# Senate Bills 1229 and 1874?



## JC5921 (Apr 27, 2012)

raferguson1 said:


> Someone forwarded me an email from Tom Martin, at River Runners for Wilderness, urging us to oppose Senate Bills 1229 and 1874. The email said that these bills could enable commercial outfitters to obtain more permits, squeezing out private boaters.
> 
> Curiously, the web site for River Runners for Wilderness does not mention this bill, and a search for info on the bills only produced the text of the bill, not commentary on the bill. The bill I looked at does have to do with commercial permits for access to public lands.
> 
> ...


I watched the hearing. It was a bunch of clueless senators drooling over a blonde lobbyist for outfitters. Tried to read the bill and it's a lot of strike line 21 of law 804b. I think an email telling the senators that permits for outfitters and permits for private users are different and we should be considered is worth the 2 minutes.


----------



## NoCo (Jul 21, 2009)

I attempted to read the link Tom provided on Facebook Arkansas River people. I am clueless to what any of this means. I'd be interested in what the grand canyon private boaters think of it. AW represents all of us so there opinion may be skewed.


----------



## PoppyOscar (Jul 8, 2012)

Here you go....

"From: Tom Martin, Co-director at River Runners for Wilderness.



RRFW Riverwire – *Speak Up Or Kiss Your Access Goodbye*

December 1, 2021

You may have noticed access to your federal lands is becoming a lot harder. Trailhead parking is packed, river put-ins are overcrowded, and competition for scarce permits is fierce.

In August of this year, Grand Canyon National Park held a lottery for 12 do-it-yourself river trips to raft through the Grand Canyon. There were 965 lottery applications for these 12 permits.

The US Forest Service held the annual Four Rivers lottery for do-it-yourself permits to boat the Selway, Hells Canyon, the Middle Fork and Main Salmon last December. Over 56,000 lottery applications were submitted for under 700 family rafting opportunities.

The private tour companies that make up the outfitting and guiding industry have noticed this too. Some of them are trying to get out ahead of the general do-it-yourself public with special interest legislation to guarantee their access at the expense of yours.

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing tomorrow, Thursday, December 2, 2021. It will be possible to watch the hearing live starting at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time at the following website:

https://www.energy.senate.gov/live-webcast

This hearing opens a two-week public comment period from December 2, 2021 to December 14, 2021. If you recreate on federal lands, your comments are much needed!

This hearing will cover two very similar pieces of legislation that would allow unlimited special use permits for private tour company outfitting and guiding and include areas that already have previously established allocations of use.

The first bill, S. 1229, introduced by New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich, is called the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation (SOAR) Act. It seeks to change how long-term special recreation permits are issued on National Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and National Wildlife Refuge lands.

The second bill, S. 1874, introduced by Oregon’s Senator Ron Wyden, is slyly called the Recreation not Red Tape Act and is geared to promote outdoor recreation businesses and tourism by expanding shoulder season guided tour recreation among other things.

Both bills do absolutely nothing to assure access for do-it-yourself recreational users. Once access ceilings are reached by the outfitted groups, there will be no access remaining for the do-it-yourself public. The bills both state “If additional use capacity is available, the Secretary may, at any time, assign the remaining use to 1 or more qualified recreation service providers.” To repeat: both bills reserve zero access for do-it-yourself visitors to federal lands.

One has to wonder what older established tour companies with known safety records and guaranteed allocations think about the huge increase in competition this legislation would unleash. It is unclear how they would compete without their protected markets with limited entry, agency established price fixing, and protection from new competitors. This legislation also has the potential to move their unused user days to “potential permitees.”

The bills dictate that the fees generated by commercial clients can only be used to process the permits and improvement of the operation of the special recreation permit system. This would be a critical loss of funding for toilets, pumping of said toilets, trail maintenance, equipment purchases, etc.

Language in both bills states “the Secretary concerned shall not conduct a needs assessment as a condition of issuing a special recreation permit for a public land unit under this Act.” This means the agency is forbidden to check if the permit is needed or warranted in the proposed area based on actual use, current events, do-it-yourself public demand, or agency needs.

These bills both require the federal land agencies to incorporate categorical exclusions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) designed to “reduce processing times or costs for the issuance or renewal of special recreation permits.” This bypasses the need to establish carrying capacities for special recreation permits.

Anything that diminishes the NEPA process diminishes the do-it-yourself public’s voice when it comes to reviewing the need for new commercial permits. In fact, the bills require that once an application is received, the permit will need to be issued within 60 days. Current regulations require agencies to consider the public interest served. This bill assumes the private tour company is the only interest to be served, and served at a discount! The bills state that applicants for these permits don't have to pay for any of the service hours and resources they consume for the first 50 hours of agency time consumed.

These bills note that agencies may assign additional use capacity to an existing private tour company even if that assignment would exceed the amount of use already allocated to the company. This would allow private tour companies to ask for as many user days as they want.

Excluding National Park Service lands, both bills cap fees returned to the Government at “3 percent of the annual gross revenue of the recreation service.” Under current policy, the 3% is set as the minimum the agency may charge. Locking it in by statute is a bad plan and is equivalent to grazing fees and mineral lease fees that are locked in at ridiculously low prices.

Supporters of the legislation claim the bills are to help at-risk populations who require a guide to gain access to federal lands. Regardless, these bills allow a private tour company that received a permit based on serving underserved communities to decide only one year in to change over to cater to high-end clients.

For an announcement on the hearings, click hear:

https://www.energy.senate.gov/.../full-committee-hearing...

The full text of the SOAR Act, S. 1229, is here:

https://www.congress.gov/.../117th.../senate-bill/1229/text

The full text of the Recreation Not Red Tape Act, S. 1874, is here:

https://www.congress.gov/.../117th.../senate-bill/1874/text

Comments must include the bill numbers (S. 1229 and S. 1874) as well as your name and address. You can email your comments directly to the Committee at

[email protected]

using the subject line:

December 2, 2021, Energy and Natural Resources Hearing Comments

But you only have two weeks to comment after December 2, 2021. That’s no later than Thursday, December 16, 2021.

What you might want to say:

Include that you recreate on federal lands without guided and outfitted services, that you are aware that federal land recreation is skyrocketing, and getting permits is harder and harder.

Mention you are aware of S. 1229 and S. 1874 and that you do not support these bills that give away your federal land access to for-profit companies.

Point out that S. 1229 and S. 1874 must include safeguards to protect do-it-yourself recreational access to federal lands free of the use of private tour companies.

State that outfitting and guiding on federal land should not have categorical exclusion protection from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and that the level of NEPA used should fit the nature and scale of the decision to be made.

Demand that these bills require a NEPA Needs Assessment for every new Special Use Permit and must consider resource protection, how many private tour companies will be allowed, how much use they will get, where will their use be, and what are the forecasts for expanding noncommercial use. State that removing this tool removes protections to federal lands and removes your voice from the management of your federal lands.

Mention that language in S. 1229 and S. 1874 must not assign additional use capacity to private tour companies. That’s your and your families access these bills are giving away.

Be polite but stand up for your access to your federal lands.

Special note: If you are so inclined, you should also email your Senators with your concerns about this legislation. You can find your Senators here:

https://www.senate.gov/senators/

You have a choice. Do nothing and give away your do-it-ourself access to federal lands, or you can comment about this giveaway. You can also tell your friends and please share this Riverwire far and wide!"


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

Tom Martin's commentary is not a correct analysis of these bills. American Whitewater has been involved in both of these bills and is very supportive of them. Here is an article by Tom O'Keefe at American Whitewater that summarizes them:





__





Legislation to Prioritize Outdoor Recreation on Public Lands


Introduction




medium.com





There is nothing in these bills that decreases non-commercial use.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

zcollier said:


> Tom Martin's commentary is not a correct analysis of these bills.


This is typical of Tom''s postings, voluminous that they are, rarely does a person obtain the correct message or perspective from his postings, which are by design cherry picked tidbits filtered thru the Tom Martin "lens".. 

I remember back in the day when he was attempting to have the commercial outfitters removed from Grand Canyon, someone named RRFW the "Righteous Radical Fanatical Whacko's".. Amazes me that John Weisheit still lends his name to the org. Asked him once on the Westwater ramp, and his answer was evasive, he really didn't want to talk about it.. 

While I don't subscribe to Facebook as anything even close to resembling a reliable source for anything other than goofy cat videos, I think in my heart that Tom means well, but it always pays to research anything he says...


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Tom is pretty single minded about reducing or eliminating any commercial activity on rivers and wilderness in general even if a commercial organization provides a lot of benefits and provides access to those who can't make it happen themselves. He is obviously very passionate about it and can be commended for that. His ability to work with others, whether they are on his side or the opposition, could use a lot of work. At least for the Grand Canyon, it seems to me that could also be said for many other individuals and organizations since they seem to do as much fighting amongst themselves as they do actual advocacy work.

It is certain that representation for private DIY users is insufficient. I can see how Tom's hackles are up over this, since it gives easier access to commercial organizations without acknowledging the private DIY user for those permits. Lobbyist groups for commercial outfitters have much more funding and singular voice compared to private users. I have no idea how to get private users to unite...but it feels like that is what is needed. Plenty of advocacy organizations, but mostly grassroots style and not a unified front with a ton of backing like a lot of the commercial advocacy groups.


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> It is certain that representation for private DIY users is insufficient.


American Whitewater is a national organization that represents private boaters. They are a wonderful organization and very effective. I would encourage all paddlers to be members of American Whitewater and consider being actively involved. It's just $35 to join and can be done here:



https://membership.americanwhitewater.org/s/lightningmembership



As I mentioned above, American Whitewater has been actively involved in this bill and is fully supportive.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

zcollier said:


> American Whitewater is a national organization that represents private boaters. They are a wonderful organization..


A problem I have with American Whitewater, and yes, I am a member, is they don't always represent the interests of private boaters, at least not to my liking. I don't know that I would call them wonderful...

Many times they end up representing their own interests, again in my opinion. Never once have I received a poll from the organization to see what it might be that's on my mind. A whole bunch of assuming going on on their part. 

I understand it's onerous to represent everyone, but it seems more and more they are championing what they think we want, instead of what we actually might want.

Their efforts in many instances are better than nothing, and for that I am thankful.. They certainly represent my interests a whole lot better than RRFW does, but then I was the secretary of the GCPBA for some nine odd years when we sued the national Park service to restart work on the CRMP.. Contentious times back then..


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

To refresh memories, years ago, AW worked on the Colorado River Management Plan as well, in the direct interest of private boaters.

But as a matter of perspective, AW has nationwide scope. Its ability to engage on every issue, to advocate for every river, and to adequately represent the interests of a highly diverse private boating universe, is necessarily limited.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

American Whitewater is a member driven non-profit with this mission:

"As a national river conservation nonprofit, our mission is *to protect and restore America's whitewater rivers and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely*."

They will work on things their members want them to work on as long as it serves this mission.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Keep in mind the the clients of commercial outfitters have a right to see these wild and beautiful places too, which is why permits exist. Just because they don't have the equipment or skills, doesn't mean they aren't a tax paying and deserving user group.


----------



## nolichuck (Mar 11, 2010)

Randaddy said:


> Keep in mind the the clients of commercial outfitters have a right to see these wild and beautiful places too, which is why permits exist. Just because they don't have the equipment or skills, doesn't mean they aren't a tax paying and deserving user group.


I agree with what you are saying; however, I have friends who have been trying unsuccessfully for more than 25 years to land a Middle Fork permit. They cannot afford to join a commercial trip but probably wouldn't anyway. But anyone who has the means can go on a commercial trip pretty much whenever they want to. IMHO, there needs to be a few more private trips available in the lottery and a few less commercial trips. I realize this is wishful thinking but it has become obvious that something needs to be done to make things a little more fair for private boaters.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

I gave up trying to get a middle fork permit after 23 years, I know precisely what you're talking about. This has been one of Tom Martin's points for many many years regurgitated over and over and over again, but a very salient point. 

One of the things that managing agencies look at, is the size of the user groups. Yes, there is a component of build it and they will come to this, but there are many more people who don't have the desire ability or money to invest $10,000 plus into their own rig, and then learn to row it, versus the hundreds of thousands of people that will plunk down a grand or more to go in a trip with a commercial outfitter. Couple all this with the fact that the commercial outfitters pay a part of the fee they charge to the managing agency, which supports the managing agencies efforts, and it becomes rapidly apparent that the commercial outfitters aren't going anywhere. I do agree, and more so these days, with the inequity of thousands of people vying for very few private permits, while Joe public can pretty much go buy a commercial trip tomorrow. 

Over the 40 years I've been boating, very little has changed, and actually gotten worse with the introduction of wreck.gov. The competition for private permits was never this bad before wreck.gov forced itself via the federal government, on the managing agencies which are all generally either USDA, or USDOI, the forest service, and the BLM respectively..

I spent many years with many different agencies, both on the managing side, and the private side, it's definitely a delicate balancing act to be sure, for the managing agency. I wish there was a simple solution to this, but with all the efforts of AW, GCPBA, and many of the other private boater advocacy groups, CWWA here in Colorado for one, very little has changed over the years despite lawsuits and such... 

It's definitely an uphill battle for the little guy, if more private boaters actually got involved and commented substantive comments to the managing agencies, it might make a small difference, but a wide-ranging change, especially one overnight in my opinion is unlikely to happen....


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

nolichuck said:


> I agree with what you are saying; however, I have friends who have been trying unsuccessfully for more than 25 years to land a Middle Fork permit. They cannot afford to join a commercial trip but probably wouldn't anyway. But anyone who has the means can go on a commercial trip pretty much whenever they want to. IMHO, there needs to be a few more private trips available in the lottery and a few less commercial trips. I realize this is wishful thinking but it has become obvious that something needs to be done to make things a little more fair for private boaters.


Trying for 25 years and they can't put together the money for a one-time outfitted trip? You can pay an outfitter and still row usually, if you're capable. 

I private boat and guide and I'd love to see more access for private boaters on some of these stretches. However, to do so means to take away trips from the rest of the American public, which is hard for me to agree with. 

For example, I work on the Arkansas and there is talk of private permitting and overnight permitting in the future. This is because above all we have to limit use to some extent to protect resources (I think most of us agree on that). People are up in arms and frequently suggest reducing outfitter numbers. But does someone who owns a raft have more right to experience Browns Canyon than that family from Texas? Sure, I'd rather hang out on the river with you, but Buck Dallas and family probably pay three times the tax you do and have every right to have a chance at accessing wild and remote areas with the services of a guide. Guided exploration is absolutely in the spirit of the U.S. and has a deep history and legal precedent as representative of the equitable and safe way for people to explore America. 

If you compare outfitter permits to private permits, then compare private boaters to non-boating Americans, you might find that the private boaters get a disproportionately large amount of access by comparison. 

If you were to review my past posts about this you might find my position has evolved. I thank good rangers like Frank Sellers at the NPS in West Virginia for pushing me toward appreciation of the right of all people to see these places, whether on their own, or guided.


----------



## jbomb (Apr 10, 2015)

Randaddy said:


> Trying for 25 years and they can't put together the money for a one-time outfitted trip? You can pay an outfitter and still row usually, if you're capable.
> 
> I private boat and guide and I'd love to see more access for private boaters on some of these stretches. However, to do so means to take away trips from the rest of the American public, which is hard for me to agree with.
> 
> ...


Can't agree that giving a for-profit company guaranteed access to turn around and sell to the public is a fair way to distribute a limited publicly-owned resource. 

The fair way would be to make the trip member win the permit and let them charter a guide for their trip if they want.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Demand assessment was a real issue and stumbling block during the runup to the CRMP.

There seemed to be no way to identify an affordable method of isolating a representative cross section of the public to survey, much less formulating unbiased questions that gave useful answers across a variety of demographics and user categories. Hence, no contemporary research was ever done on the demand issue with respect to boating the Grand.

I would expect similar problems in any effort to assess demand on other rivers as well.

Rich


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

jbomb said:


> Can't agree that giving a for-profit company guaranteed access to turn around and sell to the public is a fair way to distribute a limited publicly-owned resource.
> 
> The fair way would be to make the trip member win the permit and let them charter a guide for their trip if they want.


Agreed, in a perfect world, but to change that now might mean dismantling existing businesses, or at least restructuring them. I'd possibly support a long-term revision toward this goal, but probably not in a tough economy. Outfitters were allowed to open, have employees and commitments, and can't just suffer the instant loss of revenue while the boating world adapts to a new system.


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

I was a guide for a little while but didn't really like it at the end of the day...Maybe that's just my experience though. I do have to say most of them do it because it's "cool" for Instagram or TikTok. They had no idea about the place and use it more as a quick fix to look and "feel" grounded and unique with nature. The rivers aren't the only places affected by this either. I absolutely love the outdoors. It's my home away from home, and I want to share that with others as well. But let's be honest with ourselves here. It's public land. Private boaters should have over the top vast majority on permits. When you lock the gates to the kingdom it's not really public access, is it? Most of these issues we have with overuse are people who just don't understand the concept of LNT. This is an issue again beyond the river.. If they did we wouldn't have these issues, because we could move a large number of people through and you won't notice. National Parks are a joke too...You can't tell me straight to my face that Roosevelt would be proud of what they are today...You literally turned Zion into Disney Land in the mountains...The same thing is happening to the rivers. Look at what happened to Ruby, Now it's gonna be the Gunnison through Dominguez-Escalante. There are no free rivers anymore. Might as well sell your gear and buy a guided trip. The companies arent going anywhere, they are just gonna get bigger.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

One thing that lots of folks don't seem consider when they talk about reopening the management systems that divvy up the commercial and private allocation: What if the new allocation systems took allocation away from the private (or "DIY") boaters and handed even more allocation to the outfitters? In today's pro-business political climate, this is very easy for me to imagine.

Seriously, the private permit systems require a LOT of effort (thus $$) to manage whereas the commercial outfitters handle all their permits and fees in bulk, have streamlined launch and takeout procedures, and generally do a good job with campsite and resource protection. Private boaters can be a real shitshow on the ramps, require permits for every single trip, and don't always do a good job in camp.

Would you rather deal with 10 customers paying you $100,000 total, or 1000 customers paying you $100 each?


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

My fear of having commercial passengers get permits first and then shop around for an outfitter is....

Would it be the same pool of permits? Could someone without skills or equipment be competing with folks who can run a trip? How many people does a winner get to bring? Do private trips have to be run only with individuals who won a permit? Talk about a shit show. 

I think equity could be looked at it if the odds of joining a commercial trip in X years was similar to the odds of joining a private trip. But then what are my actual odds of getting on a private trip? A majority of the private trips I've been on weren't on my permit. I had a long stretch of time when I kept thinking, "I will run lower Owyhee next year or some other year because I only have so much vacation time, and I just got invited on a trip that requires a lottery-based permit." Years. I finally went; glad I did. I did some other rivers that year too. But if you sort of look at odds that way, there's only been a few years when I didn't get on SOME river that requires a permit. Yes, it was often "just the Rogue," but still. 

Then if I think the other way, if I said, "I want to run the Middle Salmon in the next two years," my odds of going on THAT river, especially if I had desired dates, are very small. But I could for sure book a trip on a commercial trip if I had the money. So that part for sure isn't equitable. Instead I apply for many lotteries. If I were fortunate (unfortunate) enough to win them all the same year, there's no way I could do them all. I think equity could be improved if lucky folks can turn permits back in quickly and they would just push the "go" button again on the lottery at the contractor who's name shall not be mentioned among the entries who had not won a permit for that river. That could get run iteratively for several weeks until lottery entrants have multiple chances to pick up the permits that can't be used. 

If nothing else, follow up lotteries should be available like GCNP does. Once you enter, you're paid. It can't take much extra resources for someone to push a button to re-run a lottery.

Good luck getting your desired 2022 permits. Don't apply for the date's I'm applying for


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

I don't know... while I've never won a Middle Fork permit(or any permit during a primary lottery)... I've been down it like 5 times in the last 4 years or so. A friend of mine who is vigilant about checking for cancellations has pulled multiple trips in June. I've managed to get a few cancellations or permits on first come first serve permitted rivers but its not a ton. I have a bunch of river friends from varied groups and manage to get plenty of trips. My first Grand trip was in 2016 and I've gone every year since... but it took being willing to roll the dice on strangers. I mostly came out ahead on that and actually had more drama on trips where I knew people then the "internet rando" trips.

Suffice to say that its still possible to do a bunch of trips each year...you just have to be strategic, flexible and have trust in fellow river runners to do you right.

All that said... lots of stuff wrong with permit systems. Number one problem is more and more people applying though...and its not gonna get any better. Try to buy a new raft right now and see how soon you'll actually be able to get it. Sure, there are some supply chain and shipping problems, but EVERY one of the raft manufacturers is seeing unprecedented demand for rafting gear right now. They are having a harder to time getting stuff...but they are also selling more stuff then they ever have. More people wanting to go is just a thing now and I don't foresee it getting any better.

Andy mentioned the possibility of private/DIY permits being reallocated. As far as I can tell...the number one reason that might happen is due to lack of representation for the needs and desires of the private boater when there are plenty of advocates from the commercial operations on most permitted rivers. Sure, AW does a great job working on access and river health, but as we've said it often works with commercial users as well and because of that they may or may not advocate as vigorously for the DIY user when that happens. They are also a national, or even international, organization and have to contend with problems all over the country so may not be able to focus in on every specific permit issue. They do a great job and I love the organization and everyone should support them...but I'll stick with my statement saying that advocacy for the Private/DIY boater is insufficient. We need more amazing organizations like them, but with a specific mandate to advocate passionately and intelligently for us private boaters exclusively.

It occurred to me as I was writing the above, that perhaps creating a national (or international) private whitewater boaters coalition that covers the whole country but has local chapters that focus in on individual rivers might be the way to go. A united front with full time lawyers and lobbyists at the head, but local supporters doing the footwork. This coalition could either work with organizations that have already been created and work on the issues or create new chapters to work on it. I just think that all these smaller individual advocacy groups, while they do the best job they can most of the time, don't really have the clout that a commercial outfitters associations have. Bringing all of those small, grassroots style advocacy groups under one umbrella might be a great way to go. Not easy and I'm sure there would be a lot of disagreements among them...but also a lot more force behind them as well.


----------



## Teddy Brewsevelt (Jan 29, 2015)

jbomb said:


> The fair way would be to make the trip member win the permit and let them charter a guide for their trip if they want.


That's the option I keep coming back to. It's brutal on guiding operations because it removes any certainty, making it difficult to predict staffing and equipment needs. However, this is how public land guided hunting is done in North America; you have to draw the tag before you can hunt. I'm sure there's lots of people who would love to pay big bucks to harvest a bison, but it's not an option on public land. I'm not much it would offset the feeding frenzy for permits though. Adding at least some of the guided trip clients would just keep depressing draw odds.


----------

