# Ruby-Horsethief Fee Season



## ric (Apr 12, 2004)

*rangers on the river*

Yes, love to see more river ranger presence.
I was high above Black rocks on Saturday 12/9/17, heard some firearms going off up river. Five minutes later Blue raft/2pp purple cat/2pp and small yellow packraft/1pp came around corner, with the blue raft ground squatting geese on the beach !!! Is this legal to shoot from rafts ? in this area ? They camped at BLK RKS 7


----------



## chuckd (Nov 25, 2014)

Yes you can cast and blast turkeys,ducks and geese! Believe it or not but your aloud to shoot drones too they are illegal!! This goes for Westwater too you are aloud to carry and shoot guns but no drones!


----------



## ric (Apr 12, 2004)

*Mighting White Hunters...*

Well that figures, of course you can float down the river and ground splatttt geese from your raft, great sport, you don't even have to wake them up first..


----------



## Flaco (Nov 18, 2014)

Hi Alex,

I'm from Montrose and float that stretch often. Extending the season seems fine. 

Ken


----------



## climbdenali (Apr 2, 2006)

I support greater ranger presence, and if a lengthened season comes along with it, then so be it. Especially if it would include some type of pre-launch check to avoid the type of clowns we saw down there last summer, PADDLING an aluminum john boat, a pool raft as trailer, and an overloaded canoe that they damn near sunk coming through BR. I rowed out to them and hauled them to shore, or else they'd have floated right on down to Cisco. Their shit was everywhere. I'm pretty sure they wound up with a ticket (for violating the fire ban), but it would've been better for them not to have been on the river in the first place. Grossly unprepared.

It wouldn't have to be a super in-depth Grand Canyon type check and lecture- more like a, "yeah, you look like you have at least half the equipment and half the brains you need to be out here."


----------



## MountainmanPete (Jun 7, 2014)

People need to stop reproducing. Their offspring are idiots!


----------



## dbertolad (Feb 11, 2015)

I'm fine with extending the season as long as you get rid of the ridiculous "Dogs count as people, but children don't rules." And make it per person fee, instead of having drastically different fees for arbitrary group sizes. If i add a 6th buddy on the trip all of the sudden the fee goes up 150%, doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## climbdenali (Apr 2, 2006)

dbertolad said:


> I'm fine with extending the season as long as you get rid of the ridiculous "Dogs count as people, but children don't rules." And make it per person fee, instead of having drastically different fees for arbitrary group sizes. If i add a 6th buddy on the trip all of the sudden the fee goes up 150%, doesn't make a lot of sense.



I agree on the arbitrary jumps in price being annoying.

I disagree on the dog issue. I seem to find a lot more dog shit than kid shit in those camps. I also think people generally don't supervise their dogs. I'm a dog lover, have a black lab that loves the water, but frankly I don't think river trips are great for dogs- for a lot of reasons, but that's another thread.


----------



## dbertolad (Feb 11, 2015)

Dogs have an impact, no doubt, so I'm ok paying for them, but children definitely have an impact too, just like any user. Which group has an overall bigger impact 4 adults and 1 dog, or five adults with 5 children? I suppose that's up for debate, but I'll argue strongly for the 10 pack being far more impactful to the resource and other users. 

As for river trips and dogs, that's up to each individual to decide, just like bringing children is up to the parents. River trips (on mellow water) are great for my dog, really no question about that.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

dbertolad said:


> Dogs have an impact, no doubt, so I'm ok paying for them, but children definitely have an impact too, just like any user. Which group has an overall bigger impact 4 adults and 1 dog, or five adults with 5 children? I suppose that's up for debate, but I'll argue strongly for the 10 pack being far more impactful to the resource and other users.


I think you make a very good point and I personally fully support your opinion that children should be counted as part of a group, and frankly should be assessed the same user fee as anyone else.

Also, I suppose I can support extending the fee season to maintain the quality of the resource and the experience.


----------



## climbdenali (Apr 2, 2006)

dbertolad said:


> Which group has an overall bigger impact 4 adults and 1 dog, or five adults with 5 children?


A more fair comparison might be, 4A + 1D vs 4A + 1C. I hear your point that all five kids are going free, but on a one to one comparison, I think it's clear (to me anyway) that one dog is more impactful than one kid. Maybe kids shouldn't be FREE, but should have a kids rate? I don't know.

I can't remember the last time a kid ran into our camp from the next camp down and started jumping on people, snatching food out of the kitchen, and barking all afternoon. (True story.)

Again, I love dogs, and I know that dog behavior is individual and has everything to do with the individual owners and the behavior they demand/allow out of the dog. Same for kids, really- there are some damn annoying ones out there. I guess I just think that too many dog owners ruin it for you and I- the responsible owners, by allowing them to run amok.

I do appreciate you mentioning mellow water- I've seen too many dogs take swims that weren't fair, in my opinion, to put the dog through.
Cheers,
DC


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I'm confused. According to the recreation.gov website, October is already part of the fee season:

"From May through October, there is a fee for the overnight camping permit and reservation. "

https://www.recreation.gov/marketing.do?format&path&backed Link&goto=/resource/contracts/nrso/permitFees_74466.html

We haven't reserved permits in October several times because the per night fee was too much for our budget. 

While I understand wanting to extend the season (April) because of usage I would like to hear some alternatives tried first. I am especially hesitant to increase the length of season because of "no shows". I would think there could be ways to use the recreation.gov portal to track permits and penalize those who don't show without requiring an extension of the season. If all alternatives have been exhausted then I understand the expansion.

I was also unaware that children under 16 aren't included in nightly fee. I think that is an odd choice. If they are included in the "heartbeat" rule than I think they should incur the same fee. Please reconsider that issue.


----------



## co_bjread (Oct 26, 2004)

It looks like I may be in the minority here, but as the father of a larger family that enjoys boating, it would be burdensome to add camping fees to children. When you add adults, at least you have your buddies pockets to help cover the extra fees, however, fees for my kids would all come out of my pocket, thus making it more difficult for me to take my family. I am not sure I see how increasing the fees for kids would benefit anyone other than Rec.gov.

And, no, my kids have not run through others camps, climbed on them, dropped feces or urinated outside of a groover, or even made enough noise that the neighboring camps could here them. I am not sure that can be said for all adults though either. 

It is actually pretty common practice across most campgrounds to not have added fees for minors belonging to the same family.

As for the extended fee season, I am on the fence. I suspect the Fees/permits in place have pushed more boaters to the fringe seasons. If there is enough demand to warrant the added patrols/fees, then it would seem appropriate. It would be good to know how many sites are being reserved in the fringe season, compared to prime season. I also suspect that extending the season would one day lead to November and March being under the same consideration, until it is permitted year-round.


----------



## jollyroger (Dec 3, 2014)

*Confortable*

I don't like having to pay more but, nowadays unfortunately people screw it up for the rest of us that are responsible and do abide by the rules and regs. Ya know the ones that do respect OUR beautiful lands here. Maybe heavy fines would pay the difference or no more permits for those trip leaders or both. I DO NOT have a problem with the extension if it goes with keeping the rangers out there.


----------



## BreckBoater (May 7, 2014)

I am in favor of extending the Fee window to include April and October....especially, if the Fee Window change is solely to have a Ranger presence there. Either at the put in daily, or on the river checking camps, etc. Since this fee schedule and reservation system has been implemented....I have returned to Ruby Horsethief, and have noticed a big difference in the reduced amount of Poo/TP scattered around Camps....and less number of uninformed/disrespectful boaters. I quit floating this section in '02, due to the sheer volume of people and lack of respect some had for that area. 
Thank you for all of the hard work you and your Team do for the River Community, and thank you for seeking the Boating Community's input on this website!


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

I have no problem with extending the fee season. We often go in Oct. and it our favorite time to run RH. It's usually just us and two dogs so the fee isn't as burdensome to us. 
It's pretty easy to look up which camps are reserved on Rec.gov, so we plan our trip around what camps are available. IIR, on UEA weekend, every camp was reserved Friday and Saturday.
The fee schedule is kind of screwy, but so is $30 for a site at the state campground in Fruita. 

bjread, so that whole "cheaper by the dozen" story/movie is just a heart warming story, huh?  Glad you're getting the kids out there?


----------



## jwburdge (Apr 9, 2014)

I am for it. I generally am out on ruby during the shoulder season. I have began and ended the last two seasons with an early and late ruby through westwater trip. I love that time of year for the reduced crowds, cooler weather, etc... I don't do it because of the lack of fee. I have no problem paying to keep any river corridor that I enjoy well patrolled and clean. I have only had positive experiences with rangers, but we also have our sh*t together!
I would like to weigh in on the kids/dogs issue. I have a dog that I love to take with me on the river. I only take her on things like ruby, that have no consequence. I don't have kids, but when I do I will also take them on things like ruby that have no consequence. That is the beauty of these canyons.
Well behaved dogs and kids are way less annoying than ill-prepared and ill-informed adults. If adding to the permit season can weed these types out, or make them more informed and prepared, than I am happy to pay the fees.
I also side on the argument that kids shouldn't cost more for the permit. They cost more in everything else in life, why not give the parents a break? After all they are getting their kids out on the river and teaching them to enjoy and respect it instead of parking them in front of the TV!
They should count as heartbeats to keep the impact on the camps to a minimum, but they shouldn't cost the same as an adult. You having your kids with you does not impact my ability to get on the river.

I'll take an obnoxious dog over an obnoxious person any day!


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

"I'll take an obnoxious dog over an obnoxious person any day!"

My experience with obnoxious dogs has always been traced back to a obnoxious person who does not control their pets in public places. Dogs have a built in love for their human parents and for the most part do what they think pleases their humans.


----------



## protechie (Jun 16, 2005)

I’ll be a voice of dissent here and say I would prefer the season isn’t extended. I take an April trip every year for the same reasons, to avoid the crowds and the heat. The reason I’d like to see the season stay the same is balance. I think a good balance of access to rivers is really important. I like that some of our most special and fragile rivers and sections have permit systems and fees to limit user impact and pay for conservation, rangers, ramps, etc. I like that some rivers and sections, such as Ruby-Horsethief, do those things during high use season but have a less restricted system during the off season. And I really like that some spots such as the Arkansas and Upper C are not permitted and have minimal fees depending on access points. That last one is really important to me. While I certainly don’t condone some of the asshat tomfoolery that occurs on those sections, I think it’s important that we have a way for people to acess rivers without having to plan things out exactly months or weeks ahead of time and without it being a financial strain. There’s a wide range of people, economically speaking, that go boating, and I think it’s important that we don’t shut out those on the lower end by making this activity even more expensive. I’m also solidly against adding permit systems to some of these rivers because for me, the ability to plan a day trip at the last minute and change those plans to another section based on weather, the skill of who’s able to come, timing, etc. is really important for my river access. I totally get that as a result those sections might be more crowded and abused, and I equally get that it’s difficult for the rangers to keep up with things with their limited resources. But that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make knowing that there is a balance out there of other rivers that are more difficult (sometimes impossible) to get on due to permit systems and fees, and therefore more pristine and well kept. It’s a give and take and I’m more than happy to pay up to help protect the land and environment. But the balance and variety of offerings is important to me so that access isn’t totally restricted to those with the most money and the best ability to plan months in advance and get time off work easily. I’m fortunate enough that the money and time off isn’t a huge challenge, but lots of people are more limited. 
In the case of Ruby-Horsethief, I agree that it would be nice to have more rangers around, but I don’t know that violations are so rampant in April and October that it would warrant adding camping fees for those months. I’ve yet to come upon a camp in April that was trashed, and I haven’t run into any groups that were being disrespectful to the land or other users. I’m sure BLM has the numbers to show increased use, but in late April I still only run into maybe 3-5 other groups on the river. Of course that’s all anecdotal, I’m sure there are folks that would say they’ve found trashed camps at times during those months. Paying the camping fee wouldn’t be a big deal or a deterrent for me personally, but for some folks it might be. Every little bit helps and I’d prefer not see that section with another financial limitation imposed on access. 
As to the dogs vs. children debate, I’d vote for both to be counted as heartbeats in the overall group size limit, but for neither to be included in the number of bodies that count towards group size in determining the camping fee. Neither of them have jobs, so it’s kind of hard for them to pay their own way. It’s true that both can have a negative impact on the river if not properly supervised, but it’s also true that both could never have as much of a negative impact as an irresponsible adult.


----------



## dbertolad (Feb 11, 2015)

co_bjread said:


> It looks like I may be in the minority here, but as the father of a larger family that enjoys boating, it would be burdensome to add camping fees to children. When you add adults, at least you have your buddies pockets to help cover the extra fees, however, fees for my kids would all come out of my pocket, thus making it more difficult for me to take my family. I am not sure I see how increasing the fees for kids would benefit anyone other than Rec.gov.


I'll clarify here, and say, I'm not gung ho on making people pay for their kids. I just won't be convinced of any logic that say's I have to pay for a dog, but unlimited kids can run for free. I'd be all for dogs and kids running for free or at a discounted rate, especially since I'll probably have a little of my own before too long.

Mostly, I'm grumpy about this combined with the arbitrary price jumps. Me and my wife like to run with our dog, another couple and thier dog, which under the current rules puts us at the arbitrary $50/night fee, which is frankly outrageous for 4 adults in a backcountry camping spot. I'd be happy to pay it to support the resource if I had the spare cash, but I just don't. Rent is too damn high!

So until these rule become a little more fair and a little more logical, I don't support any extension of the fee season.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

I only ran Ruby-Horsethief once, and it was immediately after the new fee system came into effect in spring 2016. (Backstory: I showed up at Loma in early April after a GC trip, read the new rules (which were not even mentioned in AW at that point) drove back to Fruita to log onto the net and book my campsites... not knowing a single damn thing about the sites I chose, then finally launched. This must've been around early April, 2016.) 

It was hot and sunny when I launched at Loma, but I soon paddled into a rainstorm and then even a bit of snow when the air temps tanked. I wanted to get off the river when the weather turned, but I was locked into a campsite well downstream. Finally got to Mee 1, the site on my permit and was so f'ing hypothermic, I could barely haul my boat up that steep bank. Rest of the trip went fine, but here is my point: April and October are both in the shoulder season and the weather can be both unpredictable and wicked during that time. As a paddler, I need to be able to change my plans based on my own safety, and not be tied to a schedule that might put me at risk of injury or death when the weather goes to shit. Strict rules and regulations are fine during the peak season, but you have to let people take care of themselves in the off months.


----------



## mkashzg (Aug 9, 2006)

landslide said:


> I only ran Ruby-Horsethief once, and it was immediately after the new fee system came into effect in spring 2016. (Backstory: I showed up at Loma in early April after a GC trip, read the new rules (which were not even mentioned in AW at that point) drove back to Fruita to log onto the net and book my campsites... not knowing a single damn thing about the sites I chose, then finally launched. This must've been around early April, 2016.)
> 
> It was hot and sunny when I launched at Loma, but I soon paddled into a rainstorm and then even a bit of snow when the air temps tanked. I wanted to get off the river when the weather turned, but I was locked into a campsite well downstream. Finally got to Mee 1, the site on my permit and was so f'ing hypothermic, I could barely haul my boat up that steep bank. Rest of the trip went fine, but here is my point: April and October are both in the shoulder season and the weather can be both unpredictable and wicked during that time. As a paddler, I need to be able to change my plans based on my own safety, and not be tied to a schedule that might put me at risk of injury or death when the weather goes to shit. Strict rules and regulations are fine during the peak season, but you have to let people take care of themselves in the off months.



I am sorry but I disagree and feel as though your trip was full of red flags from the beginning. You did not know the river or the campsites and were not properly prepared to be out in that kind of weather from your description of the situation. I have rowed down there well past dark to get to my campsite but that was because I made the choice to hike late into the day. You need to be properly prepared with your gear and your itinerary and not dependent on other people or bad decision-making.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

You're absolutely right! It was definitely bad decision-making on my part to keep pushing downstream when I felt it would be safer to get off the river and hole up in an empty, well-protected campsite due to changing conditions. As a solo paddler, this is all the more true since I can rely on no one but myself for my safety. Thank you for driving home that point.


----------



## co_bjread (Oct 26, 2004)

protechie said:


> I’ll be a voice of dissent here and say I would prefer the season isn’t extended. I take an April trip every year for the same reasons, to avoid the crowds and the heat. The reason I’d like to see the season stay the same is balance. I think a good balance of access to rivers is really important. I like that some of our most special and fragile rivers and sections have permit systems and fees to limit user impact and pay for conservation, rangers, ramps, etc. I like that some rivers and sections, such as Ruby-Horsethief, do those things during high use season but have a less restricted system during the off season. And I really like that some spots such as the Arkansas and Upper C are not permitted and have minimal fees depending on access points. That last one is really important to me. While I certainly don’t condone some of the asshat tomfoolery that occurs on those sections, I think it’s important that we have a way for people to acess rivers without having to plan things out exactly months or weeks ahead of time and without it being a financial strain. There’s a wide range of people, economically speaking, that go boating, and I think it’s important that we don’t shut out those on the lower end by making this activity even more expensive. I’m also solidly against adding permit systems to some of these rivers because for me, the ability to plan a day trip at the last minute and change those plans to another section based on weather, the skill of who’s able to come, timing, etc. is really important for my river access. I totally get that as a result those sections might be more crowded and abused, and I equally get that it’s difficult for the rangers to keep up with things with their limited resources. But that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make knowing that there is a balance out there of other rivers that are more difficult (sometimes impossible) to get on due to permit systems and fees, and therefore more pristine and well kept. It’s a give and take and I’m more than happy to pay up to help protect the land and environment. But the balance and variety of offerings is important to me so that access isn’t totally restricted to those with the most money and the best ability to plan months in advance and get time off work easily. I’m fortunate enough that the money and time off isn’t a huge challenge, but lots of people are more limited.
> In the case of Ruby-Horsethief, I agree that it would be nice to have more rangers around, but I don’t know that violations are so rampant in April and October that it would warrant adding camping fees for those months. I’ve yet to come upon a camp in April that was trashed, and I haven’t run into any groups that were being disrespectful to the land or other users. I’m sure BLM has the numbers to show increased use, but in late April I still only run into maybe 3-5 other groups on the river. Of course that’s all anecdotal, I’m sure there are folks that would say they’ve found trashed camps at times during those months. Paying the camping fee wouldn’t be a big deal or a deterrent for me personally, but for some folks it might be. Every little bit helps and I’d prefer not see that section with another financial limitation imposed on access.
> As to the dogs vs. children debate, I’d vote for both to be counted as heartbeats in the overall group size limit, but for neither to be included in the number of bodies that count towards group size in determining the camping fee. Neither of them have jobs, so it’s kind of hard for them to pay their own way. It’s true that both can have a negative impact on the river if not properly supervised, but it’s also true that both could never have as much of a negative impact as an irresponsible adult.


I knew dogs counted towards heartbeats, but was either unaware, or had forgotten that they count towards fees too. That does seem a bit wack, and I can agree that $50 for 4 adults and 2 dogs is really steep.
I too don't care for the rate hike when you're group size goes from 5 to 6 people. I think a more graduated system would be nice. I am not looking at the numbers to figure out what the math should be, but basically, if it were $20/night for 5 people as a base rate, that would be fine. But instead of jumping to $50 for the 6th person, I would like to see an added cost per adult, probably somewhere around $5 for each additional adult. That way, when your group reaches 25 ppl, you are still paying the full $100, but it isn't so burdensome on a group that just barely enters that people category.






dbertolad said:


> I'll clarify here, and say, I'm not gung ho on making people pay for their kids. I just won't be convinced of any logic that say's I have to pay for a dog, but unlimited kids can run for free. I'd be all for dogs and kids running for free or at a discounted rate, especially since I'll probably have a little of my own before too long.
> 
> Mostly, I'm grumpy about this combined with the arbitrary price jumps. Me and my wife like to run with our dog, another couple and thier dog, which under the current rules puts us at the arbitrary $50/night fee, which is frankly outrageous for 4 adults in a backcountry camping spot. I'd be happy to pay it to support the resource if I had the spare cash, but I just don't. Rent is too damn high!
> 
> So until these rule become a little more fair and a little more logical, I don't support any extension of the fee season.




Sent from my GT-P5113 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## co_bjread (Oct 26, 2004)

That was a weird response, did not mean to catch both...sorry. did that one from a tablet, so not as flexible as my computer. I was trying to respond to dbertolad.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## garystrome (Jan 6, 2007)

*Fee Revenue Expense Study*

Recreation.gov.....or could we call it Revenue.gov.
You guys don't do anything without a revenue study. Since the premise of this thread is to get feedback, how about posting the revenue, expense projections? If this is another fishing expedition to get more money for Trumps helicopter, i.e. residuals going to indefinite pool, then I'm against it.


----------



## Critter70 (Nov 22, 2016)

First not a big fan of this. Same as mentioned above, I like to go in the shoulder season to avoid the crowds and save a few bucks. I also agree if two couples each with a dog now jumps it to $50 bucks a night that’s pretty expensive for backcountry camping.
That being said I think what most people are not thinking about is;1 if this is a seasonal ranger position it will extend the work period by two months for this position (good for that job), and the ability to keep quality people for longer periods.2 when people hear the term ranger they immediately think of law enforcement, not the people picking up trash, cleaning pit toilets things of this nature. I get the feeling that keeping rangers around for the shoulder season is more about resource maintenance then regulation inforcement. Could be completely off on that. I will say that it is getting harder and harder to go boating on multi day trips out west, if nothing because of the over crowding situation. Seems to me the people going in march or April tend to be a little more into the outdoor aspect then the booze cruz bonfire you won’t raise no hell type.


----------



## cschmidt1023 (Jan 27, 2015)

I would vote yes ONLY on the condition that the fee schedule is fixed. Even then maybe make it half price in the shoulder season...

4 people with 2 dogs costs the same as 10 adults with 15 kids. That is so incredibly outrageous. Make it $2-4 per heartbeat and it will make sense. 

The way you have it now makes it easy for a group of 50 with 10 adults and 40 kids to pay LESS than my group of 4 adults 2 dogs by simply forming 2 groups. And I bet you guys think that does not happen, but most likely it does.

If kids are going to be free (or more reasonably half price) it should be a younger age like <12 and anybody that tries cheating that should be given a hefty fee and not allowed to get permits for 2 years.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

Bottom line, if you travel from out of the area, stay in the Fruita CO state park plus leave a vehicle there it adds up fast. I remember the old days parking at Loma was hit or miss and camping even worse. Now these crazy prices for primitive facility sites (just a semi flat spot on the bank with the only improvements being a tie post here and there) family floating gets really high dollar.

I wish I was a local and could be a lot more flexible on float schedules. But I am not. And I bet a high percentage of the family RHT floater are not locals. By the time several families drive a couple days to get there there, buy gas, groceries and food RHT is not a cheap float. We have to schedule and reserve spots before and after a RHT float.

Sorry to be complaining, it just seems like the experience of getting out on state and federal lands is way too expensive. RHT and WW are two awesome family floats and I hate to see them being priced out of an average group of family and kiddos. Reasonable charges are ok, taking advantage of the general public is not in my view.

I doubt if the authorities give a hoot about prices. Just the way things are and my apologies for taking up eyeball time.


----------

