# Wilderness designation in Grand Canyon?



## rafterbrooks (Nov 6, 2004)

I would like to share my and hear others opinions on this topic. First, I have rafted the Canyon numerous times, privately and commercially. I have also hiked the corridor trails numerous times. I love the place. It kills me to hear rafters only wanting to ban motorized travel in the canyon. They want it to be "Wilderness". Have you ever stopped to think about all the people that visit the canyon? It is one of the 7 natural wonders of the world. It is also a world heritage site. People come from ALL OVER THE WORLD to see the place. If you have ever been to the South or North rim you will met all kinds of these people. Not all of them can do a 18-21 day river trip! 

I feel it is very selfish for us to complain about this. It really has never ruining my experience there. Well, maybe the helicopter parade around Quartermaster Canyon... I have many friends who are commercial guides there. They are some of the most caring, personable people I know. The boats really aren't that loud or stinky either. They give YOU the camps YOU want. They help YOU if YOU have a problem. They share their ice with YOU in the summer. IF YOU talk to them.They don't stop at all the really cool spots either. Those "motor" boats are there to help other people see the beautiful place that we have in our back yard. Lets share it! You are really lucky to be able to spend 3 weeks in a place like that! Many people save for years to just see it for 6 days! Sure, someone is making money, that is life these days.

So...quit your bitch'n and enjoy being there. That is my 2 bits.


----------



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

rafterbrooks said:


> I would like to share my and hear others opinions on this topic. First, I have rafted the Canyon numerous times, privately and commercially. I have also hiked the corridor trails numerous times. I love the place. It kills me to hear rafters only wanting to ban motorized travel in the canyon. They want it to be "Wilderness". Have you ever stopped to think about all the people that visit the canyon? It is one of the 7 natural wonders of the world. It is also a world heritage site. People come from ALL OVER THE WORLD to see the place. If you have ever been to the South or North rim you will met all kinds of these people. Not all of them can do a 18-21 day river trip!
> 
> I feel it is very selfish for us to complain about this. It really has never ruining my experience there. Well, maybe the helicopter parade around Quartermaster Canyon... I have many friends who are commercial guides there. They are some of the most caring, personable people I know. The boats really aren't that loud or stinky either. They give YOU the camps YOU want. They help YOU if YOU have a problem. They share their ice with YOU in the summer. IF YOU talk to them.They don't stop at all the really cool spots either. Those "motor" boats are there to help other people see the beautiful place that we have in our back yard. Lets share it! You are really lucky to be able to spend 3 weeks in a place like that! Many people save for years to just see it for 6 days! Sure, someone is making money, that is life these days.
> 
> So...quit your bitch'n and enjoy being there. That is my 2 bits.


So, should we put wheel chair ramps at all the camps too? What a about a gondola on Denali? It's not my problem if your vacay is time restricted. Some places are loved to death. The high road for me on this issue is: not every special place should be accessible to everyone at the expense of the true, wilderness experience. Especially places that were meant to be set aside as wilderness by congress.

So...quit your bitch'n and telling me how I should feel about motorized travel in the GC natural wonder of this world.


----------



## kikii875 (Oct 25, 2010)

wildh2onriver said:


> So, should we put wheel chair ramps at all the camps too? What a about a gondola on Denali? It's not my problem if your vacay is time restricted. Some places are loved to death. The high road for me on this issue is: not every special place should be accessible to everyone at the expense of the true, wilderness experience. Especially places that were meant to be set aside as wilderness by congress.
> 
> So...quit your bitch'n and telling me how I should feel about motorized travel in the GC natural wonder of this world.


Yea, you tell em. And smaller rivers should only have kayaks, no rafts, the rowing rigs are too big and crowd the river. #sarcasm

You should feel however you want. Your opinion won't change anything as far as motors go in the canyon. I have seen three different major pushes to eliminate motors over the years and they all went down in flames. 
I have run commercially both with motor and oars and I honestly don't see the problem. When I am rowing, the motor boats are by quickly and there is no issue. If you have a problem with motors then go when they are not on the river. I am so sorry for ruining the wilderness experience of all the private trips that I have given food, ice, tp, camps, patching material, a life jacket, and manpower to flip boats over. BTW: if you are going to ask a commercial trip for something, don't send over the girl that looks the best in a bikini (lame). Just come and ask. We are all in this together and should help each other out.
I have been boating in the canyon for 43 years and I can tell you that the motors are there to stay. Most of the seasoned river guides that I know both motor and row because they know the same thing, that the motors will stay in the canyon.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

As noted above, there have been repeated attempts to ban motors in the GC river corridor, including one recently that went to the U.S. Appeals Court and failed. 

Formal Wilderness designation is a specific category that must be passed by Congress. And even if the river corridor were to be so declared by Congress, it could grandfather motors -- something that has been done in other wilderness designation legislation.

Full disclosure -- I've rowed it and I've motored it. Given the choice, I'd row every time. But I concede that "wilderness" has a certain "state of mind" component that -- for some people -- doesn't include motorized travel of any kind.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

"So, should we put wheel chair ramps at all the camps too?"


No, YOU should NOT put wheelchair ramps at all of the camps. WE, as the commercial guides who take differently-abled people down GC will do that for you. When we take "special pops" trips, we bring roll-up, sand worthy wheel chair sidewalks with us and set them up at each camp. Leave no trace, and allow access for as much of our population as possble. Yes, this has been done on motor boats as well as row boats. Some of those folks simply must be on a Motor boat to have a safe experience. Motors DO have a place in the Canyon and so do people of differing abilities. My two cents......


----------



## rafterbrooks (Nov 6, 2004)

I never knew commercial trips could accommodate people with mobility issues. That is awesome to hear! I will have to remember that for the future. I live in a place where we have a large disabled skiing/outdoor activity population and some of those peeps might want to go there

I also prefer rowing over motors but the magic of the canyon is there either way. I would rather see our efforts going to removing Glen Canyon dam or some way to get the old river back into play. Some warm water for the native fishes, some sediment to rebuild the beaches that are gone. Floods to wash out the Tamy's and those nasty viruses that keep going around. That is what I feel are the most important issues for the river corridor. Maybe someday...

I also participated in your survey, Rich. Thanks for your efforts.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

rafterbrooks said:


> So...quit your bitch'n and enjoy being there. That is my 2 bits.


Interesting post. It looks like rafterbrooks is trying to start an argument. I'll bite. 

Motorized travel on a swift moving river is pathetic. It's like having an escalator up a mountain so everyone can climb it. Not everyone gets to float the Grand Canyon from end to end. I say this as someone who has rowed the Canyon more than once, and as someone who recognized that there are things I don't get, like the view from the top of Mt. Everest. I will probably never earn that - like the fanny pack crowd has not earned their 6 day Grand Canyon trip! 

As for the disabled, I am proud to be part of a country that has the compassion and wisdom to mandate access for disabled people to most buildings, parks, monuments, etc. However, I've never met a disabled person that insists on their right to float the Grand Canyon, climb that mountain, or ski that back-country chute. Some disabled people accomplish these things and inspire us all - but I doubt they would insist on access to the wildest and most remote places just because able-bodied adventurers get to go there. Most of this planet is wild and unpaved and some of us are more able-bodied to explore it. This has always been true.

Of course I feel zero compassion for the poor soul who wants to raft the Grand, but only has a week of vacation. F*$% 'em! There is no reason to advocate for their right to see the whole Canyon in a week because they have more important things to do. I make chump change, live in cheap rentals, have dogs, and CHOOSE to spend hundreds of hours a year on the river. Some schmuck with a week of vacation from their high paying job that wants to let the motor do the work gets no love from me!

There are a lot of complications with the Wilderness proposal, and motors might be there to stay, but to start a thread defending a weaker way of life demonstrates your own weakness. Row that shit with your own two hands or go find some dirty reservoir for your motor sports. 

Motors are for the weak and for those who exploit paradise!


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Rafterbrooks.

You've hit on something really important -- dam management. Glen Canyon dam has done far more harm to the enduring wilderness character of the river in GC than any transient noise from four stroke motors.

GPCBA has been active in tracking the Long Term Experimental Management Program that is being developed right now by the government. You may have seen some the prior posts about that, and we're going to continue to stay involved.

More information is available here Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan EIS Information Center I'd urge folks to get involved in the public comment process about developing a program that will determine dam operations and GC river conditions for decades to come.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
Secretary, GCPBA


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

rafterbrooks said:


> The boats really aren't that loud or stinky either. They give YOU the camps YOU want.


By the way, this is the biggest load I've ever read. The boats ARE load, DO stink, and create a wake as they pass. They snatch camps right out from under oarsmen, even near dusk - their tip is what matters, not hooking up boaters they will never see again. You might have some nice friends that work down there (I do too), but to suggest that they aren't operating load, stinky, camp snatching boats is ridiculous!


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Isn't every float trip _loud_ and stinky regardless of a motor?


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

glenn said:


> Isn't every float trip _loud_ and stinky regardless of a motor?


 No. My last trip we did not have any kayakers.




> Randy, "The boats ARE loud, DO stink, and create a wake as they pass


Always laugh about people that complain about the "wake as they pass".
We spend BIG$$$ and travel all over the country to get the biggest waves possible! I always hope they will give me one more wave to surf.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

Trying to explain logic to wilderness proponents is pointless. They're full of folks that never learned to share in kindergarten... and they're the same way now.

The only way they understand things is THEIR way.

I've given up arguing with that type of person. Their the type of person who fights against greed in a bunch of other ways... but don't understand that it's EXACTLY that when you want to eliminate anyone who doesn't do what you do from an area.


Oh, then they use moronic arguments like installing gondolas on Denali or wheelchair ramps at campsites...


Btw... I'm not at ALL a fan of motorized river travel... but MY OPINION isn't the only thing that matters, oddly enough there are other people in the world who don't live the life I am able to.


----------



## rivervibe (Apr 24, 2007)

Sure, ok, I'll jump in too because I have a Canyon trip next year. 

Realistically, I'll concede that motor rigs are probably there to stay, unfortunately. Personally, I wish the Canyon was a motor-free zone. The point of a wilderness, or lets just say natural experience, is NOT to just see it, but to EXPERIENCE it. I've been down there twice and every time I would hear the whine of those motors echoing for miles around the bends I had the distinct feeling that something special and unique was being lost. I felt violated when I smelled the exhaust on the morning air and lost in the crowd (in the crowd! down there!) when 30 people suddenly appeared at a hike. I am not there to be inundated with tourists who just wish to "see" the Canyon and who don't actually have any concept of the current under their boat. People I see go by but who really aren't there... just cocooned in their own bubble of noise. Without motor rigs there would still be plenty of paying customers going down the canyon. Thousands of people with have their lives changed, but true experiences in nature usually don't happen in a matter of days, you have to be committed for the duration. 
Sorry if I sound like an elitist, maybe I am; but there is something magical about the Grand Canyon and ease of access does indeed dilute that meaning for everyone. I would wish everyone to be able to experience the Canyon, but really, if you don't have the time and energy to commit then maybe you shouldn't be there.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

My opinion, it is not the type of boat I see on the river, it is the people in the boat that make the difference.

One thing for sure, if you need help on a GC trip (or anywhere else for that matter) chances are anyone who comes by is gonna do what they can. Private, commercial, muscle powered or motor powered craft.

For sure there might be a rude person in any boat on any river at any river access but not very often.

I know on one of my boating buds GC float they were struggling to get a big 18 ft gear raft flipped back right side up. Commercial trip came by, instantly a bunch of folks jumped out, got the flip job done and every one had a good day because of it. 

For what it is worth, I have pulled over to watch jet boats power up rapids on the Main Salmon and got a thank you wave for it, have also seen them wait at the bottom for my group to run down - our turn to courtesy wave. Courtesy is a great thing to share. One of these days, I am gonna get lucky on a permit and have the extra bucks to ride a jet boat back up to Corn Creek. Some of my river buds did that a few years back and reported that it was a great way to finish up a fantastic down river run and was one heck of a ride to boot.


----------



## kikii875 (Oct 25, 2010)

Randaddy said:


> ...I say this as someone who has rowed the Canyon more than once, and as someone who recognized that there are things I don't get, like the view from the top of Mt. Everest. I will probably never earn that - like the fanny pack crowd has not earned their 6 day Grand Canyon trip!


How do you earn something like this?



Randaddy said:


> As for the disabled, I am proud to be part of a country that has the compassion and wisdom to mandate access for disabled people to most buildings, parks, monuments, etc. However, I've never met a disabled person that insists on their right to float the Grand Canyon, climb that mountain, or ski that back-country chute. Some disabled people accomplish these things and inspire us all - but I doubt they would insist on access to the wildest and most remote places just because able-bodied adventurers get to go there.


Yes, there are disabled people that want to go on river trips in the canyon.
Disabled River Trips In Grand Canyon on Vimeo
I have taken many disabled people on the river both motor and oar. However, when we took the kidney patients down the river it required motorized boats to carry the dialisis equipment.



Randaddy said:


> Of course I feel zero compassion for the poor soul who wants to raft the Grand, but only has a week of vacation. F*$% 'em! There is no reason to advocate for their right to see the whole Canyon in a week because they have more important things to do. I make chump change, live in cheap rentals, have dogs, and CHOOSE to spend hundreds of hours a year on the river. Some schmuck with a week of vacation from their high paying job that wants to let the motor do the work gets no love from me!


This is a broad genenralization of those that can only take 6 days on the river. Yes, for some it is just there summer vacation with the family where they can afford to pay whatever to go to a different destination each year. But there are also those who have save their entire life to bring their family down the canyon and 6 days is all they can afford at that.

As far as the smell of the motors, when you ban smoking in the canyon then maybe you would have a point. To me, passing someone on the trail that is smoking is much worse than the motors.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

We have as a country defined wilderness and wilderness protection to mean among other things areas of non-mechanized travel. To claim that the river, the very heart of this great wilderness area is exempt and simultaneously still claim it is a wilderness is silly. I think it's well stated the motors aren't going away, and I think it's also well stated that the experience isn't the same for those on the motorized boats and it's not the same for those not on the motorized boats. For that matter, I'm sure the hiking experience is very different now than it was 50 years ago when the whitewater traffic was a fraction of what it is now. WWPR got it right; we need to share. I would be sad if there were no rivers that disallowed motors but that's not what this is about at all.


----------



## montuckyhuck (Mar 14, 2010)

Motorboats may be there to stay but I think it is super lame. They are loud, they do stink and they have no business down there or in most other water ways imo. Calling people selfish for feeling this way is a cheap defense. So you don't like the gondola analogy? Ok then how about dirtbikes going wherever they want in Rocky Mtn NP? Then when you bitch about your disturbed serenity and the impact they are having on their surroundings they call you selfish for saying who can play. Its just so damn Merican "let's go see how much gas we can burn while recreating bob". Yes I drive, that I can't deny, im saving for a diesel to convert to veg, I raise my own meat and grow my own veggies, fruit and berries, and raise chickens for thier eggs so in this sense my money is where my mouth is. I really dont like snowmobiles either.


----------



## montuckyhuck (Mar 14, 2010)

Hike your ass in if you want turns, row your ass down the river.


----------



## rivervibe (Apr 24, 2007)

montuckyhuck said:


> Hike your ass in if you want turns, row your ass down the river.


Love it! I might have to quote this later on too, just sayin'.


----------



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

kikii875 said:


> Yea, you tell em. And smaller rivers should only have kayaks, no rafts, the rowing rigs are too big and crowd the river. #sarcasm
> 
> You should feel however you want. Your opinion won't change anything as far as motors go in the canyon. I have seen three different major pushes to eliminate motors over the years and they all went down in flames.
> I have run commercially both with motor and oars and I honestly don't see the problem. When I am rowing, the motor boats are by quickly and there is no issue. If you have a problem with motors then go when they are not on the river. I am so sorry for ruining the wilderness experience of all the private trips that I have given food, ice, tp, camps, patching material, a life jacket, and manpower to flip boats over. BTW: if you are going to ask a commercial trip for something, don't send over the girl that looks the best in a bikini (lame). Just come and ask. We are all in this together and should help each other out.
> I have been boating in the canyon for 43 years and I can tell you that the motors are there to stay. Most of the seasoned river guides that I know both motor and row because they know the same thing, that the motors will stay in the canyon.


With due respect kiki, your opening analogy has nothing to do with the topic. I respect yours and the many other GC guides for their 'good Samaritan' conduct on the river. What does your generosity have to do with my distaste for seeing motor rigs with hordes of tourists on the river? Of course that's not going to change---commercials have far more money to lobby for business as usual.


----------



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

GC Guide said:


> "So, should we put wheel chair ramps at all the camps too?"
> 
> No, YOU should NOT put wheelchair ramps at all of the camps. WE, as the commercial guides who take differently-abled people down GC will do that for you. When we take "special pops" trips, we bring roll-up, sand worthy wheel chair sidewalks with us and set them up at each camp. Leave no trace, and allow access for as much of our population as possble. Yes, this has been done on motor boats as well as row boats. Some of those folks simply must be on a Motor boat to have a safe experience. Motors DO have a place in the Canyon and so do people of differing abilities. My two cents......


I think it's great that you are able to accommodate these folks, good for you guys. Since you're able to carry wheel chair ramps on row boats, sounds like you don't need motors for many of the folks, right? For those that it would be unsafe in row boats--see my analogy above.


----------



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

Waterwindpowderrock said:


> Trying to explain logic to wilderness proponents is pointless. They're full of folks that never learned to share in kindergarten... and they're the same way now.
> 
> The only way they understand things is THEIR way.
> 
> ...


The ultimate altruistic bully statement. Talk about kindergarten. Love your capitalization of key rant words.


----------



## moetown (May 8, 2007)

*Fly me in a martini for this*

"Mini-Me" goes Large in Lava Falls Ledge Hole: Colorado River of the Grand Canyon - YouTube


----------



## cosurfgod (Oct 10, 2003)

Rafters are skilless hacks. The grand should be for kayaks only. Or at least we should not have to participate in the permit system, not that its a big deal because I win every year.


----------



## billfish (Nov 22, 2009)

*who's wilderness?*



wildh2onriver said:


> So, should we put wheel chair ramps at all the camps too? What a about a gondola on Denali? It's not my problem if your vacay is time restricted. Some places are loved to death. The high road for me on this issue is: not every special place should be accessible to everyone at the expense of the true, wilderness experience. Especially places that were meant to be set aside as wilderness by congress.
> 
> So...quit your bitch'n and telling me how I should feel about motorized travel in the GC natural wonder of this world.


 
If you want the canyon to be true wilderness, then close it to humans. You don't belong there either.


----------



## billfish (Nov 22, 2009)

cosurfgod said:


> Rafters are skilless hacks. The grand should be for kayaks only. Or at least we should not have to participate in the permit system, not that its a big deal because I win every year.


 
You belong where you are, Colorado.


----------



## cosurfgod (Oct 10, 2003)

Actually, I'm at your mom's house.


----------



## studytime (Oct 4, 2010)

haha. I love Mom jokes.


----------



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

billfish said:


> If you want the canyon to be true wilderness, then close it to humans. You don't belong there either.


Your judgment smells a little fishy billshit. But thanks for your Muir-esque in put.


----------



## BarryDingle (Mar 13, 2008)

cosurfgod said:


> Actually, I'm at your mom's house.


How do you argue with a dipshit like this?

I'm guessin 'life' has handed you more insults than I ever could. Let the grown-ups talk,surfqueen.


----------



## paulk (Apr 24, 2006)

are you motorboating at his mom's house?


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

wildh2onriver said:


> I think it's great that you are able to accommodate these folks, good for you guys. Since you're able to carry wheel chair ramps on row boats, sounds like you don't need motors for many of the folks, right? For those that it would be unsafe in row boats--see my analogy above.


So....a paraplegic who can hold on in an oar boat has more right to be in Grand Canyon, than say, a quadraplegic who is capable of doing the trip on a larger boat! Yeah, I see your logic! 

BTW..... all of these people have a difficult time regulating their body temperature....... It ain't easy, but they do it! 

Think about if you became paralized tomorrow, should YOU be BANNED from going down the Gand Canyon? NUFF SAID!

Peace out! (literally)


----------



## montuckyhuck (Mar 14, 2010)

I guess I should clarify my point here a little bit. I am not just talking about the GC. I am talking about the way we choose to recreate. Call me an idealist but this is kind of a thorn in my ass. We are on the verge of a global meltdown because of our fuel consumption and there have never been so many sports so accessible and affordable to the masses so why do we continue to choose motorized sports as past times? I am by no means perfect. I drove over Lolo pass several times this year to fire the Lochsa, I drove 3 hours north to libby for the Kootanai and Yaak, I drove to Ovando 4 times this year to hike into the North Fork Blackfoot, Drove to Idaho alot.... creeking missions. I would be willing to wager that everyone on this board uses a car, truck or van in some way or another to get to the places they love in order to recreate. The thing that kills me is people driving somewhere to burn more gas. I really want to burn nothing but veggie oil when I take trips, I am working to make this a reality. The argument that everyone should get to see the GC is stupid. It's a place that people can ooh and ahh at from the rim. They already drive their 57' RV that gets 3 MPG out from wherevermiddleamerica. They already have high commodity concessions in all of our national parks, they already have boat tours of Niagara, they already have commercial float trips through the canyon that they dont have to lift a finger on (someone else rows, tells stories, cooks and wipes their asses) so why do we need motors in these last sacred places? The GC is already a battle lost. Motors are there to stay, but lets not use it as an indicator species for the last refuges we hold dear. If you support opening more rivers to motors, or just choose to use a motor you are selling yourself and our future short. As for the differently abled people, most of the ones I know would scorn you for using them as a pity argument for your benefit, and also call you a bitch for taking the easy way out. Go ahead ban me.......


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

montuckyhuck said:


> As for the differently abled people, most of the ones I know would scorn you for using them as a pity argument for your benefit, and also call you a bitch for taking the easy way out. Go ahead ban me.......


Pity? My quad next door neighbor would pity you! I never suggested that we should open accessibility to all, in all places. GC is now, and should remain so. As for your hidden places that only you go to, when was the last time you looked at an outdoor magazine? Never share your best secrets! They will be inundated with people! Thanks a lot John Wesley Powell!

I am curious as to what MY benefit is here?


----------



## montuckyhuck (Mar 14, 2010)

Your benefit would be arguing your point. Curious as to what he would pitty me for? Not sharing your sentiments?


----------



## montuckyhuck (Mar 14, 2010)

GC Guide said:


> Pity? My quad next door neighbor would pity you! I never suggested that we should open accessibility to all, in all places. GC is now, and should remain so. As for your hidden places that only you go to, when was the last time you looked at an outdoor magazine? Never share your best secrets! They will be inundated with people! Thanks a lot John Wesley Powell!
> 
> I am curious as to what MY benefit is here?


I actually don't think I fully catch your drift here? I just said motors would stay. I also said I don't like it, then I said why I don't like it.... thats called a conversation.


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

My point is that everyone who can, should be able to visit a place that is special to them. I do not suggest that roads should be plowed to "inaccessible" places. I have worked with about every kind of "ability on the planet" and I do not subscribe to exclusion based on a persons physical or mental deficits. IE no gondola up Half Dome etc......

My conversationalism is waning. I may be able to continue in the morning.......

Jon Stewart distracted me late tonight. Sorry, some things take precedence.....you should check it out, too!

READY.........BREAK!


----------



## rafterbrooks (Nov 6, 2004)

Thanks for all the replies people. I started the thread to voice MY opinion on the subject, not to defend any weaker way of life. I came away with some new knowledge that disabled people are taken down the river. I might just have to volunteer to help out the next time I want to get down the Canyon.
For me, it is about seeing people enjoying the magic the canyon has to offer, however they can get there. And enjoying some of the magic myself.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Great discussion, and lots of issues flying about.

To Rich Phillips, GCPBA board member, your organization openly opposed the latest go-round in the courts, the latest in a long series of attempts to manage the river for equitable access and wilderness values. It is in Grand Canyon National Park after all. I can only hope this thread shows you how important this issue is to many, and that the litigation showed the agency can manage the river for non-wilderness values, but the issue is far from over.

As to disabled folks, Jumping Mouse in the 1990's proved highly disabled individuals can travel through the Canyon on oar boats. Disabled individuals do not need motorized tour boats, and to this day, on both do-it-yourself and concessions oars trips, travel the river.

Finally, how many folks are we talking about here? 15,000 folks a year taking motorized trips through Grand Canyon (cite 2006 ROD). If Hance flashed out tomorrow, making a must portage rapid, the river concessionaires would convert to oars and life would go on. Please don't think that the 15,000 folks on motorboats can't manage to travel through Grand Canyon on oar boats. What they don't know, and are being sold, is that getting in and out of big motorized tour boats is really hard, and as the studies have shown, 9 out of 10 folks who have done both trips choose the oar trip over the motor trip. 

Remember, 1/10 of 1 percent of America will travel through the Canyon in 100 years at present rates. The river concessionaires have to this point effectively blocked wilderness protection for the river, but that will not last forever.

So the issue simmers along. Nothing lasts forever and Nature bats last, not you or I. 

Speaking of grandfathering motors, there are NO private inholdings in Grand Canyon, and the motors are there historically at the behest of the companies who quickly learned you can make more $ by having one or two crew usher 14 folks through the canyon. 

All the best, tom martin
Co-Director, River Runners for Wilderness


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

Others can address the issue of getting disabled folks down the river. 

Actually the prospect of Hance or some other rapid changing to the point where motor rigs can't negotiate it dovetails with something I've said for a long time. With Glen Canyon Dam's continued negative impact on rapids (not enough volume to flush them), something like that is bound to happen. And likewise with the loss of beaches because of the Dam. I think that not too far into the future, certain reaches of the Canyon won't have enough usable camp space to accommodate 35 people on a two S-rig trip. And consequently, the large-scale motor trip issue will be solved without legislation, litigation, or any other human intervention. And then I think it follows that eventually all motors will go away, without earnest intervention by RRFW, GCPBA, or anyone else. 

To be clear, GCPBA does not have a formal position on motors. Time and time again, we've said that if the goal is Wilderness in the GC river corridor, the only way to get it is by legislation. We don't lobby, and we don't propose legislation. But if proposed Wilderness legislation were to emerge and contain a "no motors" clause, we would address that issue, probably including more polling of our membership before any decision was made. 

Yes, GCPBA did oppose your litigation attacking the CRMP. We believed then -- and now -- that at this point in time, the CRMP embodies an acceptable balance between a number of legitimate competing interests. Not a perfect balance, but one that included significant gains for private boaters. 

It's misleading to try to tie grandfathering motors to inholdings. There is no such required linkage in the law. Congress can grandfather motors in the GC, even if the river corridor is declared a formal Wilderness.

I also have to say that most thinking people who know how decisively you lost your case in both the District and Appeals courts will be scratching their heads when you say, "...the litigation showed the agency can manage the river for non-wilderness values..." 

The litigation failed to prove any of your legal claims. The fact is, you weren't able to impose your own vision of how the Canyon should be managed. (A vision that one of the Federal judges commented, if carried to its logical conclusion, would result in banning all human activity from the Canyon.) And in doing so, you managed to achieve an Appeals Court decision that strengthens agency discretion -- something that may come back to haunt all of us when agencies do things that are truly egregious. 

By the way, I just checked with Wally Rist, and the poll is running in favor of access -- by a considerable margin over all other topics. Just the way it did when GCPBA took a poll almost a decade ago -- the one that precipitated the cascade of events that caused you to leave the organization.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
Secretary, GPCBA


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

montuckyhuck said:


> I guess I should clarify my point here a little bit. I am not just talking about the GC. I am talking about the way we choose to recreate. Call me an idealist but this is kind of a thorn in my ass. We are on the verge of a global meltdown because of our fuel consumption and there have never been so many sports so accessible and affordable to the masses so why do we continue to choose motorized sports as past times? I am by no means perfect. I drove over Lolo pass several times this year to fire the Lochsa, I drove 3 hours north to libby for the Kootanai and Yaak, I drove to Ovando 4 times this year to hike into the North Fork Blackfoot, Drove to Idaho alot.... creeking missions. I would be willing to wager that everyone on this board uses a car, truck or van in some way or another to get to the places they love in order to recreate. The thing that kills me is people driving somewhere to burn more gas. I really want to burn nothing but veggie oil when I take trips, I am working to make this a reality. The argument that everyone should get to see the GC is stupid. It's a place that people can ooh and ahh at from the rim. They already drive their 57' RV that gets 3 MPG out from wherevermiddleamerica. They already have high commodity concessions in all of our national parks, they already have boat tours of Niagara, they already have commercial float trips through the canyon that they dont have to lift a finger on (someone else rows, tells stories, cooks and wipes their asses) so why do we need motors in these last sacred places? The GC is already a battle lost. Motors are there to stay, but lets not use it as an indicator species for the last refuges we hold dear. If you support opening more rivers to motors, or just choose to use a motor you are selling yourself and our future short. As for the differently abled people, most of the ones I know would scorn you for using them as a pity argument for your benefit, and also call you a bitch for taking the easy way out. Go ahead ban me.......


You live at the grand??? If not... don't go. Save the fuel. This will save more fuel than any one of those boats on the river. All the people in the cities who want to save the earth... DON'T LEAVE THEM, stay there.

The most important thing though, is that we all abide by whatever *you* feel is the most important thing.


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

Why would I take a poll with an organization that seems to represent and advocate motor rigs in the GC. I say that because many of us see the gcpba as a complete sell out. Now I know why commercial guides advocate motors it's about the money. I get it and part of me understands that a lot of people get to see this special place because of these commercial companies. But sorry GC guide it's not about the kids or access it's about profit. Nothing wrong with that but in a perfect world this money shouldn't have been used to infuence NPS policies. Lets remember commercial rafting companies continue to get way more summer spots with well healed clients while private boaters get the scraps. And that is due directly to their lobby influence.

Bottom line is I appreciate Tom's (RRFW) and other peoples fight and their motives seem much more pure then some commercial guy who makes a living taking baloney boats down the Grand. 
Just my opinion which wont in any way keep me from waving and being polite to the next commercial guy I see motoring by next summer. I'm sure they would much rather be enjoying the Canyon on their own trip as opposed to working.







richp said:


> Hi Tom,
> 
> Others can address the issue of getting disabled folks down the river.
> 
> ...


----------



## montuckyhuck (Mar 14, 2010)

Waterwindpowderrock said:


> You live at the grand??? If not... don't go. Save the fuel. This will save more fuel than any one of those boats on the river. All the people in the cities who want to save the earth... DON'T LEAVE THEM, stay there.
> 
> The most important thing though, is that we all abide by whatever you feel is the most important thing.


Uh oh, ya got me pal! I already said I was a hypocrite on that one. I bust my ass dawn to dusk trying to live as self sufficient and sustainable lifestyle as possible. I just reread my post and I didn't see where I said you need to feel the same way, or do what I do. I don't like motor sports, can I please be aloud to feel that way?


----------



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

Waterwindpowderrock said:


> You live at the grand??? If not... don't go. Save the fuel. This will save more fuel than any one of those boats on the river. All the people in the cities who want to save the earth... DON'T LEAVE THEM, stay there.
> 
> The most important thing though, is that we all abide by whatever you feel is the most important thing.


What is it that you feel is the most important?


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

Wavester said:


> Bottom line is I appreciate Tom's (RRFW) and other peoples fight and their motives seem much more pure then some commercial guy who makes a living taking baloney boats down the Grand.
> Just my opinion which wont in any way keep me from waving and being polite to the next commercial guy I see motoring by next summer. I'm sure they would much rather be enjoying the Canyon on their own trip as opposed to working.


 
OK, I have done 2 motor trips ever in GC 95 and 96. I have 45ish trips. I have not done a motor trip since that time. I am an oar and paddle guide. In NO WAY do I reap any benefits other than a mediocre paycheck and a few hundo in tips (on avg.). I have been on the list for a private for quite some time, and have never done a private! I want to go too! 

My point is that motors in GC are there. I don't think it's right to suddenly exclude a lot of people who could really help to save and protect the place. More commercial clients fall in love with the GC and become lifelong advoctes than do not. None of them are there to destroy it.

PS I did not mention outfitters because I am not one. I simply work for one. It is a job like any other (although it can be a lot stranger). I am simply stating my opinion on the matter of motors.


----------



## billfish (Nov 22, 2009)

wildh2onriver said:


> Your judgment smells a little fishy billshit. But thanks for your Muir-esque in put.


 
I think you missed my point, or I didn't make it well. 

Everyone has their own idea of what wilderness is. You don't want motors, the surf weenie doesn't want rafts and hikers who don't boat would be happy to have none us of down there taking up camps, disturbing the minimal and fragile wildlife, making noise and basiclly intruding on the solitude that they worked hard for.

That said, I'm not an advocate of motors in wilderness, but the canyon has not been a true wilderness for a long time and I think everyone needs to be realistic with their expectations. Be willing to compromise and be grateful for what we have because there is an alternative. Our first park, Yellowstone is an example of it. No river boating, period.

All I'm saying is don't use the wilderness concept as an excuse to have the park the way you want it, because there is always someone else that believes you shouldn't be there either. 

Somewhere the line has to be drawn, who gets to use it and who doesn't. Why should you get to choose? The concept of your argument is really no different than the surfairy from colorado.


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

moetown said:


> "Mini-Me" goes Large in Lava Falls Ledge Hole: Colorado River of the Grand Canyon - YouTube


Did you get that boat back Moe? Looked like it might stay a while....


----------



## cosurfgod (Oct 10, 2003)

GC guide has never done a private trip?! What a choad! I win one every time I apply, who says pimpin ain't easy. Keep cleaning that groover cracker. That canyon is made for gangsters. 

This thread sucks, as well as douch bags with motors. What would caspermike do?


----------



## mkashzg (Aug 9, 2006)

I will be happily launching on the 6th on a one boat motor trip with a group from Florida that range in age from 50 to 70+. The company I work for does motor, oar and kayak trips and I am fortunate enough to get to do all 3 although I live in CO and work in the software industry and don't do a full summer schedule. When my brother started working for said company and started running motors in the early 90's I thought he had sold out but it turns out that if you are working down there for 5+ months a year it is a very comfortable way to travel not to mention that the economics are much better with that ratio of guides to clients. Most all of our guides do both oar and motor trips each season and have a good perspective of both groups. 


Yes you could say that I am selling out but I can just say you are jealous that I am doing 4 trips down the ditch this year and getting paid well for it. I have only been guiding part time now for the last 10 years and only have about 35 trips but consider myself very fortunate to have the opportunity to be down there every year on any craft they want to send me on.


If you are worried about the environment we only typically use about 50 gallons of gas from Lee's Ferry to Pearce Ferry and that is also twined up on the run out from the helicopter pad. That is about 3 gallons per person for the week and allot less than they would use at home for the said week. One of our jobs as a guide is to educate the public on the outdoors and how to preserve the environment. The last time I checked I think roughly 75% of the people that see the Grand do it from a motor rig meaning we are educating the masses and hopefully making a difference as otherwise many of these people would never come down and become activists to the environment whether it is for the Grand or their neighborhood park. Yes motor rigs are a pain in the ass to get on and off but so is a toilet. 


My .02 cents... Rant all you want, there will be no reponse as none is needed. 

See ya on the river!


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

cosurfgod said:


> GC guide has never done a private trip?! What a choad! I win one every time I apply, who says pimpin ain't easy. Keep cleaning that groover cracker. That canyon is made for gangsters.
> 
> This thread sucks, as well as douch bags with motors. What would caspermike do?


You don't deserve a reply from anyone...........


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

mkashzg said:


> I will be happily launching on the 6th on a one boat motor trip with a group from Florida that range in age from 50 to 70+. The company I work for does motor, oar and kayak trips and I am fortunate enough to get to do all 3 although I live in CO and work in the software industry and don't do a full summer schedule. When my brother started working for said company and started running motors in the early 90's I thought he had sold out but it turns out that if you are working down there for 5+ months a year it is a very comfortable way to travel not to mention that the economics are much better with that ratio of guides to clients. Most all of our guides do both oar and motor trips each season and have a good perspective of both groups.
> 
> 
> Yes you could say that I am selling out but I can just say you are jealous that I am doing 4 trips down the ditch this year and getting paid well for it. I have only been guiding part time now for the last 10 years and only have about 35 trips but consider myself very fortunate to have the opportunity to be down there every year on any craft they want to send me on.
> ...


Well put old friend!


----------



## thilkbone (Sep 23, 2005)

*My thoughts on wilderness*

I often find it interesting that the discussion of wilderness revolves solely around the topic of motorized vs. non-motorized travel. To me this misses the point of what wilderness offers me. When I venture into wild places I look to challenge myself, work hard, look within, be scared, feel rejuvenated, test my limits and spend time with good people. To me it is a deep rooted sense of being human.

As for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, it can certainly provide that experience to me at certain times throughout the year. Same goes for the side canyons down there. On the few trips I've done down there both hiking and rafting, I've experienced the things listed above, and I have also experienced the busy crowds that detract from the place. 

I don't care if motors are used or not. To me the wilderness values of the place are diminished with large groups of people, trash, habituated critters, social trailing, footprints on the beach and other signs that I am not alone. To me a drunken night of Bocce with the neighboring camp is not wilderness. At the same time, feeling the adrenaline the next day of scouting a big rapid or exploring a lesser known canyon is.

As the debate continues, does eliminating motors from a place truly change the wilderness? Would a formal Congressional designation enhance the human experience? Something tells me it would come with additional management requirements of the NPS, and potentially more red tape for river runners and backcountry users.

One more question is would designation help maintain and preserve the amazing natural qualities that the Grand Canyon is famous for?

Brandon


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

montuckyhuck said:


> Uh oh, ya got me pal! I already said I was a hypocrite on that one. I bust my ass dawn to dusk trying to live as self sufficient and sustainable lifestyle as possible. I just reread my post and I didn't see where I said you need to feel the same way, or do what I do. I don't like motor sports, can I please be aloud to feel that way?


You absolutely can... the only difference is that someone who is asking to have a type of recreation removed because they don't like it, is essentially asking that someone else's form of fun be removed, but that theirs should be left for them to enjoy.

Without trying to be TOO dickish... does it not make sense to you that this is pretty fukn selfish? 

As to what I feel is most important... it doesn't matter, because I'm not trying to shut anyone out of anywhere. I'm perfectly willing to live & let live. I may bitch about all the citiots who drive by my home each weekend to escape the slums they live in, but I'm not asking that they be restricted from coming up & enjoying the areas that I call home, or that I prefer to enjoy with less people. 

I'm not a fan of the hordes, nor am I a fan of stinking motor boats on the river, but I simply understand that just because I sacrifice to live where I live & do the sports I do in the way I do them, doesn't mean that someone else has chosen to make the same choices. People have fun in different ways.


----------



## kikii875 (Oct 25, 2010)

Tom Martin said:


> What they don't know, and are being sold, is that getting in and out of big motorized tour boats is really hard, and as the studies have shown, 9 out of 10 folks who have done both trips choose the oar trip over the motor trip.


Tom,
Ten out of ten people that didn't feel comfortable in a row boat or preferred a motor boat didn't participate in that study because they didn't go on a row trip. The results are flawed.
I will have to catch up on this conversation in 11 days or so. I am off to overpopulate and to bring noise polution to the canyon.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Kiki, not sure how you can flaw a study when you poll folks who went on both types of trips and then picked one over the other.

The bottom line here is the Colorado River in Grand Canyon lacks wilderness protection and is motorized due to political gerrymandering in 1980.

To Rich Phillps, the Wilderness Act allows for historic motorized access to private in-holdings. There are no private in-holdings in Grand Canyon.

The bottom line is the Wilderness Act itself speaks to how the river should be managed. Yes, we lost in court, but the issues that drove us there are far from settled. 

Best to you all, tom


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom, 

Limited time for response, as I'm headed for more distant places for a few weeks, where there are very few electrons flying around. 

Folks can look at Wilderness.net - 1964 Wilderness Act and can see how Section 4 of the Wilderness Act (which has been has been held to apply to the Department of Interior as well as Agriculture) says, 

"...Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable." 

Nothing about inholdings there. 

Actually, the piece of documentation I like to think about when I ponder RRFW's position is Judge Campbell's Federal court ruling, *http://tinyurl.com/cz6khjt* where he described the logical result of RRFW's position.

"Plaintiffs contend that this cumulative analysis should have caused the Park Service to eliminate sounds from motorized river traffic. But if a cumulative analysis were to result in the elimination of all sounds that can be eliminated by the Park Service – in this case, all sounds other than aircraft overflights, which are not within the jurisdiction of the Park Service – then all human activity in the Park would be eliminated."

Now I'm pretty sure that isn't the kind of result most folks will support RRFW in achieving.

Gotta go.

Rich


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, have fun where ever you go. 

The intent of the act was to allow preexisting access to private inholdings, not allow commercial interests to profit with motorized use in an area with wilderness character. By Campbell's logic, there should be NO wilderness areas.

The NPS knew this in the 1970's when they first tried to deal with the wilderness question. Nothing has changes since. Wilderness character for the river, and now with ever increasing threats to the backcountry of the Park, continues to degrade. 

All the best, tom


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Personally I have nothing against the motor trips. I have done one oar trip, and five years later we chartered a private motor trip. Both trips were nearly 3 weeks long, but on the motor trip, we got to surf some awesome waves all day long and then motor to camp. The oar trip was in October and was a bit more private as we were not passes as often. No big deal there. On both trips, the motor rigs were barely audible as they passed and then they were gone. Those two trips were pretty awesome for me, and I bet the people on the shorter week long trips also had a great time. I would not support a motor ban


----------



## bluebtr (May 27, 2011)

Well correct me if i am wrong, but if you don't want to see motor rigs get a low use permit. Whats the problem?


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

bluebtr said:


> Well correct me if i am wrong, but if you don't want to see motor rigs get a low use permit. Whats the problem?


Kind of like folks who get all butthurt when they have to interact with mtn bikes or dirt bikes on legal mtn and dirtbike trails. There are other places to go if those activities are really offensive. Or different times in the case of the GC.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

I'm attending a significant public lands conference in Boulder next week, with former and current heads of the BLM, USFS, and the Secretary of the Interior, among others. This conversation is well timed for me. 

Wilderness is one of those funny topics that gets everyone riled up. Take a moment to think why that is. Obviously all of us claim some sort of ownership with our special places and we tend to think of it as more "ours" than others. That is not necessarily a bad thing. 

Fact of the matter is that public lands have a multiple use mandate. Fact of the matter is public lands belong to all of us equally. Fact of the matter is we all choose to recreate differently. 

I am a life long Idahoan and, on a emotional level, I'd like to build a fence around Idaho and keep y'all the hell out. That's my own "ownership" view but, truth be told, most of you have similar attachment to Idaho even if you don't live here and, truth be told, Idaho is no more mine than anyone else's. It's a lesson I learned years ago. 

I say all of this to make a point: how we enjoy our public lands, including wilderness, differs. Obviously wilderness has some built in limitations which necessarily impart values prescribing use of that area - that there is something enduring about quiet, reflective, "low impact" access and use. There are other goals at work too. But, for those who align themselves with those values in their recreation, they can seek them out in wilderness. 

I kayak and raft, but I also dirt bike. I feel the same connection to nature, the same serenity, the same reflective experience, the same physical, emotional and philosophical challenges doing that as I do hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, and even kayaking. And, frankly, I can enjoy much more scenery on a dirt bike ride of, say, 50-75 miles, than I can on a 10 mile hike. 

If any of us go out on our public lands and enjoy recreating on them, we have to concede that others do the same but in different ways. And while we should all advocate for our own interests, including wilderness, but especially responsible behavior, we should also work harder to nip user conflict in the bud. Share and share alike. No one group is going away anytime soon. 

(On a side note, I find it funny that someone is complaining about gas powered OHV when he admits he drives hundreds and hundreds of miles kayaking on a given weekend. Your 20-40 gallons of gas is far, far less than the 4 gallons I use on an average weekend trail ride.)


----------



## kikii875 (Oct 25, 2010)

Tom Martin said:


> Please don't think that the 15,000 folks on motorboats can't manage to travel through Grand Canyon on oar boats. What they don't know, and are being sold, is that getting in and out of big motorized tour boats is really hard, and as the studies have shown, 9 out of 10 folks who have done both trips choose the oar trip over the motor trip.





Tom Martin said:


> Hi Kiki, not sure how you can flaw a study when you poll folks who went on both types of trips and then picked one over the other.


Tom,
You are right, the results of the study are not flawed. but if you are using it to say that 9 out of 10 people who want to go on the river will pick oars then it is flawed since the study will never include people who don't want to row. It is like polling 1000 registered republicans to see who the next president will be.
They did something similar in the 80's(with river runner, not republicans ): they put several trips together where the passengers did half the trip in row boats and half in motor boats. They timed it so that they would meet on the same day at Phantom and make the swap. Most of the people choose the oar boats. but everyone knew up front that they would be going in both kinds of boats. This precluded those that didn't want to go on row boats from even choosing that trip. It also precluded those that didn't have the time although I know one of the arguments in this thread is that they should make time or just do half.
Just my two cents. BTW, just got off a great motor trip and since I had this topic on my mind I asked the guests about it: they were split about 60/40 on time/feeling secure in the bigger boats.
Tom H.


----------



## slummus (Aug 16, 2009)

I am a very experienced rafting guide in Colorado, and I have frequented the Grand Canyon on several occasions. I am now a class V kayaker in Colorado. Colorado river rafting down the grand canyon is the experience of a lifetime. This experience is celebrated amongst kayakers and rafters who seek the remote canyons and big water waves. 
I respond because of inaccuracies from each side of the argument. I was of the last crew to ever raft the canyon longer than 30 days. 
The motor boats are at a peak during the most popular times to run the river, and these dates hardly carry over into the private season to run the rapids (not to say that private trips would not dominate the "prime-time" season GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY). 
Because of preferential treatment to commercial boating on the grand (probably due to liberal-infulenced lobbyists trying to gain immoral control of water rights within federal control)....we have seen a drop in the amount of personal freedom on the Colorado River. 
Please support a free rights yet environmentally sustainable philosophical point of view through a fair lottery system. I mean...private companies should have to compete for permits EXACTLY the same way private trips do.


----------



## slickhorn (Dec 15, 2005)

Now I remember why I stopped reading the GCPBA list. 

I oppose motors. Motors represent everything I go boating to get away from. If I ran things, no motors in the GC would be a first 100 days commitment. 

The only argument for motors is to take people who aren't willing to engage that canyon on its own terms -- and I'd argue any trip into the wilderness is about sublimating the human urge to dominate everything, and seek to experience a place on its own terms. Motors about getting folks in there who won't commit the time it takes to float it, or are uncomfortable with the risk of a raft. 

All of that said, why on earth would you expect a pristine wilderness experience in a place that gets that much traffic? Do you expect solitude when you float the MF Salmon? The Wild and Scenic Rogue and Main Salmon are full of motors too yano .... 

I prefer boating in wilderness. So, I go to wild places. Anyplace with scores of people launching every day is, in my opinion, fundamentally not wilderness. 

Do I wish the GC was wild? Sure ... but it ain't and it ain't likely to be. I consider those places sacrifical, and they are investments made in showing people why wilderness matters. Hopefully a motor trip leads to a dory trip or a MF raft trip, then maybe to an Illinois trip or something truly wild. 

None of us was born inherently valuing wilderness. The folks who oppose motors like I do arrive that position after years of learning to appreciate what you get in wild motor free places. If we want any wilderness left, we have to have these places that are gateways and start people on the road to appreciate wilderness and human powered travel. 

The GC seems like it'd have to be on a top 10 list of any such places in the country.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

So... next time you're thinking about leaving the city, those of us that choose to live in places without hordes of people, would prefer you not use a motor to do so.

We feel that you using a motor to get out of the city violates all that not living in a city is about.

The day someone like you walks to the grand canyon with your raft on your back is the day I'll start agreeing with you.


----------



## slickhorn (Dec 15, 2005)

uh .... when I drive from the city out to a rural place ... I am not driving through wilderness, am I?


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

slickhorn said:


> uh .... when I drive from the city out to a rural place ... I am not driving through wilderness, am I?


If you want to use a legal designation... no. And by that same token, the river itself isn't either.

The reality is, there are many places that are "wild", and when people leave their cities to go visit them, they bring the city with. I'd love if they all just stayed where they came from & didn't ugly up the areas... but they don't. The same goes for the river. I'd love for the grand to be a quiet pristine place, but it's not, it's a citiot tourist trap.


----------



## slickhorn (Dec 15, 2005)

I'll assume you didn't read my post then. I never claimed the river was a designated wilderness. And I certainly don't bring the city with me, whatever that means. 

I've hiked my own self support gear in on several trips, the GC Elwha, the W&S Chetco, and have plans to do it again on the Little Colorado, EF Clear Creek, and Lost River. I practice what I preach.

But no doubt your wilderness ethic and purity dwarfs my own, since you live in a rural community. I've done so too ... and I can say I use a lot less fuel living in a city where I can get around by bike, catch a ski bus, etc than I ever did when I faced a 20 mile drive to do anything.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

I work from home, since you want to make it about me. I drove about 8 feet from where I woke up this morning. 

By bringing the city with you... I mean the hordes of people come from a crowded, nasty place, and you bring yourselves to somewhere that was quiet & serene before you got there... just like a passing motorboat.

You hiked your gear on a trip? Like you left home with all your gear & hiked to the river?
If you walked from home, I'd say you're a badass... kudos. That, I'm sure, is not what you mean though. You mean you drove your car somewhere, and did some hiking with your gear.

You leaving the city in your car, is JUST like that passing motorboat... you go past somewhere that WAS nice & quiet, and you bring your vehicle with you.

Either way, what it comes down to is that you, being more special & far more important than the motorboat passengers, would prefer that THEY not be able to do what they enjoy doing. However else you phrase it... that's the reality. I see you leaving the city as the exact same thing, because I'm more special & more important since I choose to sacrifice to live in a place that isn't filled with cars, horns, condos, and hordes of people. I see the two as being very similar. 
I'd love to deprive you of the ability to leave the city, but I wouldn't, and as much as I love to joke about it, I like the fact that other people get to see what I see on a daily basis, EVEN if they don't make the same sacrifice that I do.


----------



## slickhorn (Dec 15, 2005)

Unless you never leave your little walkable zone yourself, you are describing a standard that leaves us all house ridden. Not sure what your point is, but the fact is density and urban environments are more efficient and allow larger tracts of land to remain undeveloped. Suburban sprawl, not cities, are the blight you describe. I bike and use transit and save my car miles for 4 person carpools to remote places. That's the best compromise I can make without giving up my passions.

My larger point re GC motors is that while I, personally, would prefer a GC w/o motors, I recognize and accept that some places get sacrificed this way. To me, it's a fair tradeoff because the kind of person who would only go down the GC on a motor trip is probably going to get exposure to an experience that will increase their appreciate and support of wilderness values -- an experience they might not ever have if that trip were not available. 

There's a great Ed Abbey essay about this. He writes about the opposition he faced when he wrote about one of the "secret stashes" in the SE Utah area. His point, and the point I'm trying to make here, is that some places need to be sacrificed to high traffic because that's how people come to care about the places. If no one cares about it, no one will protect or preserve it. You and three friends with a secret stash are not going to save a drainage. AW documenting historical use and speaking for a large group people will have much more impact.

Either you didn't read my whole post or I totally failed to make my point I guess. But I get pretty sick of the exurb superiority complex, because the economics of it simply dont work out. Feels good to be superior, as you note, though don't it?


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

slickhorn said:


> Unless you never leave your little walkable zone yourself, you are describing a standard that leaves us all house ridden. Not sure what your point is, but the fact is density and urban environments are more efficient and allow larger tracts of land to remain undeveloped. Suburban sprawl, not cities, are the blight you describe. I bike and use transit and save my car miles for 4 person carpools to remote places. That's the best compromise I can make without giving up my passions.
> 
> My larger point re GC motors is that while I, personally, would prefer a GC w/o motors, I recognize and accept that some places get sacrificed this way. To me, it's a fair tradeoff because the kind of person who would only go down the GC on a motor trip is probably going to get exposure to an experience that will increase their appreciate and support of wilderness values -- an experience they might not ever have if that trip were not available.
> 
> ...


It was a point that I see being very similar to what wilderness buffs make... same "superiority" just like the people that say "well, they should just make time to do the month long trip"... the same can be said for many things, a poor example... someone shouldn't go unless they have time to walk to the river... BOTH are silly, that's my point.

Either way, in the end... yes I did read your post and we do agree on some points, but at the end you seem to change your mind, or I simply misunderstood your closing point in the first post.


----------



## slickhorn (Dec 15, 2005)

I can sorta understand the whole "take a month" thing. I mean, trying to cram the GC into six days, to me, feels like bringing the city mindset with you. Which is not to say it shouldn't be an option, but it's not an option I'd choose. If I only had six days, I'd want to go to a place I could immerse myself in and experience fully. I learned this the hard way hiking the John Muir Trail -- no existential pacing/camping choices, just a grind with x miles per day or run out of food. The opposite of "river time."

then again, I totally am a river/wilderness snob. I try not to be superior about it, and I do still love places like the Rogue or MF Salmon ... but I don't go in expecting a wilderness experience there. Maybe a lot of this comes down to expectations?

anyway, fun discussion. cheers!
-brian


----------



## shortbus (Jun 22, 2006)

One final paragraph of advice: 
do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am — a reluctant enthusiast... a part-time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it’s still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for a while and contemplate the precious stillness, the lovely, mysterious, and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to the body, the body active and alive, and I promise you this much; I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those desk-bound men and women with their hearts in a safe deposit box, and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this; You will outlive the bastards.
Cactus Ed...


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

shortbus said:


> One final paragraph of advice:
> do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am — a reluctant enthusiast... a part-time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it’s still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for a while and contemplate the precious stillness, the lovely, mysterious, and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to the body, the body active and alive, and I promise you this much; *I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies*, over those desk-bound men and women with their hearts in a safe deposit box, and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this; You will outlive the bastards.
> Cactus Ed...



Are they really the enemy though? Just because they choose to enjoy the same place, the same general sport in a different way than us?

This is the thing I'm always fighting, even when I'm not on the side (I hate 4 wheelers for example... can't stand them, but I'll fight for their right to access legal non wilderness lands the same as myself) that they are, can't we see that they're enjoying the same basic thing that makes it great for all of us?


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't think Ed was talking about people who "enjoy the same general sport in a different way than us." 

And, you guys are doing just fine with your debate/conversation but if you're using a motor, then it ain't the same as the sport I'm doing with my paddle and my legs, not even in a general way. And your stinking, loud motor impacts my experience in an unacceptable manner. The Grand has its own special history and circumstance, and I'm sympathetic to those that can't access the back country w/o mechanical aid, but motors and wilderness don't mix and we need wilderness.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Phil U. said:


> I don't think Ed was talking about people who "enjoy the same general sport in a different way than us."
> 
> And, you guys are doing just fine with your debate/conversation but if you're using a motor, then it ain't the same as the sport I'm doing with my paddle and my legs, not even in a general way. And your stinking, loud motor impacts my experience in an unacceptable manner. The Grand has its own special history and circumstance, and I'm sympathetic to those that can't access the back country w/o mechanical aid, but motors and wilderness don't mix and we need wilderness.


And there you have it. The epitome of intolerance and self righteousness. I mtn bike, back country ski, hike, climb, sail, and do a lot of self propelled and unmotorized sports. I also ride chairlifts, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, and sometimes get invited to water ski. I never think the other guy's method or recreation is "unacceptable", unless rules such as wilderness violations happen. And who says their experience has to be the same as yours? Get over yourself


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

"unless rules such as wilderness violations happen." 

Doh! Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you but I finished with "but motors and wilderness don't mix and we need wilderness." 

If that's the "epitome of intolerance and self righteousness" in your world than you surely aren't following politics these days. 

And who said all rec has to be the same? Make an effort at reading comprehension and then we can talk.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

Phil U. said:


> I don't think Ed was talking about people who "enjoy the same general sport in a different way than us."
> 
> And, you guys are doing just fine with your debate/conversation but if you're using a motor, then it ain't the same as the sport I'm doing with my paddle and my legs, not even in a general way. And your stinking, loud motor impacts my experience in an unacceptable manner. The Grand has its own special history and circumstance, and I'm sympathetic to those that can't access the back country w/o mechanical aid, but motors and wilderness don't mix and we need wilderness.


Bottom line is that this is your view and only your view, and it doesn't represent the diversity of other viewpoints of how to use, access, and recreate on the public domain. 

There is no "higher value" to how we use public lands; not participating in motorized recreation is no more pure or divine than riding an ATV on a trail somewhere. 

Hiking (or kayaking, mountain biking, et al) are no more or less an authentic experience than the diversity of ways other people enjoy being outdoors. Let's stop with that pretense right now.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

And before you comment on following politics or knowing how the process works... I know firsthand, academically and professionally, being involved with wilderness initiatives, BLM regional management plans, scoping meetings, public lands conferences, and a number of other similar capacities... 

This same sort of attitude comes up time and time again, but any number of users or interest groups ("my way is better/was there first/more important, etc."). It goes nowhere. All interests should be sitting at the table working together to figure out how to best manage, access and use public lands. That's the reality of politics today.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Anchorless said:


> Bottom line is that this is your view and only your view, and it doesn't represent the diversity of other viewpoints of how to use, access, and recreate on the public domain.
> 
> There is no "higher value" to how we use public lands; not participating in motorized recreation is no more pure or divine than riding an ATV on a trail somewhere.
> 
> Hiking (or kayaking, mountain biking, et al) are no more or less an authentic experience than the diversity of ways other people enjoy being outdoors. Let's stop with that pretense right now.


So we should have no areas designated as wilderness?


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Anchorless said:


> And before you comment on following politics or knowing how the process works... I know firsthand, academically and professionally, being involved with wilderness initiatives, BLM regional management plans, scoping meetings, public lands conferences, and a number of other similar capacities...
> 
> This same sort of attitude comes up time and time again, but any number of users or interest groups ("my way is better/was there first/more important, etc."). It goes nowhere. All interests should be sitting at the table working together to figure out how to best manage, access and use public lands. That's the reality of politics today.


Cool. I won't bore you with my experience(s). Maybe you could just have a conversation with yourself since you have all the answers.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Really Phil? I have no problem with wilderness. I greatly value and love the wilderness areas around here, and elsewhere. We do need wilderness. I have no problem comprehending what your view is. You don't use motors, your experience is superior, and anyone not doing like you do is offensive. You said it. Now own it.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

ZGjethro said:


> Really Phil? I have no problem with wilderness. I greatly value and love the wilderness areas around here, and elsewhere. We do need wilderness. I have no problem comprehending what your view is. You don't use motors, your experience is superior, and anyone not doing like you do is offensive. You said it. Now own it.


No, Bro. That's not what I said. But here's what I'll say now. Maybe this will help you understand my perspective but I'm not confidant based on your apparent need to paint me in some caricature in your own story.

There are places where motors are appropriate and there are places where they aren't. We have areas set aside that establish that. When I'm in an area where motors are prohibited but I have to smell and listen to them and deal with their impact on the environment it pisses me off. And yes, my opinion is that our impact is much too expansive already. We need more wilderness areas, not fewer. And yes, I choose to limit my use of motors. And yes, I believe that, as a generalization, there is a more respectful and deeper spiritual connection possible with human powered endeavors than motorized ones. Sorry if that tweaks your sensibilities.

The Cathedral known as the Grand Canyon is a complicated area in this regard. My druthers would be no motors but there is precedence and I am able to appreciate that more people are able to experience Her/its power because of motors. 

I'm from Maine, been here in CO. 3+ years. In Maine we have lakes and ponds where motors are legal and others where they aren't. Nothing like paddling in a pristine setting where motors aren't allowed (and there are nesting Loons) and having a couple drunk kids tear up the lake on a couple jet skis. That being said I've owned sail boats, paddle and oar powered boats and motor boats (gasp) to explore the coast for my entire adult life. I've also lived off the grid for 15 years, owned motorcycles, been a commercial organic farmer, been a builder and developer, sat on planning boards and been an environmental activist. It, and I, ain't all black and white. 

The other dude (Anchorless) is right. There are multiple, legitimate uses of public lands and in fact that is what the various agencies are generally charged with balancing. I think the planet as a healthy system is probably lost. We have squandered our children's and our children's, children's home. I can think of few more selfish, outrageous and tragic acts that a society can do to its own. I think there is value in quiet, low impact experience of wilderness. Yes, I value that more than motorized access. Therefore, I will advocate for respect for our planet and the establishment of more wilderness areas. 

Waay too late. I'm out.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

As to people being in areas they shouldn't be... 100+% agree. Pisses me off too, but that's not what this thread is about at all.

The comment that "if you're using a motor, then it ain't the same as the sport I'm doing with my paddle and my legs, not even in a general way" is pretty unfortunate imo. It's sad that you cant see that YOUR way of enjoying the outdoors isn't the only way that's worthy, or that it's really not that different. Someone rafting with a motor & someone rafting with oars... is pretty damn close. They're both out in a chunk of inflated rubber, enjoying an amazing place.

I've skied, snowboarded, tele'd & XC'd my whole life, a few years back I got into sledding... I come home at the end of the day more wiped than I ever have in a day of skinning laps, and to me, it's very similar in the experience. I wouldn't go riding in places I shouldn't be, but in legal places I take great offense to people trying to close down more & more areas. 

It's the people who want to separate us, to make us out to all be so different from each other, that cause more harm than good in this life. US & THEM is just getting worse & worse in this world. And it's those dam city people causing it


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Phil, I get pissed when I see sleds in the wilderness, or motor boats where they are not allowed, but that is not the issue here. These motor rigs are allowed, and the canyon is not wilderness. Your own statements about "stinking loud motors affecting you in an unacceptable way" Is what leads me to paint you as intolerant. You do not tolerate these activities. Advocating for more wilderness is fine by me, just own up to your intolerance.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Just thought I'd chime in again to note that motors on the Grand are for huge pussies with no respect for a sacred place. If you're defending them you are an un-enlightened ******* and should be made to suck on a tailpipe! Row it or go ride your ATV - nobody wants you down there!

Can you tell it's been over a week since I've been on the water? Let the winter 'buzz begin!


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Ha ha! Leave it to rafters to call each other pussies for how they run (row vs. motor) flatwater. Comedy. 

The grand isn't designated wilderness, no matter how hard you whine about it.

If you want real wilderness... the grand isn't it... Go find it... hint: it doesn't have a NPS sign, premade boat ramps, or a whole email list devoted to it.

Also, Kudo's to the GCPBA for working hard to get a much better permit system put into place on the grand. Under the new system, you can essentially go every year if you are flexible on time of year. Huge improvement over the old plan. Is it perfect... no. Is it totally fair to all parties... maybe not, but compromise is the only way you get what you want. If you fight for all or nothing in these situations, you will get nothing. If you compromise and negoatiate, you can get something. The GCPBA understands this, but many of the folks on this thread do not.


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

deepsouthpaddler said:


> Also, Kudo's to the GCPBA for working hard to get a much better permit system put into place on the grand.


Cheers to that! I have a hard time understanding people bashing them for "selling out" when the fact is that they brought much better access, and even a longer non-motorized season to everyone (it was 3 months, now its 6.5). In the 7 years I was on the list, I had exactly one chance to get on the Grand, and that still required me fighting teeth and nail just to get a December cancellation. Since the new system went online, I've been on two lottery permits, and had invites on a least a half dozen others that I couldn't make due to work. I can't tell if my experience is representative or not, but it certainly _seems_ a lot more accessible.

However, there are some insults being thrown here on both sides I don't agree with either. I don't believe someone should be labeled "arrogant" just because they believe Grand Canyon should or should not be designated a wilderness area. Arrogance is a personality trait. Believing one has a right to say how our Federal lands should or should not be used is as American as apple pie. The result is that our national parks tend to be governed by the values of society, but (we hope) with an eye towards preservation for the future as well. The are things that used to be allowed in national parks that aren't anymore (e.g. feeding the wildlife, cutting trees for firewood, the "firefall" at Yosemite). There are things that are not allowed now that should be (kayaking in Yellowstone). So if society decides at some point that it values wilderness over motorized recreation, its possible it will be become a designated wilderness. If it values accessibility and motorized access, it may not. But I think people are fully entitled to their opinion, and shouldn't be personally attacked for it.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Randaddy said:


> Just thought I'd chime in again to note that motors on the Grand are for huge pussies with no respect for a sacred place. If you're defending them you are an un-enlightened ******* and should be made to suck on a tailpipe! Row it or go ride your ATV - nobody wants you down there!
> 
> Can you tell it's been over a week since I've been on the water? Let the winter 'buzz begin!


Lots of opinion and hate going on here. If they were running jet boats like on the Salmon, or it was a jetski free-for-all I'd be with you. The Grand is not wilderness, and the motors are pretty unobtrusive. More of and issue to me is the number of trips commercials get vs private trips. If they got permits the same as private trips did, they would likely extend the trip time to maximize their profits since they would have far fewer trips.


Today was mtn bike day. Tomorrow is road bike day with my wife. And Sunday I blew off a Westwater trip since I did not want to drive that far, and I think I'll go moto in the high country. Thanks for the advice Randaddy


----------



## suzpollon (Apr 18, 2009)

I feel like no one had really brought up something about the Grand that needs to be mentioned - 

It's an intro to boating and camping and wilderness (I use the term in the non-legal sense) for so many people. I think that ultimately is a good thing for everyone. 

And those of you throwing out insults about - either people who are only taking a week or needing a motor or . . . shame on you. You started somewhere. You needed help. Maybe it was a book or a movie, and not a guided, motorized trip down the Grand, but there was some way you started. 

I started because in the early 70s my family (definitely city folks who loved the outdoors but were never going to have time between family/work/life to both learn to raft/kayak and have a month off) pooled with a few other familys, hired guides and (what I can only assume - I was too young to go) motored down the Grand Canyon. Years later, I went to school in the Pacific Northwest and my Dad said - you have to try kayaking now that you live by all those rivers. 

I've now been down the Grand Canyon, and it's not my favorite place to kayak. I would much rather be somewhere without the motors and crowds - and lucky me, those places are plentiful.


----------

