# Grand Canyon Trip Support



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

If you have a 2012 GC permit for a launch between mid April and mid September, and are thinking you might want raft support, consider checking this out.

Looking for Help with Your Trip? - Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

20' motorized cats, I think we call that a commercial trip. I realize that just about anyone can win a GC lottery but if you don't have the skill to oar the canyon why bother. And if you have to get these 3 guys to motor you down you need to work on your boating skills first.:razz:


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Wavester,

This is really not unlike the posts you see where people with a permit are looking for someone to augment their trip with gear, personnel, or experience. We're just coming at it from the other direction.

To be clear, we're not commercial in any sense -- just three guys with a collection of gear and a fair amount of experience. We'll pay our share just like other participants and won't expect any compensation -- over or under the table.

You're absolulely right -- this arrangement is not for most private boaters. But it lends itself to helping a group of kayakers who don't want to go self-support for a couple of weeks. It also might appeal to rafters with smaller boats and not a lot of experience in organizing long desert river trips.

Your point about having experience before getting a GC permit is one that's been debated quite a bit. But the reality is, the "one trip a year" rule in the Grand Canyon means there are people winning permits in the lottery who have quite a bit less experience down there. 

And yes, the fact we're motorized will turn some folks off. But there are others for whom that would provide benefits. It's all in your concept of a GC trip, the time you have available, the amount of gear you want to bring, and other elements like that. 

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips


----------



## raftus (Jul 20, 2005)

Rich - what a nice response. All those years of running GCPBA (That was you right?) have honed your ability to be nice even to those that might be a bit less than that to you. Good luck finding a great trip to join.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Raftus,

Actually, this being the Buzz and all, I considered that a pretty mild jab (grin). 

Thing is, we all (and I include myself in this) tend to forget that there is a rather large universe of boaters out there -- with widely varied interests and capabilities. Our little private three-person consortium is not trying to impose on anyone else our views of how the Canyon ought to be run. But if our capabilities will help someone else get on the Grand -- and get us on the river there as well -- then so much the better for all concerned. 

BTW, I didn't run GCPBA, but I was on the Board until about 3-4 years ago. It's still a good organization, doing good things. In fact its Board is meeting with top GCNP officials this coming weekend -- something that's pretty unique. GCPBA's relationship with the Park is valuable to private boaters when it comes to voicing our interests and concerns about GC river-running.

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

I dont think there was anything rude at all about my comment and I stand by it. I know exactly who he is and was a member of the GCPBA myself until they became an organization advocating for motor rigs and fought against wilderness designation in the Canyon and gave away over 2/3 of the summer GC launches for commercial use.... Nothing to be proud of imo. (now that's what I call a "jab")
And I have no doubt these guys will find a trip, somebody who just read about a trip of a lifetime in Outside magazine and entered the lottery for the first time, now they need somebody to motor them down the canyon and take over their trip. 
As they say to each his own, good luck. 




raftus said:


> Rich - what a nice response. All those years of running GCPBA (That was you right?) have honed your ability to be nice even to those that might be a bit less than that to you. Good luck finding a great trip to join.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Wavester,

I don't consider your comments as serious jabs in any case. They represent a legitimate point of view that a lot of folks have expressed. And in any event, I think the unpublished rule here is, "If you post on the Buzz, be ready to take a little guff every now and then".

So, even though I'm not a spokesperson for GCPBA, let me add a few things to the mix.

1. As a matter of record, GCPBA has never advocated for motorized GC boating. The fact it opposed a lawsuit that -- among many other things -- included a challenge to the use of motors, does not mean that it advocated for motor use. GCPBA has maintained complete neutrality on the issue. Not supporting efforts to obtain a motor ban does not mean advocacy for motors.

2. The new management plan (which GCPBA did support) means that:

a. The motor season was shortened considerably.

b. The number of private GC launches increased considerably, while the number of commercial launches was modestly reduced. 

c. For the entire year, commercial launches decreased from 640 to 598, while private launches increased from 253 to 503. 

d. Private launches increased from 226 to 384 during the most desirable Spring/Summer/Fall seasons. 

e. A large percentage of the increase in Spring/Fall private launches are in the no-motor portion of the year.

3. GCPBA has never opposed wilderness designation for the Grand Canyon river corridor. In fact, I can tell you that in all the Board activities in which I was involved, opposition to wilderness was never voiced. My impression was (and remains) that if it did come up as an issue, GCPBA's Board would support a Wilderness designation by Congress. Again, the failure to advocate actively for something shouldn't be interpreted as opposition.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

Hi Rich,
Most of the increased launches for privates were in the winter while commercial launches were actually increased in the prime summer months under the newer plan. As to whether the new plan is better then the old, that's debatible as are many of the numbers your throwing out. 
I noticed that your offering your guide service during the prime spring and summer months. Perhaps you should take advantage of all those launches during the winter that GCPBA got us, say Jan or Feb. After all a 20' motor rig can probably carry a lot of cold weather gear...grin.


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

Interesting "facts", here's an accurate souce for how the CRMP has impacted private boaters in the Grand Canyon:

Grand Canyon Litigation | River Runners For Wilderness

Wavester




richp said:


> Hi Wavester,
> 
> I don't consider your comments as serious jabs in any case. They represent a legitimate point of view that a lot of folks have expressed. And in any event, I think the unpublished rule here is, "If you post on the Buzz, be ready to take a little guff every now and then".
> 
> ...


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Wavester,

I guess I have to start out by noting that RRFW's position was soundly rejected by both Federal District and Federal Appeals courts. It reads well, has genuine merit in some respects, but ultimately was unpersuasive with regard to the issues. So what we have now -- and will have for the next few years -- is what I'm talking about.

The numbers I provided are not mine -- they come straight from the management plan's (Grand Canyon National Park - Colorado River Management Plan Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service) ) supporting materials. And they're pretty clear...

Not all the increase in private allocation was in the winter, but the entire late fall/winter/early spring allocation went to private boaters. If you want a pure no-motor environment, there are six and a half months of it in the new plan -- including many beautiful late fall and early spring launch opportunities.

But the benefits are more extensive than that. For private boaters, spring, summer, and fall launches alone increased significantly -- exceeding the entire private allocation under the old system. The number of commercial launches decreased. The motor season was shortened. The maximum size of commercial groups was lowered. The small group option was added for privates. 

Plus, other features of the plan eased pressure on the Canyon and helped reduce on-river contacts. For instance, the total number of launches each day dropped from nine to six. The total number of trips on the river at any time dropped from 70 to 60. The maximum number of people on the river at one time was reduced to 985 from 1,095. Again, not my figures, but those contained in the management plan that was adopted.

Sure there was a numerical increase in winter launches. That's because before the new plan there were no winter trips at all. 

Were there elements in the plan that don't sit well with me? Sure. Things like the one trip a year rule. I personally would have a large and small trip launch every day of the year. I also would like to have seen a different method for the lottery to make its automated choices. 

But overall, the new plan resulted in a fairly decent compromise between a lot of very different competing interests, and objectively provided significant access gains for private boaters. Perfect, no. Lots better, absolutely.

To be quite clear, this little three-person consortium of ours is not a guide service; we're just folks looking for a participatory role in a private trip. And the dates we're potentially available coincide with the motor season established by the Park. The rest of the year there are no motors allowed. 

And ironically, you've mentioned something that a few folks have raised as an argument for a winter motor season. A big S-rig could easily carry a yurt, several cords of firewood, and all the warm clothing you could ever want down there. Not to mention the extra safety margin that a big boat like that can provide under some circumstances for cold weather boating.

Another irony -- I'm fundamentally a rowing guy. I've taken the very same twenty foot cat down the Grand and other rivers under oar power, and will likely do it again. But there are situations where a motor trip makes sense for me. And all we're looking to do here is find someone else for whom our kind of setup makes sense as well.

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips


----------



## briandburns (Jan 12, 2010)

richp said:


> And yes, the fact we're motorized will turn some folks off. But there are others for whom that would provide benefits.


Ah yes, the added benefits of breathing exhaust fumes and listening to a motor in one of the most beautiful places in the world!


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Brian,

This won't make much difference to folks who are opposed to motors on unalterable principle, but it's worth a try for those who are undecided.

The new four-stroke motors are exceptionally clean and quiet; the old days of smelly, rattling two-strokes are long gone and through-the-prop exhausts keep the remaining noise even lower. And cat hulls just don't need much oomph to keep them moving at a steady pace. 

On the trip I did this past fall, we drifted for about a third of the time, and putted along at idle everywhere else but in the rapids. I can tell you you don't hear the motor in the rapids, that's for sure. And on the flats, if I was more than 50-60 feet away from one of our other boats, there was no way you could tell if the motor was running or not. And certainly not from any odor.

Related factoid. With my carbureted motor, I used a bit less than 6 gallons of fuel to go 225 miles to Diamond. The other two guys have fuel injection and they used less than 4.5 gallons for that same distance. You can't be running a motor very much, very hard, or very loud, or vaporize off much fuel, and get that kind of fuel economy. 

But again, I'm not advocating motors for everyone. I'm simply offering an option for folks for whom motor support makes sense and doesn't present any philosophical problems.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

*It's not really about motors nor am I against them. But they're not needed in the GC, they're there so raft companies can get more people down the river and make bigger profits. That being said I have found the jet boat operators on the Rogue and Main Salmon proffesional and courteous and remember they were running these rivers long before we were unlike the GC. *
*This is about an unfair system (CRMP) that rewards commercial interests at the expense of private boaters.*
*Here's some basic stats about the CRMP (provided by RRFW) *

*User Days *

114,010 commercial passengers (does not count 25,000 commercial guide user days) 
103,492 non-commercial people. 
*User Days In the Summer*

90,908 user days commercial passengers (does not count commercial guide user days) 
33,827 user days non-commercial.
*Number of launches a year*

610 river concessionaire launches
471 non-commercial launches. 
*Summer Season Launches*

486 concessionaire launches of 32 folks
123 groups of 16 folks standard and 62 groups of 8 folks non-commercial trips. 
*Group Sizes*

Concessions launches are 32 people
Non-commercial 16 or 8 folks


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Wavester,

I suppose you and I could swap numbers all weekend -- picking the ones that will support our point of view. And I suspect we wouldn't convince anyone to change their mindset about motors in the Canyon or allocation levels. 

Neither of which were the subject of the original post. But that's largely my fault. I'm constituionally unable to let something like this go without a rebuttal or two. 

However, I have to say I appreciate the high level of discourse we've had. I was expecting to be treated a lot worse by the usual ruffians -- the ones interested only in knowing if my cat would carry 120 cases of beer. (grin)

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips


----------



## kikii875 (Oct 25, 2010)

Wavester said:


> *It's not really about motors nor am I against them. But they're not needed in the GC, they're there so raft companies can get more people down the river and make bigger profits. That being said I have found the jet boat operators on the Rogue and Main Salmon proffesional and courteous and remember they were running these rivers long before we were unlike the GC. *


Wavester,
When did private trips really start in the GC (besides Powell and Stanton/Brown)?
Commercial trips have been running the canyon since Norm Nevills started Canyoneers in the 40's. I started running commercially in the canyon in 1969 and for the first 5 years I only saw 2 private trips. When was it again that you started running in the canyon?
And how can you say that "*we were *" running trips down the canyon for as long as commercial trips. You are full of it.


----------



## mcoper8901 (Mar 28, 2011)

This is the most polite argument I have ever heard/read.


----------



## chepora (Feb 6, 2008)

Weed is getting even better...now if we could just get all the politicians to smoke some


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

The statement was about _when motor_ trips started in the GC not about when commercial trips started. Of course people were running the GC commercially before they were running it recreationally as in most of the big rivers of the west. And the "we" being recreational river runners in the GC, not me personally. That's what's changed since the original regulations were drafted by the NPS in the GC, namely that there's a lot more "we's" or recreational boaters in the Summer months then there were in the 70's but the allocation of trips still disproportionally favors commercial trips. And this was not addressed in the new CRMP.

As far as who started rafting the GC first, you win as you were rafting the GC before I was born and have another drink genius...




kikii875 said:


> Wavester,
> When did private trips really start in the GC (besides Powell and Stanton/Brown)?
> Commercial trips have been running the canyon since Norm Nevills started Canyoneers in the 40's. I started running commercially in the canyon in 1969 and for the first 5 years I only saw 2 private trips. When was it again that you started running in the canyon?
> And how can you say that "*we were *" running trips down the canyon for as long as commercial trips. You are full of it.


----------



## fdon (Jul 23, 2008)

So Rich, Your proposition is to be invited to support a private GC trip with large motorized boats. I am assuming the boats are fully equipped, legally rigged and will be carrying everything including the kitchen sink. That seems a huge investment in money and time. I am curious about how much money your group feels your boats and equipment offer is worth. A per day or per week estimate would be appreciated. 

In the spirit of full disclosure, I find motors and all the trappings that come with them on the river a major intrusion on the Canyon experience in general therefore choosing to row during the non-motor season. 

Kendi, both the Powell adventures as well as the Stanton efforts could be classified as commercial trips (not private as you presume) as both men were financed by commercial expansion interests. Also, most all the modern commercial guide services have roots as private boaters that went into the business. It seems the bad actors that brought on the need for regulation with few exceptions were members of those commercial interests. BTW, your avatar depicting a crotchety old fellow sitting on a 2x4 is one of the best on the Buzz ;/


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Motors suck for more reasons than noise and pollution. I'll list a few.

They take away the old school "do it yourself" aspect. In short, they are for weaker boaters.

They take away fairness in camp selections. If people generally floated about the same pace those of us with the gumption to row the canyon wouldn't get f'd by motor boaters all the time.

They keep people from earning what has been earned with blisters and hard work for well over a hundred years. Making it easier does not make it better.

They set precedent for motors in other wild places, in legislation and in the minds of users. With more people entering wilderness than ever, experienced outdoor enthusiasts need to set a good example - not show how easy it can be.

Four stroke or two stroke, these problems exist any time a motor is used on a flowing river, especially one where the current is swift the entire way, as in the Grand!

Just my opinion, no offense intended, but please think about it next time you pull that cord.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Thought I had closed this out nicely, and then these last two posts came up. 

Fdon, the short answer to your question is zero -- we would not expect anything over or under the table for our participation. 

I suppose there are folks out there who operate that way, but not us. No "rent". No "equipment surcharge". Full cost sharing Lees to Pearce. The value we expect to get back would not be monetary -- it would be the experience of getting down the Canyon one more time. And for old guys like us, that's return enough on our investment.

Randy, no offense taken. You have a ton of experience, and your views are well-expressed and not without support. But I've rowed my entire career up until the past several years. In '07, I rowed my twenty footer well enough to keep up with one of the motor cats that's in our little consortium. I may be old and approaching feeble, but don't automatically assume all motor guys are weak boaters. 

I think part of the confusion here is that private motor trips (and yes there are others besides us) don't necessarily operate like the big J- and S-rigs, which do push down the river a big more agressively, make more noise, and do have some advantages on camp selection. We're there to see and enjoy the Canyon also. As I noted in another post, we drift a lot and idle quietly at pretty much a rowing pace the rest of the time. That's not going to satisfy folks whose core beliefs exclude motors totally, but it's a reality for the way our little group operates.

Now I want to lay out a specific case for a more general proposition. My orthopedic surgeon says I need both shoulders replaced (arthritis secondary to multiple rotator cuff issues -- that's what some of you younger kayakers can look forward to...). And when that happens I'll no longer be rowing, chopping firewood, or even throwing a canoe up on my shoulders for a portage. 

I can still row right now; I rowed the entire Canyon in the big twenty footer just last year. But the motor may help me extend my boating career down there. Not looking for sympathy -- just pointing out that motors help people get down there who otherwise couldn't do it -- other than as a passenger. And think about how much you would enjoy riding along after all these years running your own boat...

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich your rig sounds sweet. I would have one too if I could afford it.

What's it running, a ten horse?

I love the idea of a rig that is still quite rowable, but has the motor to get across a lake, or even just to kick it with a brew instead of fighting a head wind.

The ability to make miles and enjoy daylight at camp or on a hike seems like a real bonus. 

If that takes something away from your experience, don't do it. 

Randy, I do feel sorry if you get skunked on camp again by a motor rig or self support kayakers for that matter.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

OK, I'll wade in and help flog this dead horse a little more...



Randaddy said:


> They take away fairness in camp selections. If people generally floated about the same pace those of us with the gumption to row the canyon wouldn't get f'd by motor boaters all the time.


I disagree on these two points.



> They take away fairness in camp selections.


Seems like commercial motor trips grabbing the best campsites always comes up and folks act like a no motors scenario would eliminate this. The oarsmen who run the GC for a living are going to be a lot fitter and more focused on getting their peeps down the river than us privates just floating with the current. They know the canyon better than most privates, and they'll structure their days and push the oars to get the best campsites if they really want them.



> If people generally floated about the same pace...


This feeds right to the "intrusiveness" fdon mentions. The reality is that with the commercials running motors and making the miles, "contact time between groups" is much less than all oar powered trips because the motor trips pass by quickly. With all oars one group may require an hour or more to overtake another group and disappear around the next bend. From what I understand the GC modeling showed this for the no motors scenario and one of the reasons no motors was rejected was because it would actually _decrease_ the feeling of solitude in the Canyon.

So one should actually say, "If people generally floated about the same pace we'd have other trips in view all day long and the commercials could still take the better campsites at the end of the day."

-AH


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Dave,

All three of our rigs use 20' Jacks tubes, which are 30" in diameter. Our frames are 15-16 feet long -- mine is an NRS derivative and the other two use steel basket-type frames. The other two guys have 20 hp Hondas and I have an 18hp Tohatsu. We each have a backup motor, to comply with Park regulations. But if I bashed a lower unit on my main motor, I'd might just shift some boxes around, make a rower's bay, and rig the oars I bring anyway. It's a 12 day schedule to Diamond, and that's perfectly doable rowing, even for an old guy like me.

Even with the motors, we actually move about the same pace as a pure rowing trip. And while we could, we've never found it necessary to particularly speed up a day's itinerary to make camp on the Grand. Maybe go an hour or two longer than we planned, but it's actually never been a real issue. Perhaps the real benefit to a motor in this instance is you can go an extra hour or two and not worry about fatigue...

On my trip in '07, where we did 23 days to South Cove, I rowed along with one of the Honda boats. (This was before the current hybrid trip rule was in effect.) We had five layovers, and most other days we hiked or were off the river by mid-afternoon. But of course being early-to-bed, early-to-rise kinds of folks, we were on the river every day by 7:30 (yeah, that's a tipoff that we're not party types), and didn't scout anything but Hance, Horn, Crystal, and Lava. 

I know this private motor thing is sort of unusual, and isn't for everybody. But our guess is that there's a segment of the boating universe where our setup might be useful and philosophically acceptable.

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips


----------



## synergyboater (Jan 5, 2008)

Apparently I am one of the weaker boaters that feels very fortunate to have worked the Grand full time for years and lucky enough to work a trip or two each year now. It is quite obvious Randy has not had the opportunity to run a motor boat or become very familiar with Grand Canyon history. Apparently, I have been too busy over the years racing to camp to help out any private boaters short on ice or additional supplies they found themselves short of. By the way, I started guiding with paddle rafts in the 80's and now row a wooden dory I built. But I have always felt running an S-Rig is a much larger challenge. Marc


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Rich, I'm sorry that you're losing your ability to row over time. Injuries are rough and I hate to see a knowledgeable, Canyon loving boatman like you lose that. However, I personally think that if you can't do it, you can't do it, unless you're a passenger. If you used to love to mountain bike but had knee problems I would not endorse a motor bike in a wild place, two stroke or four stroke. Just an honest difference of opinion. I will be happy when the motors are finally gone in the GC, and will continue to support any legislation limiting them.

Andy, I would rather look at other boats all month than have motors zip by, make wake, and ruin my day. That's just me. Also, I know that many motorized trips don't just race down the Canyon, they want to take their time too. But when I'm trying to get to Lower Bass and you are too, guess who's going to snag it? My experiences down there during the motor season show me that the motor boats get the better camps, and in my opinion, deserve them less. Solitude is nice, but keeping the Grand Canyon how it is, and preserving an older way of travel is worth the camaraderie of closely spaced, human powered trips.

synergyboater, I envy your experiences down there but no amount of free ice will make up for the impact motors make on rivers. You row that dory because it's a real experience and you're a real boater. I've spent much of my life fascinated with the history or the West, including the Grand Canyon. I know there is a history of motors down there, but there is also a history of many ecologically disastrous activities in the west. I'm not naive, I'm opposed to motors because they inconvenience and annoy those of us rowing or paddling - and more importantly don't have a place in a wilderness that we intend to preserve. No amount of difficulty, challenge, or additional supplies can change that.

No matter how you put it, when my shoulders are strong, the blisters on my hands have given way to callouses, and I'm feeling stronger than I've ever been at the end of a long river trip, I have accomplished something greater - in a place that I have impacted much less - than a motorized trip. This is not ego, this is truth. 

Of course, I urge others to adopt this ethic and savor the sense of personal strength that comes from human-powered recreation. I also encourage everyone to do what is legal and they prefer, but when I write to my elected officials I do endorse a full ban.


----------



## kikii875 (Oct 25, 2010)

Wavester,
The _when_ motors were introduced into the canyon is in the early 50's by Georgie White, Western Rivers and Hatch among others. Motors do not make it so that commercial companies can take more people down the river and make more money, they all have quotas of user days as you pointed out in you post. And since the cost per day is about the same for motor or rowing it is not a matter of more money. If motors where not there, the same number of user days would be used in the canyon. I have run commercially both motor and rowing and my observation is that some people could not enjoy the canyon without taking a motor trip either because of schedule or because of cost(some people save up for years so that they can go on this trip and the shorter motor trips are cheaper). While others that are on rowing trips are _done_ around day 8 or 9 and realize they should have gone on a motor trip. Although for the most part people realize their limitations and choose the correct type of trip for them. There are some that take a motor trip and then come back and take a rowing trip.
I think the thing that set me off was your statement that the jet boat operators are courteous and profession (and you are not competing for user days with them) while the motor boatmen in the Grand Canyon are not. Well, come to think of it there are a lot of boatmen in the canyon that are pricks. But that has nothing to do with the motor, it is just that they are playing by the American League rules and they are the Designated Assholes. I have had to deal with them to. But I don't consider myself a DA. I have always given out ice, tp, food, whatever is needed that we can do without to private trips. And now that I am a private boater I appreciate those that do the same.
As far as the genius comment, I really did used to be a genius, but since the brain surgery last year, not so much.
But I have recovered enough that I went on our private trip in late August this year.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Randy,

Thanks for commiserating about my infirmities. I knew they were coming eventually, but just didn't realize how quickly. Gotta squeeze in as much as I can before I completely deteriorate (grin).

I can't resist observing that every study of noise in the GC has determined that the loudest and most disagreeable sounds there come from airplanes, particularly high altitude flights -- not motorized rafts. Let's go after those pesky 747's first... Then target the helicopters; you've definitely got my support for banning them!

To be clear, if motors were banned tomorrow, I'd not shed any tears. My boating days are mostly behind me, and they have been good ones -- almost all rowing. 

But in an informed discussion, you just can't ignore the flow management issues Andy mentions -- they're very real. If you think camp competition is bad now, just wait until everyone on the river is travelling at the same rate. 

Ban motors in GC and one of two things will happen. You will either have to: 1) put up with other parties in sight all day long; or, 2) accept a dramatic reduction in access in order to eliminate the "social" impacts of everyone launching on a given day staying clumped together for 16 days. Lay over and you'll be with the next day's contingent. Hustle ahead and you'll start running into folks who launched the day before you. Beware the law of unintended consequences...

There are legitimate arguments against motors. But even if Congress were to make the GC river corridor a formal Wilderness, there is every reason to believe they would grandfather motors. There are numerous precedents for using that provision in the statute. The fact picture here is that motors qualify for that exemption. And lobbyists -- representing a wide range of interests all the way out to the AARP -- will work for grandfathering, so their constituents can still have a motor option. 

Doesn't mean it's a done deal. Doesn't mean folks like you, Randy, with principled opposition shouldn't work to remove them. But the probabilities of that happening seem to me to be minute.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

A motor is nothing more than a reconfigured camp stove. Just using energy in a different way. Anyway you look at it someone is going to be pissed off.
I like cooking over a natural firer with wood myself.


----------



## slamkal (Apr 8, 2009)

raymo said:


> A motor is nothing more than a reconfigured camp stove. Just using energy in a different way. Anyway you look at it someone is going to be pissed off.
> I like cooking over a natural firer with wood myself.


How is this any worse than burning wood, other than wood is local and gas is transported? I'd be willing to guess propane has less impact on the canyon in terms of pollution

Rowing produces no sound, air pollution, or water pollution like a motor does. Try breathing near the exhaust port of your motor!!


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Raymo, I think Hank Hill and Al Gore would disagree with you. Propane burns very clean, though it's production, bottling, and distribution probably do cause more environmental concern than a fire that you would likely have burning in camp anyway.

I don't see how it's anything like a motor in any of the aspects discussed in this thread though. Could you elaborate?

I'd also like to thank everyone involved in not being "Captain Obvious" and discussing the vast amount of miles typically driven to get to and from a river trip. None of us are carbon / environment neutral in our sport, but this always seems to get brought up and seems to have little bearing on the debate at hand.

Rich, thanks again for your insight. It brings up plenty of food for thought, as I really hadn't considered the pace of river traffic as a whole on that level. I do disagree that the chances of a ban are minute. The Grand Canyon is an ideal candidate for Wilderness and has been in some stage of the process for decades.

If anyone else would like to see this amazing place receive Wilderness designation, for it truly is a wild place, please look to, and consider joining, River Runners for Wilderness. The website is very informative and might just make you think twice about pulling that starter cord next time.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Slamkal, you are right of course to point out in absolute terms, rowing produces less pollution. Relevant factoid: the exhaust ports on most modern four strokes are under water, for that last little bit of noise suppression and absorbsion of exhaust fumes. 

Randy, my point wasn't well made. I don't oppose Wilderness designation for the river corridor -- if a bill ever came up, I'd support it. But court-upheld provisions of the Act allow grandfathering of certain activities (like motor use) in Wilderness. Perhaps you don't agree, but I think those provisions surely would be invoked. (I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your reasons for thinking otherwise.) And as a result, motors would continue to go down even under formal Wilderness designation. It would have been a noble crusade that didn't get anti-motor folks what they really wanted.

Fact is, I've argued here and elsewhere that legislative action -- not litigation -- is the way to get Wilderness designation. Sadly though, Randy's observation that this "has been in some stage of the process for decades" says a lot about how difficult things like are in the current era. 

Hang in there.

Rich Phillips


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

raymo said:


> A motor is nothing more than a reconfigured camp stove. Just using energy in a different way. Anyway you look at it someone is going to be pissed off.
> I like cooking over a natural firer with wood myself.


 Yes Randaddy, I like Hank Hill in "King of the Hill" as a propane salesman in that show. Al Gore's comment, on Texas Governor Rick Perry's administration about human drivern climate change is a hoax, censoring climate science for political reasons does not make sense. What all this has to do with the original post I have not a clue.


----------

