the intensity of the conflict between the two groups. The GCPBA worked with the outfitters and eventually brought everyone back to the table. Gradually a workable solution was developed and presented to the Park. “]_

Actually, the first CRMP happened in 1979, and the river concessionaires used congressional meddling to keep the allocation increase the plan was to give then when they converted their motor to oar trips. 

The Superintendent didn’t throw up his arms. He tried something illegal. I worked hard to get the GCPBA board to litigate the action, and we prevailed. That was before the decision was made to abandon wilderness protection. 

_[“But acceptable as a compromise plan to accommodate many diverse views.”]_

That’s funny. And so incorrect. The vast majority of interested stakeholders were not given a seat at the “table.” 
_
[“RRFW's alternative was not considered workable”]_

By the small group of four organizations... The table was mighty small. 

_[“RRFW has since gone on to pursue their agenda through a lawsuit and has failed so badly the appeals court decision may make challenging future management decisions more difficult.”]_

The GCPBA fought the litigation, as did the outfitters trade association. If they had joined us, the outcome might have been different. But they couldn’t, as they had already signed a MOU with the river concessionaires. The results of the litigation reflected earlier decisions stating agencies can make poor management plans. 


_[“Martin has repeatedly attacked GCPBA as selling out private boaters, alleged backroom deals, and a variety of other things while offering his version of wilderness without motors as if it's a feasible alternative despite his defeats in the planning process and in the courts. “]_

Life’s successes are built on a series of many failures. I am sorry we did not prevail. The inequity in river access and lack of wilderness protection in Grand Canyon National Park continues. That is a real tragedy. 


_[“Maybe Wally Rist wasn't dipolmatic or accurate in using the phrase "nuisance." He's dealt with Martin for years and I'm sure it's getting old by now. “]_

Unfortunately, the 10 year agreement the GCPBA has made with the outfitters demands such a lack of diplomacy. Here is the pertinent language:

“6. The Parties will use their best efforts to discourage their respective members from engaging in any activities that would, if undertaken by the Parties, be inconsistent with the Joint Recommendations and the terms of this Agreement. The Parties will not support any efforts by their respective members to engage in any activities that would, if undertaken by the Parties, be inconsistent with the Joint Recommendations or the terms of this Agreement.”

Andy, I hope this helps you and others understand the complexity of the issues, and the many facets to them. 

Happy River Trails, tom martin
RRFW Co-Director


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

OK, Tom, you got me on the ancient history stuff. I'll concede we're working off different calendars - I consider four seasons, winter, spring, summer and fall, you have two, winter and summer. And forget the trip simulator. I'll just go by my personal experience which is that the river sure SEEMS a lot more crowded when it's another oar trip passing mine rather than a motor rig cruising past and around the bend.

Odd you should put the agreement's clause #6 that states that all parties will work to uphold the agreement. Where you see this as the need to abandon diplomacy and start kicking sand up, I see language stating none of the signatories will rock the boat for a specified time. To me this protects ALL players and keeps things stable while we see how the new system plays out (ie. the 5 years for lottery + the waiting list folks to get their trips and then another 5 years in equilibrium to see how things work out with just the lottery) before tinkering with the agreement. If you can't abide by that kind of language you're not showing yourself very capable of playing well with others, or pragmatic.

Now let's look at where the rubber meets the road. 

Forget the rigor of the polls, a substantial majority of respondents for AW and GCPBA said they'd compromise on motors for increased access. 

Time to move on.

Your position lost in the GCPBA board meeting. Period. And access was pursued over wilderness/no-motors. 

Time to move on.

Private boater user days went from about 58,000 to about 113,400, and private trips increased from about 250 to just over 500 trips yearly. There's lots of access in the spring and fall (or as you call it, "winter") when there are no motors on the river. A more recent poll has 75% or respondents preferring spring and fall (aka "winter"). 

Time to move on.

And as for RRFW's lawsuit, like long time 'Buzzard Caspian points out in post #41 here, you lost that pretty badly too:



Caspian said:


> I am a practicing litigator. I have not had time to read the 9th Circuit's opinion, but did read the District Court decision when it came out a few years ago. I have NEVER seen a federal judge so completely obliterate arguments like was done in that decision. When I read it, I told one of the GCPBA board members that RRFW did not have the faintest prayer of a ever getting it overturned and that attempting to do so would be an absurd waste of money. The District Court judge just stitched it all up way too tightly to possibly be overturned. In my opinion, those who contend otherwise are asking you to drink the Kool-Aid.
> 
> Imagine this - I take you to the Tallulah at 500, tell to you run the middle of Bridalveil, and you swim after the worst beatdown you've ever had. I take you back the next day at 700 and tell you to run the same line again, you can do it this time. That's what the appeal was on this case.


I don't know Tallulah but I figure he means it's about like going straight into the ledge hole at Lava for the second time in a row.

RRFW in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Time to move on.

Now, I'd love to have the whole sandbox to myself, with just oar boats and enjoying the Canyon just like it was when Powell came down it years ago. But outfitters with motors have been running the Canyon for about 65 years and have pretty significant precedent, as well as powerful connections in congress, as well as a strong constituency who like their one-week motorized trips. 

You ask why set the bar for management actions lower than "when the imprint of human use becomes noticable." By this standard, this could easily result in closures if there are observable footpaths or trails at attraction sites and campsites. Like I said, that's a pretty high bar and I don't think most folks are ready to embrace it.

And what if the judges had sided with RRFW and decided to greatly decrease access or close the Canyon to human use?

I wonder if people would be as willing to jump on the "no motors / Wilderness" purist bandwagon if they were told they'd have to give up half their access?

The new system to me is a pretty good improvement over the old one. Most folks I know are happy to be getting on the river, and are glad to be going in spring and fall. It's a big sandbox and we've got to share it with the outfitters that have been there all along too. I know this is hard for you to come to terms with, but most people I know are OK with it.

You say that "Life’s successes are built on a series of many failures." At some point after enough failures most folks come to realize when they're beating their head against a stone wall that's not going anywhere. That's when it's time to move on.

Now it's time for me to move on.

-AH


----------



## SummitSurfer (Jun 23, 2010)

Andy.....watching the video....where is the line in Lava? Looks like they clearly missed it! More river left on that tongue or totally river right out of cameras view?


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

SummitSurfer said:


> Andy.....watching the video....where is the line in Lava? Looks like they clearly missed it! More river left on that tongue or totally river right out of cameras view?


****,

There's a line on the right and also one on the left depending on the flow, I believe. You just don't want to go into the ledge hole - It's what everyone tells you and what you see very easily on the scout. The saying it to "follow the bubbles."

Those guys did not. 

SYOTR,

-Andy


----------



## SummitSurfer (Jun 23, 2010)

Ha ha true....they didn't follow it! Thanks man.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Andy, I certainly agree with you it is time to move on. I do think that as we move on, we need to know where the groups asking for our opinions are coming from. I simply noted a group who "says" they want to hear from members really doesn't care. Sadly, the issues of resource protection and equitable access are still to be addressed. 

As to 50-50, anyway you look at the metrics, river access in Grand Canyon has a loooong way to go to get to anywhere near that goal. I know some groups will keep on working on that, while others will continue to throw up blocks and impediments, as their ten year agreements demand of them. 

As to stone walls, they are overcome by simple things... like water. And time. 

All the best, tom


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

One last bump before the poll closes.

Thanks for participating.

Rich Phillips
Secretary, GCPBA


----------

