# RRFW Riverwire – Yet Another Grand Canyon Lottery Started



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

RRFW Riverwire – Yet Another Grand Canyon Lottery Started
June 17, 2007

Only days after finishing a 2007 Follow-up Lottery that had over 250 applications for ten self guided river permits launching later this year, Grand Canyon National Park has started a Follow Up Lottery for 2008. Of the 31 self-guided permits offered for the calendar year 2008, twenty five are in the winter months of January and February and also December. 

This lottery began Friday, June 15, 2008, and will only take applications for five days, closing at noon on June 20th. 

The trips offered include two launch dates which are for half size groups (1 to 8
people) on July 5, 2008 and August 6, 2008. The remaining 29 trips are for standard size groups (1 to 16 people) and include January 6th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 24th, 25th, 26th, 30th, February 4th, 12th, 20th, 21st, March 2008: 11th, 12th, 27th, October 23rd, and December 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 24th, 26th, 27th, 30th, 31st. All of these launch dates are in 2008.

Interested individuals must have set up a profile with Grand Canyon National Park to be able to apply for the lottery.

River Runners for Wilderness (www.rrfw.org) continues to offer free lottery assistance through email and a phone hotline for the complicated 25 page sign-up and lottery application process. 

The RRFW telephone assistance Help-line is available at (92 8- 856-9065, throughout this lottery on a first-come first-serve basis.

Lottery applicants can refer to the RRFW online lottery tutorial, available for download as an Adobe PDF file of 9.5MB by clicking on the “Lottery Primer” link at: http://www.rrfw.org/lottery.php.

Additionally, lottery information is available at the free Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI at: http://www.rrfw.org/RaftingGrandCanyon/Main_Page.

Discussion of the Grand Canyon lottery and winning strategies may be found at The Rafting Grand Canyon Yahoo group at Rafting_Grand_Canyon : Rafting Grand Canyon.

River Runner for Wilderness offers these services at no charge supported entirely through your generous donations at: http://www.rrfw.org/store.php.

The Grand Canyon River Permits Office also offers help at 1-800-959-9164 or by email at [email protected].

The NPS has made little effort to inform the river running community about these lotteries. Individuals who have set up a profile on the NPS web site are e-mailed directly by the NPS shortly before the beginning of each lottery. Grand Canyon National Park does not issue lottery press releases or otherwise notify the broader river running community. Since river runners who have not set up a profile have no way of knowing of an impending lottery, River Runners for Wilderness encourages all interested boaters to set up a profile in order to be on the Park’s email list.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RIVERWIRE is a free service to the community of river lovers from River Runners for Wilderness. To join, send an e-mail address to [email protected] and we'll add it to the RRFW RIVERWIRE e-mail alerts list. 

Join RRFW’s listserver to stay abreast of and participate in the latest river issues. It’s as easy as sending a blank e-mail to [email protected]. 

Check out RRFW’s Rafting Grand Canyon Wiki for free information on DIY Grand Canyon rafting info Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon.

Check out new items and donate at the RRFW Store! RRFW is a non-profit project of Living Rivers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## abron (Nov 19, 2004)

what's with shoving all the private trips into the winter months? that doesn't seem too fair... if you want to pay the big bucks to be a commercial customer you get all the warm weather, but if you want to work your butt off to do your own trip you get shafted with a winter launch??? not that i wouldn't jump on any grand opportnity at all, but thats ski season!!!!
or maybe thats the point.... all of us riverfolks jones to do it so bad we'll take whatever scrappy dates are left on the floor after the commercial giants gorge on the calender .... (so to speak) 
(little disclaimer :: this is just my opinion, and im not all that involved at all, so there is lots i may not know @ the complications of beauracracy, but WTF!!!)
PS thanks for the info RRFW!


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*your question is a good one*

Hey Abron, you are not alone in your observation. RRFW has taken Grand Canyon National Park to court to seek an answer to your question "what's with shoving all the private trips into the winter months?"

You can check out the claims in the litigation at 

http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20070525.Document.Summary_Judgement

yours, Tom


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Folks, 

I usually leave the more "political" GC posts alone, because this isn't a board that focuses on that issue. However, a brief attempt at balance.

The Colorado River Management Plan (which RRFW's lawsuit seeks to nullify -- dig deep and look at the relief they seek) doubled the number of private launches each year. Yes, some are in the winter, but many more are in highly desirable shoulder and summer seasons than was the case before.

Also, the transition system from the waiting list to the new system means that right now less than half of the full launch calendar is available for the lottery. In three more years, 503 launches will be available -- instead of 200 or so in this year's main lottery. And the other approximately 300 current launches represent many people who might instead have waited decades for their trip under the waiting list.

It's really a niche issue compared to the other gains in private boaters obtained in the CRMP, but Tom asserts that few people are interested in winter launches. First of all, winter launches were not available at all until the CRMP was implemented. Interestingly, I note that the June 7th RRFW Riverwire, stated, "Statistics on the just completed 2008 lottery released by Grand Canyon National Park show that for December, 2008, there were 64 attempts to win the 29 full sized trip dates offered." Seems that at least twice as many people were interested in those so-called undesirable launches as there were dates available.

Private boaters didn't get an unqualified win in the CRMP. GCPBA didn't get everything it wanted. The outfitters certainly didn't. And no doubt the Park didn't either. There were compromises on all sides, because the CRMP was crafted to meet the needs of a multi-faceted boating community as well as a bureaucracy. But the reality is that more people are getting on the river -- every season. And that's a notable improvement over the old waiting list.

Don't want to start a war with Tom here. So for more info on this issue, take a look at gcpba.org and also, you can post questions and get answers from another perspective at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages

FWIW

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*GCPBA, where "Private means Commercial"*

Hi Rich, a brief attempt at balance? 

The RRFW lawsuit, which the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCPBA) sees fit to attempt to stop, seeks to get clarity on Abron's question. Why should self guided paddlers except 13% of the summertime accessa and a motorized commercialized wilderness? 

Let's be clear. Your position as a board member of GCPBA requires that you must support the new CRMP for the next ten years, even if the GCPBA members do not. This is due to a secret agreement your board chose to enter into with the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Trade Association. An agreement, by the way, that was kept from the GCPBA membership for over a year and half until two of us discovered it and brought it forward to the membership. You can see the agreement here:

http://www.gcpba.org/content/view/50/28/

Balance? How about including the complete facts from the riverwire you cite. Here's the entire story:

"Statistics on the just completed 2008 lottery released by Grand Canyon National Park show that for December, 2008, there were 64 attempts to win the 29 full sized trip dates offered. Five of the December dates had no applications at all. 

"This is in stark contrast with June, 2008, which offered 8 standard trips and 8 half sized trips. Here, there were 1,771 attempts to win one of the 8 standard trips, and 270 tries seeking the 8 half sized trips. 

You left this second bit out Rich.

As Adron points out, along with the data above, self guided river runners want to boat in the summer, not the winter. The majority of new trips are in the winter. The GCPBA wants that to remain the way it is for at least the next decade and is actively attempting to block a legal attempt to change this. 

There are over 4,000 permit applications still outstanding after the phase three transition. Over 2000 applicants compete for 200 permits now. The GCPBA would have us believe that in 2011, the 4000 waiting list backlog will be gone, and permits will abound. 

Even the NPS admits that while the permit mechanism has changed, the wait to win the lottery will still be the same, taking over a decade, if then. Abron points out he can book a commercial trip today. The GCPBA supports this imbalance.

The imbalanced allocation of access and lack of resource protection ARE the issues the CRMP attempted to dodge. The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, where "Private means Commercial", would have us believe all's well on the Colorado River. Don't be fooled. 

The NPS's preferred alternative would have gotten more self guided river runners on the river without the GCPBA secret deal. The NPS preferred alternative would have started to look at real demand. The GCPBA cave-in blocked the NPS from collecting this critical data which would have started us on the road to real allocation reform. 

I encourage all interested river runners to check out this link:

http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20060305.RRFW_Riverwire.Groups_Crippled_By_Agreement

which spells out why Rich is forced to say the things he does. 

The Truth is worth a lot, Rich, and it's too bad GCPBA seeks to destroy the resource of Grand Canyon and balanced access to same. yours, Tom

Tom Martin, Co-Director
River Runners For Wilderness
Moderator, Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI and [email protected]


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

There's plenty to say in response, but like I've said, I'm not going to fuss with you and clutter up this board. Inquiring minds will figure things out by going to the links we both cite and making their own decisions. The rest of the folks here just want to boat....

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at http://www.gcpba.org. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

> First of all, winter launches were not available at all until the CRMP was implemented.


Is this true? I thought you use to be able to get a 30 day permit in the winter?


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Winter Trips*

Hi Dan, Rich is most likely trying to say there are "more" winter trips now then there were in the past. Yes, you used to be able to get a 30 day permit to Diamond Creek in the winter. Now it's 25 days max. If you look at the lottery the NPS is running right now, they are trying to lotto away 25 dates in Jan, Feb and Dec of 08. 

yours, Tom

Tom Martin, Co-Director
River Runners For Wilderness
River Runners for Wilderness - Protecting the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon and Its Tributaries
Moderator, Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI and [email protected]


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

Well if they increase launches, the days come from somewhere, and the shortened trips are part of where that comes from, right?

Tom, how many fewer private boaters would get down the Canyon if motors were completely banned, as RRFW advocates? I'm no expert but common sense would seem to indicate that if you take motors out of the picture, the number of people on the river has to drop because trips will take longer, consuming more user-days and then the number of people waiting skyrockets...putting us back to where we were on the waiting list - or more likely, far worse.

The only equitable solution is the One Big List idea where privates and commercials all wait on the same list, but we all know the politics aren't going to permit that.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

> Well if they increase launches, the days come from somewhere, and the shortened trips are part of where that comes from, right?


Why do they have to come from somewhere?? It use to be easy to get a winter permit if I remember right. Rich's post says "winter launches were not available at all until the CRMP was implemented"  

I'm confused.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

What I'm saying is that the number of user-days is limited by fiat. If we want more launches, i.e., more people moving through the Canyon, then the only way to do that within the allotted number of user-days is to speed up the trips by shortening the permitted duration. I don't think anyone forsees the NPS agreeing to a large increase in user-days. Small, perhaps, but not large. So you mandate shorter trips, especially in the busy season, to free up more user days. That is why I asked Tom about the motor issue, because oar trips inherently move at a measurably slower pace, thus consuming more user-days. 

From what I can deduce, the motor ban advocated by RRFW would result in far more user-days consumed and far fewer private boaters actually getting down the river. I say private boaters because there is virtually no way that RRFW is going to get a judge to overturn the NPS decision to implement the CRMP - judges are overwhelmingly deferential to the administrative judgment of executive agencies unless you can show a valid equal protection issue, and private vs. commercial will never cut the mustard there. RRFW's best shot is the NEPA issue they are raising, but even so, thinking that that would result in an overturning of the NPS historical bias towards commercial outfitters is as good as fantasy as far as I can tell.

Guess I didn't answer the bit about winter trips, but since I get enough cold water in the summer, I really am not much for a winter trip. I'm sure Rich will address it though.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Dan,

I promised not to drag this board into the mud, and I won't. But I need to clarify that I meant what I said -- not what Tom thinks I meant to say.

You recall correctly that there were winter launches. But they were part of a multi-year test program -- not the regular river management scenario. They were an effort to determine if there was sufficient winter seasonal boating demand. And there was. The Park cited that in the CRMP as one of the factors considered when they developed the current launch schedule. "Results of a set of winter test launches have indicated that there is interest in trips during the winter." (FEIS/CRMP p. 34)

And as long as I've broken my word and posted again, let me add that RRFW and GCPBA have different goals and priorities, and so it's not surprising that Tom and I see things differently and "cherry pick" our facts as we do. 

GCPBA is interested in private boater access, with wilderness and related goals as important, but secondary emphases. We decided to work cooperatively with the Park and other interested organizations to achieve that goal, with the thought that incremental improvements -- marked by good-will collaboration -- was the way to go. We absolutely want the Canyon to provide a wilderness experience, but define that a bit differently than RRFW.

RRFW has a more pure wilderness advocacy thrust and they do want this CRMP abandoned. In their lawsuit, they ask the court to, " Issue an injunction ordering the Park Service to prepare a new CRMP and FEIS that remedies the violations of law articulated in this complaint." 

And here's one for you Caspian -- RRFW's Guiding Principles on its web site includes the following clause. "Encourage allocation free management plans for all suitable reaches of the Colorado River watershed, including the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park." Thoughtful folks might want to ponder how the phrase, "allocation free management plans" really will work out in the Grand Canyon. 

In any event, I hope this helps.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Caspian, I would refer you to the NPS CRMP. The Park put together two motor free alternatives. One even had 50-50 summertime launches, would have spread use out across the entire year, and gotten way more self guided river runners down the river then get to go now. The NPS has demonstrated the system can be better. They demonstrated this in the 70's and again in the early 21st century.

We will see what the politics are my friend. We are looking at a different world then the late 1970's. Look at all the self guided river runner activity. Look at the drought. Look at fuel costs, and look at what concessions services have done to the regional economy. Times, they are a changin. 

Yours, Tom

Tom Martin, Co-Director
River Runners For Wilderness
River Runners for Wilderness - Protecting the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon and Its Tributaries
Moderator, Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI and [email protected]


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*What about the Summer?*

Hi Rich and Dan, 

Dan, yes, there have always been self guided trips in the winter in Grand Canyon, since Robert Stanton's 1889-90 winter trip.

The NPS increased the number of winter trips as a test to see if there was demand for those trips.

The NPS did not test to see if there was demand for more summer self guided trips. 

The NPS did not test to see if the people who chose a winter trip were choosing that because "*that's all there was*" or chose a winter trip "*to go in the winter*". There's a big difference there. 

Rich is correct, the GCPBA is interested in access first and foremost, at the expense of the very resource they want to access. Check it out, they do not support wilderness protection for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. A wilderness experience with motors...go figure.

Should we paddlers support access at any cost? At the cost of resource degradation? At the cost of the very quality of the experience we seek?

At River Runners for Wilderness, we recognize the NPS Organic act speaks about leaving our park resources "unimpaired for future generations". That's a responsibility we do not take lightly. We don't think cramming more use into the resource and bypassing the real issues of resource degradation and commercialization is appropriate for the Grand Canyon. 

As for good-will collaboration, the agreement the GCPBA made with the River Concessionaires left out participation from any environmental group. So much for collaboration. We at RRFW invited the GCPBA to join us in our litigation. Not only did they refuse, but now they are actively trying to block the legal challenge. 

As you will note, the litigation does not seek to put an injunction on the present CRMP, but raises some serious guestions about wilderness protection and allocation to same. The Litigation seeks to " Issue an injunction ordering the Park Service to prepare a *new* CRMP and FEIS that remedies the violations of law articulated in this complaint."

As to allocation free management, this is the wave of the future. See the Boundary Waters, John Day and Deschutes access plans for a vision of things to come. Access to scarce resources is becoming more and more of an issue nationally, from the Sierra's to the Smokies. Look at every allocated river in the west where access to self guided paddlers is an issue and you get where we are trying to go. 

Tom Martin, Co-Director
River Runners For Wilderness
River Runners for Wilderness - Protecting the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon and Its Tributaries
Moderator, Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI and [email protected]


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

Maybe I don't understand what is meant by "allocation-free management" - can you elaborate on what you mean by that?


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*allocations*

Hi Caspian, 

Wow, Great question!

Here's a "close to my home" example of an allocation free management plan for backpackers.

Grand Canyon National Park only gives out so many backpacking permits a day. That number does not go up or down throughout the year. It's a wilderness area, accessible 365 days a year.

Everyone competes equally for those backpack permits, the Scouts, church groups, the folks who want to use guided backpacking services, the do-it-yourself backpackers, anyone who wants to be a trip leader to backpack in the park goes through the same application process. 

Once you are successful in getting a permit, you as the trip leader can then choose what sort of services you want for your trip. Do you want to hire a guide? Do you want to bring your church group, scout group, Sierra Club group, whatever. It's "your" choice. 

The agency manages the resource, defines what services are available, and awards the permits. The public decides what they need once they get a permit. 

There are no set-asides of blocks of permits awarded to a limited number of ten-year contractors who go out to re-sell the access they have been given by the agency.

Allocation-free management plans are in operation for paddlers at the John Day and Deschutes rivers. There's an allocation free access plan at the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The Lower Salmon permit system is also an allocation free management plan (one of the last remaining show-and-go rivers around). 

That's the concept. Again, great question. yours, Tom

Tom Martin, Co-Director
River Runners For Wilderness
River Runners for Wilderness - Protecting the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon and Its Tributaries
Moderator, Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI and [email protected]




Caspian said:


> Maybe I don't understand what is meant by "allocation-free management" - can you elaborate on what you mean by that?


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Caspian, 

RRFW's submission to the Park included this language, which you may like since it sort of is a "one big list" on steroids.

"We propose an allocation free access control system that is seasonally controlled and annually administered in a Wilderness-compliant manner. All potential recreational visitors are controlled through the same access mechanism. The launch platform, on which any access control system sits as a separate section, must be based on wilderness minimum-requirement management policies. Trip duration and group size are formed by the permit holder within a limit of maximum trip size (16 people) regardless of trip type and maximum seasonally adjusted trip length. Trips are reserved as far into the future as the user desires via a web-based reservation system that requires advance identification of some trip participants and the payment of user fees. All participants obtain a registration number for demographic purposes to aid in future management decisions. All participants, including staff, guides and passengers are counted in the trip total of user days. This system offers significantly more launch opportunities for all potential river travelers. Data collected via the universal registration system will be reviewed at regular intervals and can be used for future adjustments of daily launches if indicated."

Many interesting and potentially good ideas in there, but the nuts and bolts don't fit together very well -- many undefined terms and unsupported assertions. And in any event, the Park decided not to to in that direction.

One final, fleeting thought on the winter trips. Tom must have once thought there was quite a bit of demand for winter trips. That's because he likes Alternative C, which proposes 51,315 commercial, and 31,644 user-days for winter trips. 

And that option also contains an increase of 50,000 user-days over the allocation we now have. Some way to protect the Canyon.....

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, thanks for posting some of RRFW's CRMP scoping comments from Oct 2002. It should be clear from those comments there are a lot of ways to run an allocation free permitting system.

Just to be clear, these scoping comments you cite are not part of the litigation papers filed to date. 

I would offer the "nuts and bolts" of the present CRMP don't fit together very well either, with the 5 year stay away rule, decreased trip lengths, and 13% of summertime paddlers are self guided, all based on many undefined terms and unsupported assertions. 

Rich, there are more self guided river runners jammed into the winter in the present plan then the NPS proposed in Alternative C. Alternative C offered 1,600 more self guided river runners on the water in the summer then we presently have. Guess you all at GCPBA didn't want that...

You bet, Alternative C had more user days then H, but less per day launches, and was a wilderness compatible motor free plan. Clearly there is a balance between resource protection and visitation. Guess you all felt access with wilderness was not worth the trouble vs access without wilderness. 

Speaking of resource protection, how is this section from the document GCPBA and the river concessionaires agreed to in 2005, without consulting with the general membership, protecting the resource? 

"The Parties will not advocate for inclusion of the Colorado River corridor within GRCA into the National Wilderness Preservation System, but will continue to support designation of the backcountry areas of the Park as wilderness." 

Let's face it. The GCPBA board of directors logic is spelled out for them in the same document:

"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."

This is not so much a difference in approach between two different organizations, as it is one group being bound by an agreement with the river concessionaires. The GCPBA can no longer look at any other options now objectively and embrace change. That is really to bad. 

Yours as ever, Tom

Tom Martin, Co-Director
River Runners For Wilderness
River Runners for Wilderness - Protecting the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon and Its Tributaries
Moderator, Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI and [email protected]


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

Funny how you slide off the issues with Caspian and with me. You're a bright, well-informed fellow. Why not directly answer his question about how you get less impact on the Canyon with your proposal? Why not explain the fact you embraced the idea of so much winter use? 

And you're absolutely wrong -- GCPBA has a wide range of options available to it, and we exercise them in many ways. As for the agreement you find so objectionable, most people would be able to think of a few legitimate organizational reasons why sensitive negotiations between historically antagonistic parties might be conducted in private. If GCPBA agreed for strategic reasons to refrain from doing certain things, it was because we gained in other areas as a result -- that's the nature of compromise. And the agreement with those other interested parties has turned out to be an asset -- after all the Park adopted a major portion of the joint submission from the four groups you seem to regard so poorly. 

I'm sorry you don't agree with the way it was done. But we have seen the positive results of the decision to do it that way. GCPBA doesn't consider the CRMP perfect, but it's a workable compromise between numerous competing interests. The average person understands that dynamic and accepts it. 

And the organizational differences between GCPBA and RRFW are vast indeed. 

We have regularly subscribing paid membership -- you have an amorphous contribution/collateral relationship structure that you then lay claim to as "members". 

We hold membership surveys -- I've never seen an indication that you do. 

We have a member-elected Board of Directors -- you have a self-selected directorship structure backed by a non-elected advisory panel. 

We meet regularly with the Park on critical issues and work out solutions -- you sue them, thus foreclosing any opportunity for meaningful, timely, grass-roots change. 

We have annual membership meetings where folks can attend and not only see the Board face-to-face, but meet other key players in the arena -- to my knowledge you don't give your "members" that opportunity.

So, dear Buzz reader, you pays your money and you takes your choice. I'm done on this one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*I'll wrap it up too*

Hi Rich, 

It doesn't appear you understood my answer to Caspian. Let me try again, in as few words as possible. 

Less use then we have now in the summer, spreading use out throughout the year, gets the same if not more people through the Canyon. This means more winter use, less summer use. Caspian, as Rich has signed off, if you have any further questions, please ask.

Hey, I've been wrong in the past, most likely will make mistakes in the future. I'm just quoting the GCPBA agreement. I understand sensitive negotiations need to be conducted in private. I also understand collaboration, to be successful, requires including all the groups involved in an issue, including the groups you don't agree with. I don't understand why collaborative sensitive negotiations include clauses like this one:

"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"

Let's now take a look at the organizational differences between GCPBA and RRFW. I didn't think so at first, but maybe you are correct, and they are vast indeed. 

The RRFW membership and dues structure is just like the Fee Demonstration model on the Snake River at Jackson Hole. At Jackson, access is free, and if you like what the USFS is doing there "service wise", when they ask you for a donation, you can donate if you want to. We do the same. Membership is free, and if you like what RRFW is doing, you can donate. We are certainly thankful to all our doners, and believe it's a wonderful model to run a non-profit that allows supporters to participate without having to pony up every year. 

I don't know why I would pay dues to a group that has already decided what they want me to say. Especially a group where the elected board of directors "will use their best efforts to discourage their respective members..." Why pay dues to be discouraged?

RRFW queries our membership on line and with every order we fill at the on-line store. What good is a GCPBA membership survery, since you already have decided what your members should say, or you will discourage them from saying? 

Yes, RRFW has a volunteer structure backed by a non-elected volunteer advisory panel. This allows us to be very responsive to issues as they happen.

We at RRFW meet regularly with the Park on critical issues and continue to work out solutions, and we also sue them when they do not follow United State law and thier own polices. It's called accountability. This way we work on opportunities for meaningful, timely, grass-roots change both in the courts and outside of them. 

We at RRFW travel extensively, going to paddling events, giving presentations and having wonderful face-to-face discussions with our members and donors where our members reside, throughout the US. 

You are right Rich, I stand corrected, the differences are vast indeed. 

Thank you so much for this exchange. I learned a lot. Yours, Tom

Tom Martin, Co-Director
River Runners For Wilderness
River Runners for Wilderness - Protecting the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon and Its Tributaries
Moderator, Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI and [email protected]


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

> the number of user-days is limited by fiat


Right there is the problem...............why in the hell are we letting a foriegn car company tell us what to do!!!  ......................:mrgreen: :mrgreen:.

How many user days do the commercials get in comparison to us??

How many of those go unused each year?


Seriously, I'd like to thank both Tom and Rich for what they do for us private boaters and their quest to get private boaters on the river. You have both taken on thankless jobs and I for one appreciate it. FWIW I do get the RRFW news letters and actually met Tom in Denver when all this BS was being hashed over. Thanks for signing my book Tom.  

The system is weighted heavily toward those that are turning a profit .................but look out.............one of these days all these young boaters on the buzz are going to be old farts like me. They will want equal access to run their own trips down the river. Policy will have to change in the public outcry that will be a coming when this new plan comes up for review again. Plain and simple.......we need a different deal!

This "one and a half launches a day" just kills me...........It's like when they were counting boats in Browns a few years ago...:???: ......:???: ......:???: . I better not post how I feel about that one.  

Give us two launches a day and the commercials four. Screw the motors.....we want to paddle.........Give us a couple of layover days like it use to be.  This pro motor deal we got...........for lacking a better word.......sucks. Now....with the current flows.....we have to take a damn motor with us if we want to hike, layover, or see any of the cool sites along the way. I'd rather have fewer permits and more time to enjoy the place since most people have waited a life time to see the place in the first place. 

Off soap box.........sorry folks..........guess I got a little wound up this morning........time to go take out my frustrations on my employees like all good small business owners do. :mrgreen:


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your supportive words.

In answer to your question, about 50.5% of the current user-day allocation goes to commercials, and 49.5% to private boaters. To parse it seasonally, about 75% of the available private use is in the Spring, Summer, and Fall. .

As to how many user-days were actually used last year, I don't have those data. I do know that all but two trips launched, but of course not every trip launches at maximum capacity. I'm about to email Steve Sullivan in the River Office to see if I can get some numbers. I'll let you know what I find out.

In the meantime. have a good one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

> I do know that all but two trips launched,


Are we talking commercial or private?


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Dan,

I should have been more precise. To clarify, that was information about private trips. Between 3/1/07 and 6/19/07, 182 private trips were scheduled to launch, and only 2 didn't launch. 

I'll let you know if I get user-day level data.

Rich


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Hi Rich,

All the private boater stuff is well doctumented. I want to know how many trips and user days the commercials are getting and using. I'm guessing the park service has that info also, but it might not be for public eyes to see.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Dan,

I understand -- my request to Steve was for both private and commercial categories. I know they don't release anything that could be remotely considered proprietary, but raw numbers should be something else. And they may not really be useful until the end of the year, when all launches are tabulated.

On the other hand now that I think of it, the commercial operations are not actually handled by the River Office, and the concessions record-keeping systems may not generate on-the-fly reports. We'll just have to wait and see.

Best to you.

Rich


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

I don't know how many days the outfitters let lapse, but I know that they have historically offered big discounts in the latter part of the season (2 for 1) in order to use as many of their days as possible (so as to claim that they still need them). What I hear now is that they are running more oar trips in order to burn user days via longer trips.

Whatever system is in place, there should be NO such thing as a lapsed user day in it. That is crap and easy to remedy, even if you just roll them over into the next year. As it stands, for every person under max capacity on your permit for an 18 day trip, 18 user days vanish forever. Five people under the limit? Adios, 90 user days.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hey Dan,

Steve just emailed me, and as I suspected those numbers are not in the usual reporting system, but he said he's work them up and get back with me. I'll let you know when I know more.

Rich


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Dan,

Steve Sullivan has just posted some statistical information for the June follow-up lottery at
http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/2007_Follow-up_Lottery_6-13-07.pdf

or

http://tinyurl.com/2yvrwd

Turns out his office does collect the commercial trip data as well. But evidently the automated report generating program he has set up for private trips does not talk to the data for commercial trips, so he's going to have to find some time to work up those numbers independently.

The tables Steve's posted (augmenting others he's provided for the main lottery itself) continue to support the proposition that folks who have not been on the river recently are getting trips. They also seem to show that folks who were on the waiting list for a while also are getting launches. The CRMP seems to be working as intended.

And while demand for summer trips is expectedly high, it's interesting to note that those dreadful winter trips seem to be
unaccountably popular:.....

November 1 - 124 applications, 560 total chances applied
November 24 - 57 applications, 236 total chances applied
December 29 - 29 applications, 127 total chances applied

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association
click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater
representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Wow, thanks for all the help and additional info Rich. You go too far.  I can't wait to see some statistics on the commercial end of this. It will be good to compare apples to apples. 



> Whatever system is in place, there should be NO such thing as a lapsed user day in it. That is crap and easy to remedy, even if you just roll them over into the next year. As it stands, for every person under max capacity on your permit for an 18 day trip, 18 user days vanish forever. Five people under the limit? Adios, 90 user days.


This is one of the issues that really bugs me too, Caspian. I also would like to know if they are limited to large and small groups. In fact......what is the limit on commercial group size. (I'm guessing it's 16, just like us). They must have a start and stop date as I doubt too many of them run winter trips..:mrgreen: ........but they should be since there seems to be so much interest in going on winter trips. 



> In answer to your question, about 50.5% of the current user-day allocation goes to commercials, and 49.5% to private boaters.


I'm guessing your talking number of people going down the river, and how many days each one spends on the river? 



> To parse it seasonally, about 75% of the available private use is in the Spring, Summer, and Fall. .


That makes since...........since 1 1/2 trips launch a day...... everyday...... for privates. Every three months we use 25% of our user days. :mrgreen: 

What's the percentage on the commercials in each three month period? My guess is 100% for the same time period you indicate above. Spring, Summer, and Fall.

If the demand is there like you say, why don't we try and even out the season with them. That would allow more Spring, Summer, Fall trips for private boaters. What a great trade off for them too. They can get in on this new winter boating market and interest. Something to think about for the next round of negotiations. 

In the end it will be fun to compare how many trips are being used by both commercial and privates. With that we should also compare how big each trip that launches is, as to how many people actually launched on each trip..........both commercially and privately. Apples to apples.

This is where the user day issue falls into place and a fair comparison can be made between the two groups. It should be really easy to figure out since everyone that leaves the beach is ID'ed, and counted. Money is exchanged. I really doubt anyone slips through the cracks and they miss a few boaters here and there.  So the comparison would be.........how many user days did each group actually use for the year, and how many user days went unused for each group. This number should be close to even since the percentage of user days are basically even between the two groups.......right? 

Here is something to think about..........I should be able to run down the canyon twice in the time alotted to me if I want. That's what this user day thing is all about...right? I know I can make it down twice and reset shuttle for the second round without loosing too many user days, if any at all. If I pull into Diamond in the early morning......I know I could be back to ferry land and on the river by nightfall. All it takes is a 20 hp motor (or two) for every boat......(and a really loud sound system to drown out all the motor noise. :mrgreen


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Dan,

Lots of territory to cover there, but I'll give it a try.

Lapsed User-Days.

Under the old system there were lapsed user-days, and under the new system there inevitably will be some as well. Personal example -- I just went on a 21-day-to-Diamond trip that was five people short of its max -- we didn't use 105 of our potential user-days. With the current launch-based system there is no way to "make up" those days. 

Actually, there is a school of thought that says such "losses" are a good thing. Their view is that the current allocation is way too high anyway, and that any unused user-days are a benefit of the new plan -- giving the Canyon a break in resource stress. And rolling them over to the next year means you have to find open launches somewhere in the following year -- it's a launch-based system, remember? You potentially could do that in the shoulder and winter seasons, but otherwise you're increasing the number of launches -- and the drop from 9 launches max to 6 launches max is a big benefit of the CRMP. No easy answers here.

Group Size

Commercial groups are limited to 32 in the summer and 24 the rest of the year. Commercials have no winter trips.(November-February).

Usage

A user-day is any portion of a day a person is on the river. That's the underlying measure for Canyon use. There are not half-launches every day all of the year -- only 16-person trips in the winter, for instance.

Commercial Percentages

Not sure exactly what percentage you're looking for, so for that one, I'm going to refer you to GRCA - Colorado River Management Plan, Recent Use Statistics, Graphs, and Reports
where the Park displays river-related statistics.

Demand Leveling

The Park is tracking both groups (private participants and commercial passengers), and collecting ID information in a way that doesn't compromise privacy concerns. As the lottery operation continues, those use-related figures will be available to look at over time to see what patterns emerge. But it's unlikely any major structural changes will take place for a while, if at all, under this CRMP.

Double Runs

Dream on, my friend, dream on.....

Believe me, GCPBA has things it would like to see changed -- not everything we sought in our submission was included in the CRMP. But the Park (rightly, in my view) wants to give the main features of the CRMP a chance to work a while before they do major tinkering. 

So in that context, GCPBA is working to make sure that any tinkering considers the views of private boaters as best we can discern them. That's why we have regular in-person meetings with Steve Sullivan (head of the River Office), Mike McGinnis (Chief River Ranger) and Linda Jalbert (Head Planner), and post Newswires summarizing those meetings. This past March, I sat down with the new Superintendent and discussed how GCPBA can be involved in the evolution of the CRMP -- hopefully refining the system to make it even better. 

As I've said before, we don't think the CRMP is perfect. But it's a reasonable compromise that's not only gets more people on the river in a more timely manner, but also provides a sound basis for additional positive change in the future.

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*more numbers*

I have been waiting to see if Rich was going to clarify some of his numbers. Not seeing that, you all ought to know:

The NPS abandoned user days as the main measuring tool in the new river plan and embraced a launch based scenario, just when the GCPBA was trumpeting loudly that 'we have parity in user days so equity has been achieved' or something like that. 

49.5 to 50.5 user days? This does not include the roughly 30,000 user days used by commercial crew. 

Any talk of user days is just an estimate now. That said, the NPS (page 3, CRMP ROD) estimates summer user days commercial at 91,909, and self guided at 32,407

If you count self guided to commercial bodies in the summer season, self guided river runners account for 13% of river runners. That's 14,385 recreational passengers to 2,270 self guided river runners.

Trip launches is another issue. The concessions get 476 summer launches, ALL at 32 person group sizes. The self guided river runners get 123 lauches of 16 people and 62 half size launches of up to 8 people.

In the winter, the concessions don't launch at all, and the self guided get 120 launches.

What about the winter? User days estimated concessionaires ZERO, self guided 34,087. Number of people on concessions trips, ZERO, self guided 1,855. 

This blatant inequity is one reason River Runners for Wilderness has taken the NPS to court.

As to winter demand, I would encourage you to look at the numbers yourself and decide. See:

http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/Final_Lottery_2008_statistics.pdf

There were 10 winter dates no one chose in the inital 2008 lottery. All summer dates where taken. 

Have a great day, Tom Martin
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

You know full well that user-days still underlie the entire allocation scheme, and the Park uses them as a foundational measure for impact on the Canyon. The fact that access is now regulated by launches does not change the fact that every major table and summary of the alternatives in the CRMP refers to the user-day breakdown. Launches are the practical method for the user-days to be operationalized. For goodness sake, the "Material Facts" RRFW presents in association with its "Motion for Summary Judgment" repeatedly refer to the Park's user-day figures in ways that you evidently estimate will bolster your argument to the Court.

But actually, I'm puzzled by your inability to answer a simple question in prior posts:

If the winter launch scenario is so dismal, why did RRFW get behind Alternative C, which proposed 50,000+ commercial and 30,000+ user-days in the winter? 

You've evaded that question several times. Why?

RRFW used to stand for some things that I and many other GCPBA members (not speaking for the Board here, just reflecting the feedback we get from the membership at large) agreed with. But this lawsuit has drawn a line that many of us couldn't step over. My former willingness to support you financially was extinguished when I saw the direction you were going there. That's because you've shunned a cooperative, incremental strategy in favor of one that is immensely more risky.

Fact is, if RRFW prevails in its litigation, Congress might enact legislation that codifies motor use in ways that you would like even less. Or, the court itself could adopt a proportionate allocation formula that is far less advantageous than the current plan provides for private boaters. Or it could force the Park into reducing use. (Maybe that's what you really want along with abolishing motors?) And finally, you know that the Wilderness Act permits "grandfathering" motors. By forcing the issue in this way, you may get what you consider to be an adverse determination on that issue. It's a Pandora's box.

How much better it would have been for you to let the CRMP work, and in the next iteration pool your considerable energy and intellect with those of others, to move in a positive direction. 

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, thanks for your note,

It is very clear, from the 1970's, that user days are simply one of many ways to look at use. My point is, User Days do not take into account variability in trip group size, trip length, and seasonality issues. 

You make mention of alternative C verses H in the winter. My answer to your question, repeated again, is Alternative C proposed a much better spreading of use out throughout the year. 

Rich, as for lack of good-will collaboration, the agreement the GCPBA made with the River Concessionaires left out participation from any environmental group. That agreement says the GCPBA does not support wilderness protection for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park.

So much for collaboration. We at RRFW invited the GCPBA to join us in our litigation. Not only did they refuse, but now they are actively trying to block the legal challenge. 

You seem to know how Congress will act. Congress has yet to act with regards to Grand Canyon Wilderness Protection. Could you please tell me the powerball numbers if you are so good at seeing the future of what Congress will do. 

As to "grandfathering" motors in wilderness, this was included in 1964 to allow the continuation of pre-existing motorized citizen access to private property in wilderness areas. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a National Park allowing motorized access for river concessionaires. 

Today, in the 21st century, we understand drought and carbon footprints. We also understand a motor free Colorado River in Grand Canyon can adapt to drought conditions, and has a greatly reduced carbon footprint.

Rich, the CRMP you all support so much has sidestepped the big questions. Your suggestion that we all just go-along with what we have, irrespective of U.S. law and NPS policy, is missing the underlying bigger issues.

Why the GCPBA chooses to fight against equitable acces and wilderness protection for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon is the bigger question.

Have a great day, Tom

Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## RealitySheriff (Oct 16, 2003)

Let me first just say that I am enjoying this thread very much. It is really great to read the words of intelligent and well informed individuals involved in an adult debate. This thread could have easily descended into a name calling bickering match but it hasn't. So I commend both Tom and Rich for their knowledge, dedication to the cause and ability to debate the issues without beating each other down in the process.

Thank you both and keep up the great work.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

Despite all the rhetoric, you still haven't really answered the question on Alternative C -- how come you attack winter launches now, when you supported large numbers of them before? 

The best I can get out of what you have posted so far is that you were willing to compromise on winter travel to get the other benefits C offered. 

But if you really believed there was no interest in winter trips -- as you now say -- that was a tainted proposition, wasn't it? 

And as to those reputed benefits of C?

If you were serious in thinking there was winter demand, then C calls for 282,598 total user-days, rather than the 228,986 in Preferred Alternate H, which was eventually adopted. So much for reduced impact on the Canyon.....

And Alternative C provides for a 59%/41% commercial/private user-day split, rather than the 50.5%/49.5% split in the current plan. But that only holds true if the winter launches are counted, and we know you really don't believe they will be fully subscribed. 

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi RealitySheriff (what a great handle),

these issues are way too important to take personal shots at eachother. This is not to say it doesn't happen at times.  

yours, Tom

Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Tom is a very smart and personable fellow. He was one of the Founding Fathers (were there Mothers as well, Ed Abbey would ask?) of GCPBA. He deserves respect as he pursues his vision for a particular kind of Grand Canyon river experience. Don't agree with him on this one. But I respect his ability and knowledge.

And although the current situation casts us in opposing roles, I don't see us as enemies. He and I prefer different paths to the solution of this one issue. But that doesn't mean we can't look to the possibility of a day when our organizations could join in some future common cause. 

And of course the fact that he and I both think we're wordsmiths of some debatable quality means that you folks have been stuck with our literary jousting.....

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GPCBA


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, thanks for your note, 

Unfortunatly, you are misreading my replies. I am simply and consistantly saying there is more demand for summer trips verses winter trips. The lottery data shows that very clearly, wouldn't you agree?

The NPS did a study where they increased winter launches to see if they would be taken. They were. The NPS did not look at when self guided river runners would actually like to boat, did they? If you could show me the study where this was done, i'd be most appreciative. 

I am also clearly stating that Alternative C did a 'better job' at spreading use out over the year, both in people and between the use sectors. I trust that the NPS charts in the DEIS Vol 1, made that clear as well. 

Rich, please keep in mind the RRFW litigation is seeking wilderness protection and equitable allocation, within the resource sustaining sideboards"...as will leave them unimpaired for future generations" (NPS Organic Act). 

We are not saying Alternative C has too many user days, and the NPS with sound science has said this too. Remember, the NPS in the 1970's, after a lot of studies, defined a launch based system which had roughly 280,000 user days, (including the 30,000 user days for crew), understanding that not all trips would fill and this was a "cieling". (See FEIS 79-July 31, pg I-9 and 11). 

If you look at real people on-the-water, Alternative C has 3,802 self guided river runners to 7,450 concessions folk in the sumer. That's 33% self guided folks compaired with 13% self guided folks in the present summer plan. 

While Alt C was a step in the right direction, with regards to parity of body count and seasonality and gave the self guided folks a better shake, no doubt, Alt C is NOT what the litigation is about. 

Have a great day, yours, Tom Martin
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich/Tom - can you tell us on behalf of your respective organizations:

Regardless of private/commercial affiliation, should more people, fewer people, or the same number of people actually be putting in on the river?

I'm not interested in user-day or launch issues, because those differ from the actual number of people who put in on the river. Should traffic be increased, decreased or remain the same?


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Caspian,

We have never done a Board poll on this specific question. But we've talked a lot about use levels. So in responding I'm giving my synthesis of many discussions -- as a Board and as individuals among ourselves.

First, though, it's hard to answer without setting the context about launch patterns and seasonal dispersal. To give an extreme example, if you postulated a doubling (to a dozen launches a day), then the distortion in on-river contacts and campsite/attraction competition would make the current user-day level excessive. Likewise, if you compressed the entire user-day allocation into just summer and shoulder seasons with larger trips, it might create a negative impact on the resource.and the social climate on the river as well. It appears that the Park has taken those factors into account in selecting Alternative H. 

So the bottom line is that we accept the science and the analysis of the CRMP, from which the Park established the current user-day level, calibrating it with the launch patterns and seasonal launch dispersals contained in the CRMP. Being unaware of any current science that supports a different proposition, and subject to new data in the future, we accept the Park Service figures on acceptable use levels. 

Of course, once you establish how much carrying capacity the resource has, then deciding whether fewer people launching could improve things requires a value judgment. In the abstract, probably no-one on the Board would oppose fewer people on the river. But we're not working in the abstract -- we're working to find an acceptable means of satisfying a high level of demand without an unacceptable adverse impact on the Canyon. And we think the best thing to rely on in this case is the analysis in the CRMP, which produced the current use levels.

Hope this helps.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Caspian, 

Your simple question deserves a simple answer. Here it is:

Use levels, if spread evenly throughout the year, "might" be right. 

That said, here's the rest of the story:

What we think "might be right" might be wrong. It's up to the NPS, after all, to tell us. The NPS must use the best available science to show us what the resource can and can not accommodate, when it comes to human visitation numbers. 

Remember, these numbers are interlinked with group size, trip length, and seasonal variations in use. 

If we look at the only available science on this issue (from the 70's and not updated), science would tell us the present river plan summertime use is too high, commercial group sizes are still too big, and self guided trips are too fast.

Let us not forget the NPS folks are charged with the unimpairment mandate, not RRFW or GCPBA. I can't say if the GCPBA is thinking about impairment, but we at RRFW sure are. This resource is going to out last us by a long shot, and we must protect it today for future generations.

What we "think" is nothing if we lack back up facts, science and the law/NPS policy. 

Clearly, we have sued the NPS as the new river plan falls outside the law and policy boundaries of wilderness protection and equity in public access, not to mention a lack of National Environmental Policy Act compliance.

Have a great day, yours, Tom
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Tom said,

***************

"Your simple question deserves a simple answer. Here it is. 
Use levels, if spread evenly throughout the year, "might" be right.

That said, here's the rest of the story.

What we think 'might be right' might be wrong." 

[further discourse follows]

***********************

Now there's clarity for you........

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA



Use levels, if spread evenly throughout the year, "might" be right. 

That said, here's the rest of the story:

What we think "might be right" might be wrong.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich - so the GCPBA (unofficially) thinks the levels are acceptable under the new CRMP, at least for now? If the resource doesn't show any significant degradation as a result of the new CRMP, and the NPS computer models showing the crowding won't be an issue are also correct, will the GCPBA try to push for more people down the river, or at least take a strong look at it?

Tom - if what you think "might" be right might not be right, what is RRFW fighting for? I mean, I'm sure that is not what your attorneys will argue to the judge hearing the lawsuit, right? I really don't get what you're telling me...depends on what my definition of "is" is? Does RRFW want more or fewer people in the Canyon? You're saying the NPS needs to look at it all and as the experts tell us the proper answer to this question, but they already did the EIS and wrote a management plan, they already concluded that more people putting in was ok...so does RRFW agree with more people putting in since it seems you're deferring to the NPS? Help a brother out here...


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Caspian,

We accept the science embodied in the CRMP, but we don't embrace it. 

There are monitoring elements in place that should provide guidance on key components of the plan. If new, credible data is developed over the course of the CRMP, we'd expect the Park to recalibrate accordingly.

Not knowing what the data might show makes it hard to comment about what we might or might not do, but yes, you can be sure we'd take a "strong look" at it.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

> Commercial groups are limited to 32 in the summer and 24 the rest of the year.


Hi Rich,
I can't help but ask.........do these numbers include the guides on the trip??? .........or just customers??


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Dan,

The short answer is that the launch size lmiitations include guides, but the user-days limitations do not.

Here are the major features, straight from the CRMP.

***

2.4.8 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE H: NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Modified Alternative H is the NPS preferred alternative. It is a mixed motor/nonmotor alternative with mixed use allowed for 5.5 months (April 1 through September 15), and nonmotorized use from September 16 through March 31. It is characterized by lower group sizes and fewer daily launches except during the winter months. This alternative would allow for a moderate increase
in estimated yearly passenger totals (24,657). The NPS would allow passenger exchanges at Whitmore to accommodate trips launching during the mixed-use season (April 1 through September 15). Hiking exchanges would also only be allowed as described above, and it is assumed that 400 people would hike in each year at Whitmore. 

2.4.8.1 WHAT THIS ALTERNATIVE ACCOMPLISHES

Carrying Capacity Standards
&#149;
The maximum number of trips at one time would be reduced to 60 (from 70).

The maximum number of people at one time would be reduced to 985 (from 1,095).
&#149;
Total user discretionary time in hours per year would be increased to 567,238 (from 355,081).

March to October Overall Use
&#149;
The estimated number of recreational passengers would be increased to 22,802 (from 22,143).
&#149;
The estimated number of trips launching would be increased to 981 (from 866).

The estimated number of user-days would be increased to 194,899 (from 164,972).

2.4.8.2 KEY TRIP VARIABLES

Launches per Day
&#149;
Launches per day would be decreased to a maximum of six (from nine). Figure 2-10 shows the launches per day by trip type for each month (RP note - chart here that won't go into this message format).

Maximum Group Sizes (includes guides)
&#149;
Commercial motor trip sizes would be reduced to 32 people in the summer and 24 people during the rest of the year (from 43).

Commercial oar trip sizes would be reduced to 32 people in the summer and 24 people during the rest of the year (from 39).
&#149;
Noncommercial trip sizes would remain at the current level of 16 people (standard), and a new group size of 8 (small) would be offered to reduce campsite competition along the river.

Maximum Trip Lengths (in number of days)
&#149;
The maximum trip length for commercial motor trips would be educed to 10 days in summer and 12 days in the shoulder seasons (from 18); there would be no winter commercial motor trips (from 30 days currently).

The maximum trip length for commercial oar trips would be reduced to 16 days in summer (from 18), and 18 days in the shoulder seasons (from 21); there would be no winter commercial oar trips (from 30 days currently).

The maximum noncommercial oar trip length would be reduced to 16 days in summer (from 18), 18 days September 1-15 (from 21), 21 days in the remainder of the shoulder seasons (from 21), and 25 days in winter (from 30 days currently). Noncommercial motor trips would be reduced to 12 days in summer (from 18), 12 days in the shoulder seasons (from 21), and no motor trips would be allowed in winter.

March to October User-Day Limits
&#149;
Commercial motorized use is expected to increase somewhat, to an estimated 76,913 user-days. 

Commercial overall use would be capped at the current 115,500 user-days.
&#149;
Noncommercial use would not be capped, increasing to 79,399 user-days (from an average of 51,889).

Winter Use

Winter use would increase to accommodate approximately 1,855 people per year (from 318).

2.4.8.3 OTHER ISSUES

Mixed Use/Nonmotorized Seasonal Use
&#149;
The mixed-use season would decrease to 5.5 months (April 1 through September 15).
&#149;
The nonmotorized use season would increase to 6.5 months (September 16 through March 31)

***

Hope this helps.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Caspian,

What i'm saying is we base our opinions on what the science says the resource can accomidate without impairment.

What we "want" has to be grounded in scientific fact. 

We find the changes in the new CRMP lacking any scientific foundation. 

Hence our judgement is still out. 

Are we looking to increase use in the Canyon beyond where it is at now? No. 

Are we looking to see if it's legal for the NPS to give the majority of summer use to the commercial sector? Yes.

Have a great day, yours, Tom
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Caspian, 

Looking at what Tom said, 

*** 

"What I'm saying is we base our opinions on what the science says the resource can accommodate without impairment.... We find the changes in the new CRMP lacking any scientific foundation."

***

That last sentence is a pretty bold statement. There is plenty of scientific foundation for the CRMP -- it's just that Tom doesn't like where and how the science steered the Park. in its decisions on the CRMP.

GCPBA's stance necessarily is bit more nuanced, since we don't hold ourselves out to be expert scientists in all the fields relevant to the CRMP. 

We applied all the expertise we could to the issues (which was considerable, but not universal). And insofar as we could tell, NPS used the best available science to develop the 2006 CRMP. We looked around and didn't find better science -- and to the degree we could examine some of the science ourselves, we found it to be demonstrably the best. 

We aren't ready to defend every piece of science used in the CRMP. And as you might expect, in the places where we lack expertise, we have not evaluated for sufficiency or deficiency. We trust NPS to have done their job because we see in so many ways that they have done it correctly, and we see no ways (in those areas where we had competence) in which the science was faulty. 

But admittedly, there potentially could be holes in the CRMP. And as time passes, new data may emerge that would change the picture. So we're watching the plan, supporting it where it's working, advising the Park on areas where think it's not working, cooperating with Park officials on adaptive management responses to issues as they emerge, and making copious notes for the time when another CRMP will be prepared.

It's a practical, functional approach that -- in the end -- gets us back to GCPBA's golden rule, which says: "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." Tom would know this goal --- and at one time subscribed to it -- because he was involved in its development and adoption when he was one of GCPBA's leaders. 

Hope this helps.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*GCPBA, then and now*


Hi Caspian and Rich, sounds like we actually agree that the science in the CRMP is lacking, since Rich points out "We aren't ready to defend every piece of science used in the CRMP" and "admittedly, there potentially could be holes in the CRMP." 

That said, it should be pointed out, I left the GCPBA when the organization left resource protection and equitable access. When the GCPBA placed “access” ahead of everything else, including the very wilderness resource that the GCPBA is now clamoring for access to, I walked. 

How the present GCPBA board could agree to abandon wilderness protection for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon is beyond me. 

How the present GCPBA board could be so bold as to say what their members think, and to muzzle membership dissention with the board is beyond me.

How the present board of the GCPBA now supports the inequitable summertime allocation of use is also, you guessed it, beyond me.

The original GCPBA board, except for the few board members still on the board today, would not have supported any of this. 

Have a great day, yours, Tom
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

*Hi Tom,

Well, we'll see if Caspian agrees that he thinks the science is "lacking" but I certainly never said that. 

Our view is that the science is sufficient to support the conclusions in the CRMP. Plain words -- nothing fancy -- we don't make assertions beyond our expertise. In areas where we are not omniscient, we simply concede we don't know -- we are a Board of boaters, not scientists. We brought as much expertise to bear on it as possible, and made a judgment. Where we were lacking, we have a high enough level of confidence in the NPS people working on this to accept the plan as it is, and to believe they will delve in good faith to improve it over time.

Admitting that something as complex as the CRMP may not be perfect is an intellectually honest and totally open position to take. It's one that's certainly more defensible than saying that the CRMP lacks, "any scientific foundation" -- your words. Words I suspect would be hard to defend in a more structured environment than the Buzz. 

For goodness sake, when the Park included "adaptive management" in the CRMP, it acknowledged there might be things that would need tuned up. Would you rather they said,"This is perfect and we're not going to change anything for ten years"?

Let's get back to the final portion of your last post. 

Tom, your departure from the GCPBA Board signaled a shift in your personal priorities, and those of a few others who left at the same time. You're an energetic, charismatic, and fervent believer in a particular course of action. But the core membership of today's Board remains to carry on the still-valid organizational goals that you helped develop. 

You choose a more uncompromising course, and that's up to you. But let's be clear -- the present GCPBA Board has not abandoned the idea of wilderness protection for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Because our methods are different -- and incorporate the realities of a multi-faceted boating community -- does not make them invalid.

I recall some of your posts over on the GCPBA list, where you lamented the changes in "my GCPBA." It's not your GCPBA any more, Tom. It belongs to the innumerable people who support and encourage us in ongoing material ways. And the present GCPBA Board represents as faithfully as possible what our members tell us through surveys, emails, and various other forums; you know full well the kind of dissension and vigorous discourse that is seen on our listserv.

And all of these posts should make it clear that the present Board supports a progressive, cooperative (to the greatest extent possible) method for finding a balance between the many competing interests trying for a piece of access to this national treasure. 

We have an inclusive -- rather than exclusive -- scope to our activities. We want as many people as possible to see the Canyon, in as close a state as possible to wilderness (something even you must concede it can no longer be, due to the dam). 

That means we want people who can boat on their own, and people who can't boat on their own, to be able to see it. We want private kayakers, C-boaters, rafters, and their passengers to see it, just as we want folks who have to just go along on a commercial trip. We want the Canyon to be available to folks who can take three weeks out of their lives, and also for folks who can barely squeeze a week. We want repeaters and first-timers. We want Americans and foreigners. And to do that, you have to have a balanced program of private and commercial access. 

We think the CRMP provides that. It's not totally satisfying to us, but it strikes a reasonable balance between important competing interests. Just as importantly, it provides a foundation for both short- and long-term changes in a direction to be determined by the input of our respective organizations and the boating community more generally. 

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

*Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


 *
*


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

Never said the science in the CRMP was lacking. Don't see where you picked that up from my posts.:???:


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, we seem to be going over old ground. I quote, you deny. You quote, I deny. We are talking past each other now, going round and round.

There is no science backing up the allocation distibution. You know it. I know it. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. There is no science backing up increasing self guided use in the off season. You know it, i know it. The demand is in the summer. There is no science backing up shortening trip lengths, where there is science that says the public wanted longer trips, not shorter ones. Please don't try to hide behind Adaptive Management, it is not a substitute for a firm scientific foundation nor for a lack of wilderness protection.

RRFW put out a Riverwire questioning the NPS science early on, but, you have your marching orders "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." 

And yet you hide that fact when you say you support "finding a balance between the many competing interests trying for a piece of access to this national treasure." Could you please tell me how 13% summertime access is balanced? 

Whatever "balance" your negotiators thought they found is why you now discourage the few remaining GCPBA members from engaging in any activities that are inconsistent with the agreement. 

"My GCPBA" is indeed no more. That was what i was lamenting in a post from one or two years ago. I think I made that point clear.

We at RRFW also support "people who can boat on their own, and people who can't boat on their own, to be able to see it. We want private kayakers, C-boaters, rafters, and their passengers to see it, just as we want folks who have to just go along on a commercial trip. We want the Canyon to be available to folks who can take three weeks out of their lives, and also for folks who can barely squeeze a week. We want repeaters and first-timers. We want Americans and foreigners. And to do that, you have to have a balanced program of private [we call it self guided] and commercial access." You have stated this very well, and we agree. 

We just don't think 13% summertime access to self guided paddlers is appropriate. We have taken the NPS to court for this. Your GCPBA is trying to stop us. 

You call wilderness protection in Grand Canyon "uncompromising" and state that "the present GCPBA Board has not abandoned the idea of wilderness protection for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon."

Can you please reconcile your statement with this uncompromising statement “The Parties will not advocate for inclusion of the Colorado River corridor within GRCA into the National Wilderness Preservation System” 

Rich, in all due respect, your words don't match the GCPBA's actions. 

Fortunately there's still a couple of rivers out there to run where permits are not needed, so, see you on the river, Yours, Tom

Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

We're not talking past each other. We're each trying to convince a very small (probably miniscule) number of undecided people of the righteousness of our respective causes. In your case it's so you can convince them they ought to send you money to fund the lawsuit. In ours, its to persuade folks they ought to support our ongoing programs, which directly represent them in GC river matters.

Setting that aside, someone on the Board did a count a while ago, and there are over 800 pages of science in the DEIS. All the studies done in earlier CRMPs were repeated, and with much larger samples. There is so much science going on in the Canyon that people whine about science having a priority there. The accumulated GC science on any subject -- from dirt to fish to people -- is immense.

We candidly admit our limitations. But since you evidently have been able to fully evaluate the entire scope of science issues in the CRMP, perhaps you'd impress people more if you cited your sources and experts.  

So, you could start by explaining RRFW's overall methodology for verifying or refuting NPS scientific and sociological research? What are your own qualifications to evaluate the entire array canyon science empirically, and totally dismiss it as invalid? And if you aren't the sole source for these determinations, then who are the experts RRFW relied on to evaluate the CRMP's science and conclude it was worthless? 



Since you'll have to do that anyway if the court case gets past the motions stage, why not do it now?



And on the agreement that seems to vex you so, tell us something, if you would. What good would it be for an organization to sign an agreement with other parties -- and make certain critical representations to a Federal agency -- without them trying to ensure there was a supportive environment for the agreement? You can complain all you want about the fact it was negotiated privately, and that its terms were not generally disseminated to the membership. 

But for an agreement to work among parties that previously had been so antagonistic, there had to be some level of confidence that no-one would back away from it. That's why the clause that seems to stick in your craw so badly was inserted -- to assure everyone that today's agreement was not going to be torpedoed later on. I think most folks will understand that. 

And of course discerning readers will know that this agreement cuts four ways. It also protects private boaters from any adverse change in position on the part of the other parties -- something that never seems to get mentioned.

Ah, yes, the issue of summer launches. Tom, you assume everyone wants to go in the summer, when in fact that is clearly not the case. Lots of folks don't like the beastly heat and prefer the shoulder seasons. 

Actually, I'm looking at the lottery statistics right now, and there is active interest in virtually every day of the year. Most particularly, from mid-March (when 40 or more people asked for most dates) until late October (when on the 23rd 125 people wanted to launch) there is ample interest in non-summer launches provided by the CRMP. Your lowball summer demand arguments are refuted by the lottery applications.

Finally, GCPBA does support wilderness protection for the Grand Canyon -- it's your methods and your inability to accept an incremental approach to that important goal that we see as "uncompromising." While you may not agree, your way is not the only to protecting wilderness values.

I suppose the bottom line to this one is that lots more folks are going boating each year Tom -- thousands a year more -- while you are in court 

But you're right one thing -- there are other rivers. So since I'm in the Midwest, the wife and I are going on the upper Mississippi in a couple of days for a week of cruising. 

Have a good weekend. We can continue this when I get back if you like.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA


 Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, thanks for the very good laugh! 

Your are saying folks donate to GCPBA so the GCPBA board "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."

And you are saying GCPBA directly represents them in GC matters. 

Thanks for the great laugh! You are such a crack up! 

I stand by my simple assertion. There is no science backing up the allocation distribution. You know it. I know it. Your board knows it. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. There is no science backing up increasing self guided use in the off season. You know it, i know it, your board knows it. The demand is in the summer. There is no science backing up shortening trip lengths, where there is science that says the public wanted longer trips, not shorter ones. (Hall and Shelby 2000).

Rich, you are saying your are all encompassing, with collaboration and such. This was a back room deal that now impacts the GCPBA membership and beyond, to other organizations that are moving the issue of resource protection and equitable access forward. 

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. These are your words "What good would it be for an organization to sign an agreement with other parties -- and make certain critical representations to a Federal agency -- without them trying to ensure there was a supportive environment for the agreement?"

I am saying it did NO Good. Now, you have to assert, against the membership, that the river should not have wilderness protection and that 13% of summertime access is just Great! This has me, and a lot of other folks complaining as well. It's called a sell out. And now, beyond that, you all seem to think interfering with litigation seeking resource protection and equitable access is a good thing.

Thank you for coming clean that this deal "was negotiated privately, and that its terms were not generally disseminated to the [GCPBA] membership." 

Thank you as well for mentioning that the deal was done “to assure everyone that today's agreement was not going to be torpedoed later on.” And just who were the board afraid of hurling torpedoes at them? The GCPBA membership! I can only imagine the negotiators saying "Heavens, let's protect ourselves from those torpedo throwing members now that we've worked so hard to agree to 13% summertime access and no wilderness protection for the river."

What did they expect? Rose petals? 

Did your negotiators think the river concessionaires, having fire sales to attempt to fill their sagging bookings, were going to get more access form the park, hence a deal had to be cut?

Rich, here are the 2008 lottery stats:

http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/Final_Lottery_2008_statistics.pdf

Please compare January with June and then tell me with a straight face there's more interest in January than June. 

Finally, how can you say the "GCPBA does support wilderness protection for the Grand Canyon" when your agreement with the concessionaires says "The Parties will not advocate for inclusion of the Colorado River corridor within GRCA into the National Wilderness Preservation System”. I'd call this disingenuous at best. 

Rich, I'll agree with you that a ten year agreement is an incremental approach. The GCPBA says do nothing for the next ten years, excepting a tiny bit of summer use, and no wilderness protection for the river for the next ten years, while attempting to block other groups efforts to change this for the better. 

The folks at RRFW will proceed in asking the tough questions: why shouldn't the resource be protected as wilderness, and why should we settle for 13% summertime access.

So, the upper Mississippi? That sounds terrific! Have you red Harland Hubbard's Shantyboat? Great read. We are off to the Middle Fork. Travel safe! Yours, Tom Martin
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

Sorry that in the rush of getting ready for your trip and composing 18 paragraphs of repetitive, unresponsive content, you forgot to answer the three questions I posed:

To refresh, here they are again. Take your time, think about them on the MF, and reply when you get back. 
 
1. So, you could start by explaining RRFW's overall methodology for verifying or refuting NPS scientific and sociological research? 

2. What are your own qualifications to evaluate the entire array canyon science empirically, and totally dismiss it as invalid? 

3. And if you aren't the sole source for these determinations, then who are the experts RRFW relied on to evaluate the CRMP's science and conclude it was worthless?

Here's a bonus query: If your cause is so just and the outcome so certain, why is it that the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and other heavy hitters are not involved in your lawsuit?

Now it's back to the garage to slam together some gear for the river.

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, 

Here's a simple answer to your questions 1-3:

Neither you nor i can find the science because it's not there. This is exactly my point when I told you point blank there is no science backing up the allocation distibutions, either between concessions and the self guided public, or by season. By the way, there's no science to back up the spectrum of commercial services either, and there's no science backing up shortening trip lengths. 

I can't cite science that isn't there, and neither can you. 

Do you still think there's more demand for January river trips than June?

Do you still think it was a good idea for the GCPBA to set up a shield wall against the GCPBA membership?

Do you still think 13% summertime access for the self guided river runners is equitable?

Do you still think there's a valid argument for GCPBA to abandon wilderness protection for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park?

Have a great trip. These issues will be with us a long time. Yours, Tom
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

Let me try one last time....

* "Neither you nor i can find the science because it's not there." 

The CRMP contains more than 800 pages of science -- covering (insofar as I can tell ) all aspects of the plan that the Park believed to be relevant. And by the way, folks surely are noticing that you still haven't offered the credentials for discrediting that science.

* "Do you still think there's more demand for January river trips than June?"

Never said that. And in this case, most folks understand differential demand and the forces that drive it.

* "Do you still think it was a good idea for the GCPBA to set up a shield wall against the GCPBA membership?"

Your terms, not mine. The reasons for how we handled this have been amply explained in other posts. 

* "Do you still think 13% summertime access for the self guided river runners is equitable?"

A red herring that has been explained before -- not everyone is like you and Ricardo, and want to bake in the Canyon's hot summer sun. The lottery statistics clearly show major interest in the shoulder seasons. In fact, the month of September has the highest application levels of all, if my eyes don't deceive me when I read the stats.

* "Do you still think there's a valid argument for GCPBA to abandon wilderness protection for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park?"

GCPBA has not abandoned the goal of wilderness protection -- in survey after survey, our members just don't see that as our primary objective. 

Tom, it appears we are not going to agree on the issues. We've each tried to make a case as to why our side is correct. I see many people have read our joust, and I'm sure they've formed their own opinions from the material we have jointly provided.


You've brought your issues with the NPS plan before a judge. Each interested party will present their case. The judge will review the presentations. His perspective will be different than any of ours. He will render a decision on the matters before him. 

We look forward to his decision and we are thankful that he ruled to allow us to intervene even though you, the plaintiff, made strenuous objections to force us to remain silent. We hope, with his decision, the case will be closed.

Safe travels.

Rich Phillips
VP, GPCBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi to Anyone Who is Still Hanging in There, 

Organizing for the Mississippi trip has come to a temporary halt. So I've decided I could do better than just a vague reference to monthly launch data -- and how it doesn't support Tom's fixation on private boater being interested only in summer launches. So I extracted info from the 2008 main lottery statistics. Math- challenged as I am, I had to go back and check them -- they are so striking.
 
These are the average number of applications for each day, by month.

 January - 2.1
 February - 8.9
 March - 26.7
 April - 87.8
 May - 107.4
 June - 78.8
 July - 66.5
 August - 38.5
 September - 209.1 - yes, that's right, no bad decimal point
 October - 72.9
 November - 8.3
 December - 2.2

 This shows relative interest in real dates -- launches that are actually available. And doing it by a daily average adjusts for the fact that not every day of every month had an available launch.

Contrary to other assertions, demand in April, May, September, and October outstrips the much-vaunted summer months. August was barely half as popular as October, and not much more popular than even March. 

These figures include dates when there are two private launches.. They also may be slightly impacted by the fact more than half the total of 503 launches were already obligated to the transitional folks. But they can't be off by much.

 It's obvious the access that private boaters have under the CRMP corresponds to the current demand. One could argue demand is stimulated by the amount of opportunity, but conversely that's not guaranteed to be true either. 

 So here's the bottom line. Real-world demand for June and July trips is nowhere as great as it is during the Spring and Fall months. Even in January and December, there were twice as many applicants (who could have applied for trips in other months) as there were opportunities. 

 That being the case, one might reasonably conclude the NPS launch calendar is in line with private demand at present.
 
Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

 Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, yes, I too agree this has been a productive exchange. Your claim of “strenuous objection to force us to remain silent” and science questions are answered here. 

The RRFW legal team asked the judge to limit the participation of both GCPBA and GCROA to the remedy phase of the case. The RRFW legal team noted that the NPS alone is the responsible party during the merits phase of the case as only the NPS is held accountable to preserve the resource.

We were clear about it right up front to the Judge and our members that only the NPS, not GCPBA, RRFW or anyone else, is the legally responsible party and only the NPS has to be held responsible for river management. 

We did not hide this information, not waiting a year and a half until someone else dug it out of us. See supporting documentation in follow on e-mail.

There is no answer to the missing science, only requests to the NPS to do their homework. See supporting documentation in follow on e-mail.

As a board member of the GCPBA, it is in your best interest to see the case closed, the wilderness resource impacted and imbalanced allocation remain in place. 

We hope the outcome of the case preserves the resource and corrects an allocation nightmare. As noted, I’ll send supporting documentation in the next e-mail.

Have a great day, Tom Martin

Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, 

As it’s important to follow the real record of what occurred and the reasons behind it, I have included here with sources cited, some background history on the lack of science and your assertion of force, for anyone who may be interested.

On January 25, 2005, the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCPBA) signed an agreement with the river concessions trade association. The Agreement stipulates that the groups will use their “best efforts” to dissuade their membership from engaging in any activities that would not be consistent with the terms of the Agreement. The groups will support removal of wilderness designation for the river corridor, support the river concessionaire’s motorized allocation, and will not interfere with the award in 2006 of new ten year concessions contracts for the existing concessionaires. [Cite: RRFW Riverwire Groups Crippled By Agreement http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20060305.RRFW_Riverwire.Groups_Crippled_By_Agreement ]

Only one week later, on January 31, 2005, 17 groups sent a letter to Grand Canyon National Park with serious concerns regarding the science supporting the Colorado River Management Plan. The river plan was found lacking in a number of areas, including lack of wilderness protection, lack of equitable allocation, unusually large group size, unusually high frequencies in encounters, unsubstantiated decreases in trip length, unjustifiably high levels of helicopter use and lack of any study of the spectrum of commercial services. [Cite GCWA_DEIS_Comments
http://www.rrfw.org/pdfs/GCWA_DEIS_Comments.pdf ]

Nine months later, on March 23, 2006, Grand Canyon National Park released their final record of decision on the new plan. The following week, March 28, 2007, River Runners for Wilderness and three other groups brought litigation against the National Park Service, citing lack of wilderness protection and inequitable allocation among other claims. [Cite: RRFW Riverwire Groups Sue to Protect Grand Canyon http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20060328.RRFW_Riverwire.Groups_Sue_to_Protect_Grand_Canyon The complaint is at http://www.rrfw.org/pdfs/200603.Final_Complaint.pdf ]

On July 12, 2006, Judge David Campbell agreed to look at the case in two steps. The first step is to look at the merits of the case, and see if the NPS had indeed violated the law in managing the resource. The second step, the remedy phase, is what to do about the river plan if the NPS is found at fault in the first step. [Cite: RRFW Riverwire Grand Canyon Litigation Update
http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20060713.RRFW_Riverwire.Grand_Canyon_Litigation_Update ]

On July 6, 2007, the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Trade Association intervened in the litigation. The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association intervened on July 25, 2007.
[Cite: GCPBA Memo of points
http://www.rrfw.org/pdfs/GCPBA's_Memo_of_Points.pdf
GCPBA’s answer
http://www.rrfw.org/pdfs/GCPBA's_Answer.pdf ]

The RRFW legal team asked the judge to limit the participation of both GCPBA and GCROA to the remedy phase of the case. The RRFW legal team noted that the NPS alone is the responsible party during the merits phase of the case as only the NPS is held accountable to preserve the resource. In replying to the GCPBA motion for intervention, the plaintiffs’ opposition brief notes “_The GCPBA has flip-flopped on the issues and is seeking to intervene to defend the NPS’s CRMP – seeking to defend a CRMP that authorizes certain types and levels of use that the GCPBA specifically challenged in its original lawsuit…._ This flip-flop in the direction of the GCPBA has been touched on in this thread. The opposition statement went on to note “_In this case, Plaintiffs allege that the NPS’s concessionaire friendly permit allocation system is “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with the Organic Act.” Complaint at ¶166. If successful this claim will actually benefit noncommercial users such as the members of the GCPBA.” _The Judge, using his broad discretion to allow or deny intervention, regardless of the points raised, allowed intervention on October 16, 2007, in both phases of the case to both intervening parties.
[Cite RRFW Riverwire RRFW Rejects Lawsuit Intervention Attempts
http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20060809.RRFW_Riverwire.RRFW_Rejects_Lawsuit_Intervention_Attempts
RRFW Riverwire Grand Canyon Litigation Update
http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20061018.RRFW_Riverwire.Grand_Canyon_Litigation_Update ]

The Judge set a schedule for this litigation, and in accordance with that schedule, the plaintiffs filed a summary judgment on May 25, 2007.
[Cite: RRFW Riverwire Grand Canyon Litigation Update
http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20070530.RRFW_Riverwire.Grand_Canyon_Litigation_Update
Summary Judgment
http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20070525.Document.Summary_Judgement ] 

Have a great day, Tom Martin
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*compare apples to apples*

Hi Rich, let’s look at the lottery numbers shall we? 

I’ll start with your numbers that include dates when no trip launched, and dates for small verses standard sized trips. Then we'll look at real people/real dates and compare standard sized trips to standard sized trips.

You yourself said “These are the average number of applications for each day, by month”

January - 2.1
June - 78.8

That would indicate to me there is greater demand in the summer (June) verses winter (January). Do you not agree? If you look at October-March verses April-September, you see the same trend. Do you not agree? 

But you really didn’t compare apples to apples, did you? Did you look at real dates and real people? No. Ok, let's do that.

I tallied up the standard sized trips in June (there were 8) with the number of applications for those dates 1771), and came up with an average of 221.3, not the 78.8 you did.

In the winter, I came up with 70 points for 22 dates, excluding the 5 dates when there were ZERO applications. I get 3.13. If I include the 5 unclaimed dates, I get 2.59

Clearly, there is no substantive reason why the self guided body count should be 100% in January and 13% in June. That is proved out based on the lottery applications alone.

You also took note of the high number of applications in September. Let’s take a look at that.

We will start with this one very interesting point. As you will recall, on January 25, 2005, the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCPBA) signed an agreement with the river concessions trade association stipulating that the groups will support the river concessionaire’s motorized allocation.

That said, if you look at the applications for the 2008 lottery, the only dates with 300 or more applications (there were only three) were just after the start of the motor free season in the second half of September. This skews your data analysis a lot. If you factor a river wilderness into the demand equation, that looks to be very important for river runners, no? I wonder what the demand would be for a motor-free summer?

By the way, I tallied the numbers posted (not the “see above” dates for September, but real numbers for real dates.) I came up with 2301 applications for 9 dates, or an average 255.7 for 9 standard trips, this WITH the three highest demand dates in the lottery, one date at 382, one at 409, and one at 456 (all after the start of the Motor Free period).

What do self guided river runners really want? Rich, neither your group, nor the NPS, has dared ask that question. 

How you can say with a straight face that “the NPS launch calendar is in line with private demand at present” is beyond me.

We at least are trying to ask the question in court, in the face of GCPBA intervention. 

Have a great day (and work on your data analysis a little more, ok? :>) Tom Martin
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

Well since GCPBA instituted the litigation that resulted in the current CRMP, we believed we had a legitimate interest in seeing the plan carried out. When you tried to stop the CRMP, we asked to intervene. The judge saw it our way. What more can I say?

And as to the rest -- those and other assertions and facts will be before the court. That will tell the tale -- not our lively discourse before this patient audience.

Best to you.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA

Join Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association at Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. click on "Join", and support active, ongoing private boater representation on Grand Canyon issues. And follow GC issues on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, 

just making sure you are not confusing the two issues, the 2000 GCPBA litigation to re-start river planning (of which I was a part) and the GCPBA’s present support for the CRMP (of which I was not a part). They are two very different things.


In replying to the GCPBA motion for intervention, the plaintiffs’ opposition brief notes “_The GCPBA has flip-flopped on the issues and is seeking to intervene to defend the NPS’s CRMP – seeking to defend a CRMP that authorizes certain types and levels of use that the GCPBA specifically challenged in its original lawsuit…._ 
[Cite RRFW Riverwire RRFW Rejects Lawsuit Intervention Attempts
http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20060809.RRFW_Riverwire.RRFW_Reje cts_Lawsuit_Intervention_Attempts
RRFW Riverwire Grand Canyon Litigation Update
River Runners for Wilderness - Protecting the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon and Its Tributaries ]


We believe that the GCPBA should be a part of the remedy phase of the litigation. I can only hope that at that time, the GCPBA will free itself of the agreement with the outfitters trade association. The litigation may allow for just that. We look forward to working together for a protected river wilderness with an equitable allocation if indeed the court rules that is what the law demands.


Have a great day, Tom martin
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

We're among friends here. You don't have to resort to clever (but sort of obvious) literary devices -- "just making sure you are not confusing the two issues", Rich -- to get in one or two more last points. 

Make all the points you want, but be alert to the possibility that you may be showing more than you intend -- about yourself and what you really are trying to do.

However, for the record, I'm well aware of the difference between the two cases, and the timing in relation to your falling-out with the GCPBA board. 

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, in regards to posting about what you are really trying to do, it appears this is a two way street! 

I'll post some more on the lottery in a minute. 

Yours, Tom 
Tom martin
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*More on the lottery*

Hi Rich, 

In looking at your post below, and then at the 2008 main lottery info, I came up with this curve:

300
275
250 ...................................................................S
225 ...........................................Jn
200
175 ........................Ap..My
150 ...................................................Jy
125 ...........................................................Au
100 ..........................................................................O
75
50 ...............Mr
25
0 ...Ju... F........................................................................ N....D
----Ju--- F---Mr---Ap---My---Jn---Jy---Au---S---O---N---D

This shows relative interest by real people for real dates, with lottery applications for the month on the Y axis (up and down) and the month of the year on the x axis (right to left).

This graph is for Standard trips only.

Excluding three dates in September, this is a typical bell shaped curve

To calculate this, I used launches that are actually available in the lottery. This was done by NOT counting the days there was no launch or a launch with no data. One launch date data appeared to be switched between a small and standard trip, so I turned that around. The table in the next e-mail shows the figures I used.


Here's the second graph:

30…………………………………………………………………….D
25..Ju
20……………Mr
15………F……………………………………………………..N
10………………………….My……Jn………………S…O
5…………………….Ap………………..Jy…..Au
0
----Ju--- F---Mr---Ap---My---Jn---Jy---Au---S---O---N---D

This graph shows the number of Standard Trips offered per month.

Here, we can see that the number of trips offered in the winter far exceeds the summer trips. 

Here's another graph, this one showing Small Trip applications

40………………….Ap………….Jn
35…………………………My…………Jy
30
25
20
15.......................................................................Au
10
5
0…Ju…...F…..Mr........................................................S….O…..N….D
----Ju--- F---Mr---Ap---My---Jn---Jy---Au---S---O---N---D

The number of applications was fairly constant April through June, but dropped in August. Small trips are counted in the total number of trip starts, but have 8 or less people compaired to 32 folks on a concessions trip and 16 on a standard self guided trip. That ratio is fairly inbalanced. 

The next graph shows the number of available Small trips:

9 .........................................................Au
8………………Ap…..My….Jn…Jy 
6 
5 
4 
3
2
1
0 ...Ju... F...Mr...............................................S....O... N....D
----Ju--- F---Mr---Ap---My---Jn---Jy---Au---S---O---N---D


The extra trip in August may account for some of the drop in the demand for the August Small Trips. It may not. 

There are a few points we need to note in these graphs.

- This is only one years worth of data

- Contrary to other assertions, demand in April, May, September, and October does not outstrip the summer months. August was more popular than October, and more popular than even March. 

- It's obvious the access that self guided boaters have under the CRMP in no way corresponds to the current demand. 

- Of note is the high demand for the three Standard Trip dates just after the start of the motor free period starting September 15 of each year. 

So here's the bottom line. Real-world demand for summer trips is as great if not greater than during the Spring and Fall months. 

It should be noted that applicants in January and December had the fewest points to play the lottery with. 

That being the case, one might reasonably conclude the NPS launch calendar is out of compliance with self guided demand at present.

Have a great evening, Tom Martin

Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Lottery Numbers used for Graphs*

Hi Folks, here's the data I used to generate the graphs. It's from:

http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/Final_Lottery_2008_statistics.pdf

and looks like this:

January 

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 27
Small Sized Trip 0

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 70 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 70/27 = 3
Small Sized Trip 0

February

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 14
Small Sized Trip 0

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 130 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 130/14 = 9
Small Sized Trip 0

March

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 20
Small Sized Trip 0

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 900 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 900/20 = 45
Small Sized Trip 0

April

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 4
Small Sized Trip 8

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 733 
Small Sized Trip 321 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 733/4 = 183
Small Sized Trip 321/8 = 40

May

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 8
Small Sized Trip 8

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 1428 
Small Sized Trip 291 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 1428/8 = 179
Small Sized Trip 291/8 = 36

June

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 8
Small Sized Trip 8

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 1771 
Small Sized Trip 302 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 1771/8 = 221
Small Sized Trip 302/8 = 38

July

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 5 
Small Sized Trip 8 

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 744 
Small Sized Trip 99 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 744/5 = 149 
Small Sized Trip 99/8 = 33 

August

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 4 
Small Sized Trip 9 

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 473 
Small Sized Trip 126 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 473/4 = 118 
Small Sized Trip 126/9 = 14 

September

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 9 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 2301 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 2301/9 = 256 
Small Sized Trip 0

October 

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 10 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 1094 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 1094/10 = 109 
Small Sized Trip 0

November 

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip13 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 107 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 107/13 = 8 
Small Sized Trip 0

December

Number of Dates Available with Data
Standard Sized Trip 29 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Total Applications For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 64 
Small Sized Trip 0 

Average Applications Per Day For This Month
Standard Sized Trip 64/20 = 3 
Small Sized Trip 0

Yours, Tom
Tom martin
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

Thanks for putting so much work into those last posts. 

I suppose people by now have concluded that each of us can find numbers to support our position, so I'm not going to put them through another iteration of mind-numbing tabular material.

What I want to say as I close this out and hopefully get out of town for a few days is that RRFW and GCPBA have different goals, but perhaps they are not as far apart as it might seem. 

We both want wilderness. We both want access that doesn't impair wilderness values. We both want the Park to administer the system legally and fairly. 

The significant differences between us are not conceptual, but rather definitional and methodological.

GCPBA supports wilderness in the Grand Canyon -- what that means to us differs from what it means to you. And ironically, at some level that is a hollow issue, since the dam has already (and for the foreseeable future) removed its true wilderness qualities. 

We certainly want to pursue our goals with different methods than you. As the original plaintiffs who sued Park to get the CRMP ball rolling, the outcome is satisfactory to GCPBA for now. While it's not everything we asked for, the CRMP seems to have considered all the relevant issues in an adequate manner, and to meet as well as possible the widely diverse demands of the river community. So actively engaging in the litigation you filed to stop the plan is simply defending the gains we achieved in the original litigation.

And as an overall methodology, we think that right now cooperation in the CRMP's implementation, and preparation for fine-tuning it in the next planning cycle, are the way to go -- not confrontation and litigation. Absent some dramatic development, it seems wisest to let all the moving pieces of the CRMP work, figure out what the use patterns and impacts are, and put and necessary resources and effort into recalibrating in a few years. 

Hope you enjoy the Middle Fork. The Mississippi beckons...

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*You are most welcome*

Hi Rich, you are most welcome.

Explaining these issues and looking at the numbers without bias does take effort. The paddling community demands nothing less from us. 

Yes, by now there's enough supporting documentation out there for folks to make up their own minds.

In signing off, I agree with you that clearly, RRFW and GCPBA have different goals. 

These goals ARE conceptually different, as RRFW is seeking river wilderness protection, and GCPBA is not.

The river made the Canyon, and the Colorado River in Grand Canyon is not the first wilderness area with a dam upstream of it. Glen Canyon Dam is no reason NOT to manage the Colorado River in Grand Canyon for wilderness.

As to self guided paddler access, there's a conceptual difference here too. We at RRFW can find no justification for the present imbalanced allocation of 87% summertime concessionaire body count to 13% self guided body count on the river. The GCPBA is happy with it as it is, stating 50-50 allocation in user days is THE way to go.

Yes, we certainly want access that doesn't impair wilderness values, and we include impairment of the National Park river resource in that statement, while the GCPBA does not. 

Clearly, the outcome of the river plan, while satisfactory to GCPBA, is not for RRFW for all the reasons we stated: unjustifiable allocation, a lottery for self guided river runners they may never win verses real people booking real dates in the concessions arena, and lack of river corridor wilderness protection to name a few. 

The RRFW litigation is running concurrently with the CRMP. The RRFW litigation is intended to seek answers to the wilderness and allocation questions. The GCPBA is happy with the present CRMP for the next ten years and is attempting to block the RRFW litigation. End of story.

So, enjoy your travels, Yours as ever, Tom
Tom martin
Co-Director River Runners For Wilderness 
[email protected] moderator
Rafting Grand Canyon WIKI moderator
Main Page - Rafting Grand Canyon


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Once again I would like to thank both Tom and Rich for presenting their viewpoints to the few of us out here that have taken interest in this thread. This Winter, when the rivers are done running and my seasonal business slows to a crawl, I'd like to ask more questions and try and understand all this........stuff. 

For instance...........if you are a commercial guide going on a private trip, you should not be counted in the river day usage thing.........only the launch count like the concessionairs do. Commercial guides don't impact the place according to the science applied................which should include all commercial guides........not just the ones who are "on the clock."

We need to fair this thing up when the next round of talks start............ in about 10 years. 

Oh yea.....Rich......if I wanted to double down I bet I could find a way to do it. Others have. I've always thought of rafting down the Grand Canyon as Disneyland...........with a death factor. 

Remember......Disneyland was once just a dream too.........but can you imagine????


----------

