# Rec.gov Beef



## denali1322 (Jun 3, 2013)

Agreed completely. Not sure if rec.gov did this in prior years but these "reminder" emails are over the top. They don't even tailor the emails such that they only go to people that had a river permit before. They are sending them to *everyone* with a rec.gov account. I've been putting in applications for 2-3 rivers each year for 10 years and have never won a permit. I've seen the stats on how low my odds are. Do we really need to be inviting even more people to put in for a permit? The supply of permits is fixed and the demand already greatly exceeds that supply; thus increasing the demand is stupid. What serious boater doesn't know that the window ends on Jan 31.


----------



## theusualsuspect (Apr 11, 2014)

Your goals are to get a permit. Their goals are to maximize revenue. Those two things are, and will always be diametrically opposed.

tldr; it’s going to get worse not better.


----------



## sporkfromork (Dec 16, 2020)

Hopefully someone smart is doing this as a way to spike data for river users, and rivers in general. This year, instead of going to the secret free put in and lowering your boat in past the railroad tracks, really consider going to the official put in, paying for your yearly access tags, and where it says "purpose of visit" make sure you write "boating".


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

What theusualsuspect said, and all the new "Covid/Instagram outdoorspeople" will also make it worse

It's encouraging me to explore more shoulder season use.


----------



## jbolson (Apr 6, 2005)

Agreed, but there could be a silver lining.



Nanko said:


> I bet this subgroup is quantifiably more likely to cancel late or no-show.


More cancellations = more opportunities to boat for those that can make a trip happen fast


----------



## atg200 (Apr 24, 2007)

The one that got me was rec.gov pitching Dolores permits on facebook a week or two ago. Pure stupid money grab since there is pretty much no chance it'll run with this snowpack.


----------



## Grifgav (Jun 20, 2011)

jbolson said:


> Agreed, but there could be a silver lining.
> 
> 
> 
> More cancellations = more opportunities to boat for those that can make a trip happen fast


One of the main reasons I am looking forward to retiring from my job in a few years. The number of trips I get should go up dramatically.


----------



## DidNotWinLottery (Mar 6, 2018)

atg200 said:


> The one that got me was rec.gov pitching Dolores permits on facebook a week or two ago. Pure stupid money grab since there is pretty much no chance it'll run with this snowpack.


I know the preservationist around here ra, ra for Dolores permits. But if that happens you will NEVER see the river again. As amazing as it is, as often as it runs...add in permits and I wish you luck getting one. HORRIFIC idea.


----------



## nolichuck (Mar 11, 2010)

A number of years ago the Middle Fork Ranger Office sent an email to everyone who had ever had a permit wanting input on whether or not to adopt a lottery system similar to that of the grand canyon. I responded but never heard a word about the results of that survey. I can only assume that the majority of responses were not in favor. Why? I have friends who have been trying for 20 years and have never gotten a permit through the lottery. Just doesn't seem fair.


----------



## Nanko (Oct 20, 2020)

denali1322 said:


> The supply of permits is fixed and the demand already greatly exceeds that supply; thus increasing the demand is stupid.


Crux of the problem here. It’s a pretty generous business model we afford Rec.gov. Step 1: Send Email. Step 2: Cash. On the surface, electronic lotteries seem lucrative and easy to run. Seems like an initial public investment in software could yield steady income for river managers.



jbolson said:


> More cancellations = more opportunities to boat for those that can make a trip happen fast


The stupidity is working great for me too! My main issue is no-show potential and the usurping of what should be public money for resource management.



nolichuck said:


> whether or not to adopt a lottery system similar to that of the grand canyon.


Tons of good discussion in the archive from this time. Of course way fewer unused Grand permits, if any. I don’t know whether to attribute this to the lottery policies/ structure itself. Or is it just that a dedicated, 1-purpose system attracts a group more likely to follow through. Selfishly, I don’t want GC- style cancellation lotteries elsewhere. I can always work harder than the next guy for a permit, but I can’t get more lucky.


----------



## jbomb (Apr 10, 2015)

Years ago I was at a climbing comp and sitting next to a young dude who was chatting up the girl next to him and he said "My aunt works for rec.gov and she can hook me up with any reservation I want." Now, I know sometimes lies accidentally occur in the process of communication when you're trying to impress someone but it does bring the question, does rec.gov get audited or QA'd in any manner???


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

You’re not supposed to question the government or any of their contractors.


----------



## idahogiants (Aug 19, 2020)

jbomb said:


> Years ago I was at a climbing comp and sitting next to a young dude who was chatting up the girl next to him and he said "My aunt works for rec.gov and she can hook me up with any reservation I want." Now, I know sometimes lies accidentally occur in the process of communication when you're trying to impress someone but it does bring the question, does rec.gov get audited or QA'd in any manner???


I personally know someone that put in for a permit for March on the MF (which he got). Realizing his mistake he declared he had put in for July and it was a mistake by rec.gov and he had planned on the July date and had people flying in, etc.etc.

Complained hard enough they gave him a permit for July.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Rec.gov eerily reminds me of the 4 rivers lottery. Put in for MFS / Selway for 0ver 20 years, never won. A friend got a Selway permit 3 years in a row... Rec.gov, if you can get past the clunky and unintuitive interface, doesn't seem to work any better, as I still don't have a permit for anything. Article in the Denver post a few days back advised folks wanting to camp in state parks campgrounds etc to that the time to apply was now if they wanted any chance of getting a campground this summer. I'm betting the river permits will be exponentially harder to acquire. In the GC lottery before last, I recall reading a post that there was something like 6000 applications for 60 permits. It's not rec.,gov, but it sure is an indicator of hoards of boaters applying for a limited number of permits.


----------



## sporkfromork (Dec 16, 2020)

Guys. A little alternate perspective about what is actually happening in the world to help consider the big picture when you decide to feel selfish about permits:

Coal and gas trains potentially coming back to Brown’s Canyon
A gold mine potentially right in the middle of the South Salmon
EJ leaving Jackson Kayaks and the company turning into Jackson Outdoors, rumors of whitewater brands being phased out
Dagger being bought by Pelican, rumors of whitewater brands being phased out
Werner paddles not making paddles for 6 months, other boat manufacturers and retailers struggling to profit from whitewater rafting and kayaking, extremely low margins for retailers and manufacturers
Classic runs around the world in the process of being dammed, thinking Zambezi in particular
Boaters being denied access to classic runs like Dowd Chute because of new (very stupid) Colorado Fish and Wildlife policies
Clear Creek being shut down last spring due to ignorance of local authorities about the self reliance of boaters and their ability to self rescue
Recreational boating considered dead last when agencies make decisions about allocating water, resources, and access in Colorado and many other places
I like that paddling is still less mainstream than skiing, cycling, and even climbing now, but whether or not that extra permit money goes directly to boating related causes, we need the numbers for this sport and these river sections to survive long term. Increased statistics related to boater activities is exactly what we need to have a better seat at the table.

Look at cycling, look at climbing, they have durable coalitions within government and conservation agencies, way more so than boaters. This comes down to numbers and also decades of reaching out to authorities to see how they can improve their situations. Not whining that outsiders get all the permits or going online to complain from a place of ignorance or throw agencies and rangers under the bus.

Every one of my friends constantly complains about how they “never get a permit”, but all of those same people have run Gates and Yampa and Middle Salmon and Selway multiple times.


----------



## sporkfromork (Dec 16, 2020)

I wonder how many of the people on here complaint are not American Whitewater contributing members


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

sporkfromork said:


> I wonder how many of the people on here complaint are not American Whitewater contributing members


American Whitewater? What does that have to do with anything? Just curious...


----------



## sporkfromork (Dec 16, 2020)

MNichols said:


> American Whitewater? What does that have to do with anything? Just curious...


They are the major organization in the US that is able to take the ideas of a bunch of river-dads trolling each other on Mountain Buzz, consolidate them into the most resounding needs of the paddling community, and advocate on behalf of boaters to policy makers and legislators that might be able to influence the way Rec.gov makes decisions


----------



## denali1322 (Jun 3, 2013)

sporkfromork said:


> we need the numbers for this sport and these river sections to survive long term


Not following your point. Are you suggesting we need even more people wanting to run these river sections for them to survive? They've survived just fine for decades without these new, bizarre marketing tactics by rec.gov. Odds of winning a MF or Main permit are 2% already. I'm fine with more people getting into the sport in general, just opposed to rec.gov targeting people to put in for permits that aren't experienced boaters. If they had sent reminders to people that had applied for permits in prior years, that would have made more sense. However, I have a buddy that uses rec.gov for camping and has never floated a river in his life that got these reminders. That makes little sense.

I do agree that there might be a small silver lining in that there may be more cancellations this year if the lotteries are won by people with no experience or who lack a strong desire to do this. Love me the cancellations! - it's the only way I've ever gotten a permit.


----------



## sporkfromork (Dec 16, 2020)

denali1322 said:


> Not following your point. Are you suggesting we need even more people wanting to run these river sections for them to survive? They've survived just fine for decades without these new, bizarre marketing tactics by rec.gov


Yeah, you’re right about that. My point is that boaters don’t have a very influencial voice compared to other user groups, so if you look at the bigger long term picture, having any kind of spike in boater statistics is not a bad thing. In the eyes of policy makers who don’t know the first thing about rafting or kayaking, this is definitely a spike


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

sporkfromork said:


> They are the major organization in the US that is able to take the ideas of a bunch of river-dads trolling each other on Mountain Buzz, consolidate them into the most resounding needs of the paddling community, and advocate on behalf of boaters to policy makers and legislators that might be able to influence the way Rec.gov makes decisions


I'm aware of what they do, I am a member, but they don't generally take up things like "I'm not happy with the way rec.gov works" (or doesn't work)... 

From their mission statement:
The organization is the primary advocate for the preservation and protection of whitewater rivers throughout the United States, and connects the interests of human-powered recreational river users with ecological and science-based data to achieve the goals within its mission. 

If you were looking for some advocacy for taking down a dam, they would be your go to organization..


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

sporkfromork said:


> 8. Boaters being denied access to classic runs like Dowd Chute because of new (very stupid) Colorado Fish and Wildlife policies


When can’t we run the chute?


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

I think he's likely talking about the fact that you now need a hunting or fishing license to access any CPW lands


----------



## sporkfromork (Dec 16, 2020)

kayakfreakus said:


> When can’t we run the chute?


Last summer there were signs at put in and take out that said something along the lines of “Access for Fishing and Hunting Only, Access for Other Activities is Prohibited”. This is what I can find now, which is not as hard lined as that signage:






American Whitewater


The primary advocate for the preservation and protection of whitewater rivers throughout the United States and connects the interests of human-powered recreational river users with ecological and science-based data to achieve goals within our mission.




www.americanwhitewater.org


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

sporkfromork said:


> Last summer there were signs at put in and take out that said something along the lines of “Access for Fishing and Hunting Only, Access for Other Activities is Prohibited”. This is what I can find now, which is not as hard lined as that signage:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bingo.. I wouldn't expect it to be around for too long, there's huge kickback about it from local groups here on the Arkansas


----------



## sporkfromork (Dec 16, 2020)

Finally we agree on something 😂


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

sporkfromork said:


> Finally we agree on something 😂


LOL, yes, indeed


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

sporkfromork said:


> Guys. A little alternate perspective about what is actually happening in the world to help consider the big picture when you decide to feel selfish about permits:
> 
> I like that paddling is still less mainstream than skiing, cycling, and even climbing now, but whether or not that extra permit money goes directly to boating related causes, we need the numbers for this sport and these river sections to survive long term. Increased statistics related to boater activities is exactly what we need to have a better seat at the table.
> 
> Look at cycling, look at climbing, they have durable coalitions within government and conservation agencies, way more so than boaters. This comes down to numbers and also decades of reaching out to authorities to see how they can improve their situations. Not whining that outsiders get all the permits or going online to complain from a place of ignorance or throw agencies and rangers under the bus.


These are great points. 

I would add, however, that one of the challenges with whitewater is we really can't add trails like they can with hiking and biking, or new routes, like with climbing. We kind of have what we have. Many of our runs are prohibited by some combination of weather/season, access, difficulty, flow, permitting, etc. There are also the visitor impacts we should consider. 

The South Fork Salmon will be an interesting litmus test for this. It is one of the rivers you alluded to. More interest in the SFS helps our cause against the Midas Gold project. However, the SFS is relatively accessible and doesn't have a permit, and the number of people running this gem is increasing pretty heavily. High spring flows will always keep most boaters away because of the difficulty, but those flows below 3' and we are seeing a lot of use. Eventually we'll see required permits for the SFS, and perhaps even a lottery. 

So its a balance. We do have to grow interest in the sport, but we should be careful growing it too much that we lose the very things that make it so special.


----------



## Jakesktm (Oct 29, 2019)

Nanko said:


> Preemptive whining from inevitable lottery loser, here..
> 
> Obviously the easier the process, the more the entries. I can wish but know that it is not realistic to revert to more primitive application means. The increased interest in boating overall makes individual odds bad, but aids access and resource protection. Way more important. There are many acceptable and good reasons for perpetually-declining lottery odds.
> 
> ...


*Simple solution*: The person named on the permit must show up at the put-in with a boat. They must rig that boat entirely on their own, ferry that boat across the river and back on their own, return to shore and rig a Z drag on their own in order to validate the permit. No more warm body permit holders!!


----------



## sporkfromork (Dec 16, 2020)

Jakesktm said:


> *Simple solution*: The person named on the permit must show up at the put-in with a boat. They must rig that boat entirely on their own, ferry that boat across the river and back on their own, return to shore and rig a Z drag on their own in order to validate the permit. No more warm body permit holders!!


By your logic the rangers should all get the first permits, and people who own farms should own the river next to their farm since boaters are not actively using the water as well as they are, and companies who want to build a mine should be able to mine because farmers are not maximizing the financial viability of the land.

You are talking about user-days in public land, which are more than 50% passengers. So you have stupid passengers to thank for your ability to even go boating.


----------



## Jakesktm (Oct 29, 2019)

sporkfromork said:


> By your logic the rangers should all get the first permits, and people who own farms should own the river next to their farm since boaters are not actively using the water as well as they are, and companies who want to build a mine should be able to mine because farmers are not maximizing the financial viability of the land.
> 
> You are talking about user-days in public land, which are more than 50% passengers. So you have stupid passengers to thank for your ability to even go boating.


How many people did you get to apply for permits? 😅


----------



## sporkfromork (Dec 16, 2020)

Jakesktm said:


> How many people did you get to apply for permits? 😅


tons. we all lost


----------



## NoCo (Jul 21, 2009)

Am I the only one who sees that if you want a garunteed permit you need to be with a commercial outfit. I think they should be applying for permits in the lottery with us. I know they pay a lot for their permits but is it 300k plus like was collected from us for just our entries. Maybe im just but hurt again.


----------



## Rightoarleft (Feb 5, 2021)

This whole conversation is depressing. Makes me want to sell my boats and take up backpacking. Oh wait, most of the good trails are by permit only and you guessed it, managed by lottery.

You will find this same discussion on backpacking forums. Wilderness areas are being restricted left and right. No win a permit, no walk in the woods. 

Government agencies are required by law to promote their services to the public, and this includes managing the visitation of public lands. Promote, restrict, and make you pay for the service. Everything is working as intended.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

NoCo said:


> Am I the only one who sees that if you want a garunteed permit you need to be with a commercial outfit. I think they should be applying for permits in the lottery with us.


The Deschutes and Illinois rivers in OR are common pool rivers, with the Rogue use is split down the middle. The Lower Deschutes River in Oregon uses a common pool for both commercial and private uses. (possibly the John Day River as well). You could check the CRMP EIS where there may possibly be a discussion about why, but my recollection was that the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs (co-administrators of the WSR) were in favor of the common pool approach rather than a set allocation split because it seemed a more equitable approach for users, allowing more of a choice about whether to use an outfitter/guide service.

Allocation systems are usually complex, and specific choices about variables—such as choosing for or against a common pool--can have major impacts, one reason I suspect that there aren't more rivers using it. Every time a stakeholder sees that there might be changes to a RMP that could affect them, expect them to take a major interest.


----------



## Jakesktm (Oct 29, 2019)

MNichols said:


> The Deschutes and Illinois rivers in OR are common pool rivers, with the Rogue use is split down the middle. The Lower Deschutes River in Oregon uses a common pool for both commercial and private uses. (possibly the John Day River as well). You could check the CRMP EIS where there may possibly be a discussion about why, but my recollection was that the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs (co-administrators of the WSR) were in favor of the common pool approach rather than a set allocation split because it seemed a more equitable approach for users, allowing more of a choice about whether to use an outfitter/guide service.
> 
> Allocation systems are usually complex, and specific choices about variables—such as choosing for or against a common pool--can have major impacts, one reason I suspect that there aren't more rivers using it. Every time a stakeholder sees that there might be changes to a RMP that could affect them, expect them to take a major interest.


The OR rivers have the added protection from fishery interests. I suspect if some of our favorite rivers were bigger fisheries we would see a much different allocation system.

I have guided the Deschutes commercially for fishing trips and whitewater multidays (not popular). Frankly the common pool works better because it accommodates high demand (such as in Spring and Fall on the Deschutes). Also, after doing that river several times, I am over it except for an occasional day fishing trip.

I would venture to guess if some of our most beloved rivers were opened up more, it would facilitate the one-trip-and-over-it folks who clog up the lotteries and also give repeaters some extra trips to satisfy that itch before they move on to other rivers or hang up the lifevests in favor of another pursuit. I don't believe there are that many die hard lifetime boaters amongst the masses. 

If all the rivers were common pool we would see a return to more manageable allocations and use, and much less litigation. As it stands, access is virtually being blocked and seems to be getting impossible for most. That is contrary to the intent of public access and puts the allocation system at risk of being tied up in courts etc. Dams ultimately become undermined.


----------

