# Improving 4-Rivers and Dinosaur Permit Systems



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

It finally dawned on me that many of my recent concerns about rec.gov are actually rooted in the permit system itself. As demand for permits continues to skyrocket for Gates of Lodore and Yampa and MF Salmon and Selway, it’s getting to the point where the old way of doing things no longer works very well and that’s when people start looking for ways to beat the system.

As private boaters, I think it’s in our best interest to get out ahead of this problem so that we don’t get screwed in the short term by people cheating the system or in the long term, when the permit system finally changes to adapt to the new, higher level of demand.

I strongly believe that everybody wins when the permit system is fair and transparent. I also think that a fair and transparent permit system acts to thwart attempts to beat the system from the outside (for example, by using software programs to game the reservation system) or from the inside (by rec.gov employees doling out permits to family & friends or selling them to the highest bidder.)

Here are my proposed ideas for changing the permit system for 4Rivers and Dinosaur NM:

1) The initial lotteries for high-season permits seem to be working okay. However, requested dates on a lottery application should be changeable before the lottery is run. (This year, rec.gov prevented any changes to your lottery application dates after the application was submitted. They claimed that changing requested dates on a lottery application, prior to the lottery being run, was “against Agency rules.” Of course, that is not true.)

a) The high season for Gates of Lodore needs to be extended until the end of October. Since the Green is dam-controlled, Gates of Lodore remains a great run when the Yampa and MF Salmon and Selway have dropped out. This creates higher demand on Gates of Lodore late in the season. By extending the high season, it means there will be 2 launches per day instead of 1. As part of the high-season, these dates would be part of the high-season lottery.)​
2) Once the high season lotteries have been run, permits that went unclaimed (i.e., non-confirmation cancellations) were released all at once on rec.gov at a specified date and time. This process does not work well when there are hundreds or thousands of people vying for a handful of available dates. Instead, there should be follow up lotteries for non-confirmation permits. 
a) Just like the GCNP lottery system, there should be no additional fee for a follow up lottery. If you paid to participate in the initial lottery, you have already paid to participate in a follow up lottery.​
3) At present, commercial outfitters are allowed to claim non-confirmation permits allotted to private boaters. This practice must end. The demand for permits by private boaters is too high to support this practice while the potential financial gain for commercial outfitters to add prime-season launch dates to their schedule is too great. Permits allotted to private boaters can only be reserved by private boaters.

4) Short-notice cancellations should be posted on rec.gov and be available on a first come, first served basis. (In other words, the same system as exists right now.) The definition of “short notice” is up for grabs. IMO, if a cancelled permit is released within 30 days of the launch date, it should be available on rec.gov on a first come/first served basis. If it’s released more than 30 days from the launch date, it should be made available in a follow up lottery.

Note: rec.gov needs to offer an email or text notification service that notifies subscribers the instant a cancelled permit is posted on their website. This notification would alert you to first come/first served permits AND to upcoming follow-up lotteries.​
My hope is that the ideas proposed above will make the system work better in the long run. In the meantime, I have a different set of proposals to make rec.gov more transparent and fair. I will post those ideas on a separate thread.

For those wondering, I’m just a private boater who is offering these ideas on my own behalf. I’m not sponsored or employed or affiliated by or with the “whitewater industry” or the government or whatever. I’m not a lawyer, either, as you can probably tell. I do have a regular membership in AW. (And you should, too!) I just want a fair chance to access and enjoy America’s Crown Jewels… our wilderness rivers.

So what do you think about these ideas? Love em? Hate em? Let’s hash out this out and then start advocating for the changes we want to see.


----------



## jbomb (Apr 10, 2015)

1. Let people pay for guides on their private trip.
2. No commercial permits. Everyone enters the same lottery.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

landslide said:


> 4) Short-notice cancellations should be posted on rec.gov and be available on a first come, first served basis. (In other words, the same system as exists right now.) The definition of “short notice” is up for grabs. IMO, if a cancelled permit is released within 30 days of the launch date, it should be available on rec.gov on a first come/first served basis. If it’s released more than 30 days from the launch date, it should be made available in a follow up lottery.
> 
> Note: *rec.gov needs to offer an email or text notification service that notifies subscribers the instant a cancelled permit is posted on their website.* This notification would alert you to first come/first served permits AND to upcoming follow-up lotteries.​
> 
> .



You have some talking points I agree with and some I don’t. I’ll need to respond to one of your points at a time, because I don’t have time right now to address them all.

*I absolutely DO NOT want the permit system to start notifying everyone through mass email/text notification of cancelations. It should be equal chance, but not more convenient. *

I honestly believe that some individuals have more of a desire to obtain a cancelation and dedicate time to constantly search for a cancelation. Whereas, other individuals would rather dedicate their time to staying informed on the most up-to-date pictures of Kim Kardashian’s ass. 

I personally know some folks who don’t put any effort into obtaining a permit every year and then start calling in late spring looking to for a trip to get on. This year on March 16 after the morning permit release, one of my river groups sent out a group wide text inquiring if anyone had luck. One unemployed individual responded, “sorry, I was really tired this morning and needed the extra sleep”.

At this time, the post March 16 cancelation system is working well with it randomly releasing a cancelled permit over a 24-hour period. Previously, someone could have had multiple rec.gov accounts and when their 92-year-old grandma won the lottery, they could get up at 5am (post 3/16), cancel grandma’s permit and instantly pick it up in their name. Now the random 24-hour release has greatly reduced this previous practice. 

I believe that permit cancellations need to be released in a manner that is equally accessible. However, mass email/texts will only make it more convenient for the masses only, not more equal. In other words, someone who would rather spend their time looking at Kardashian’s ass, could briefly interrupt their vicarious ass viewing session via text alert to get a permit.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

jbomb, There is actually precedence for a such permit system already in the US. For "The Wave" Hike in Utah, which is managed by the BLM, only 20 people per day are allowed into the area. Permits are extremely hard to get. You are allowed to hire a guide to take a guided tour, but only after you win a permit. This sure cuts down on rich people being able to buy their way onto exclusive trips.

OTOH, this is such a radical change from the current permit system for river launches, I'm pretty sure the commercial outfitters would shut it down in a heartbeat. And for good reasons, too. The logistics of planning an 8-day river trip full of raft-riding customers who know nothing about WW requires lots of pre-planning.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Riverdoghenry,

I'd think you'd WANT to be notified via email or text if there was a follow up lottery of cancellation permits. The GC lottery always lets you know when there are dates available.

But I see your point about short-notice first come/first served permits remaining unannounced. Relatively small numbers of people can go on short notice, so it's better to let the ones who are really hungry and ready for a short-notice trip to get those permits. If short-notice permits got snapped up by those watching Kardashian's ass on YouTube, then they would probably end up cancelling them again in a couple days after reality sets in. 

So yes, I agree. No notification system for short-notice first come/first served cancellation permits!


----------



## jbomb (Apr 10, 2015)

landslide said:


> OTOH, this is such a radical change from the current permit system for river launches, I'm pretty sure the commercial outfitters would shut it down in a heartbeat. And for good reasons, too. The logistics of planning an 8-day river trip full of raft-riding customers who know nothing about WW requires lots of pre-planning.


I think (some) guide services would still be able to fill that void even if they didn't have their automatic permit allocation. This wouldn't be all that different from what Ceiba, Moenkopi, and PRO already do for privates.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

landslide said:


> jbomb, There is actually precedence for a such permit system already in the US. For "The Wave" Hike in Utah, which is managed by the BLM, only 20 people per day are allowed into the area. Permits are extremely hard to get.


Man I had been trying to get a wave permit for years online. one year I got fed up and drove to Kanab to enter the lottery in person. over 100 people were in the room trying for 10 spots. first winner was a group of 4 from China. next 2 from Europe, then 2 more from Europe. Lucky me won spot number 9 but it only worked cause I was solo. the woman next to me had come in 5 days in a row to try with no luck.

Getting a river permit will soon be almost as bad as the wave. Not sure the solution.


----------



## UriahJones (Aug 10, 2015)

On a previous thread I suggested essentially the same as rules 1-3. Though not in as much detail. I am fully in agreement that the best, most fair option for cancelations is a follow up lottery. I also think that commercials get more than their fair share as it is. There is a much higher demand for private permits than there is for spots on commercial floats. 

As far as #4 goes. I hate it. I already have much experience with the large text message for permit idea via substitute teaching. Trust me, you will find that a frustrating and annoying system in which you are alerted to every opening, and have incredibly little chance of securing one because there will be a mad dash again by 100+ people to secure that permit as soon as they are all alerted to its existence. Bad idea. Leave the short term cancelation alone. Those who park their butts on Rec.Gov all day can have those. 

The other ideas are IMO simple and easy to implement, and just make good common sense. 

More important for an additional idea would be to release the permits held hostage by the "salmon spawning" despite the lack of actual evidence that additional boaters damage the spawning beds in any way.


----------



## Joe W (Jul 30, 2008)

I love the idea of having a lottery open to everyone and no allotted commercial permits; if you win and can't do it yourself go hire a guide. I believe this is a more equal system.

However I never see that coming to fruition as the commercial companies control the money and little regard for anything but profit.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Uriah Jones, thanks for mentioning the permits "held hostage" by the salmon spawning rule. I forgot about that and I agree that any cancellation during that period should be made available to private boaters. I assume that the original number of permits released during that period were offered with the health of the salmon in mind. (i.e., if no one cancelled, and all the trips ran, the salmon would do fine.) So why not allow those cancelled slots to be filled? Doesn't make sense.

mania, last year, I came off a 4 week GC trip on March 16th and busted ass to make it up to Kanab for the walk-up lottery the next day. I was also #9 and won a permit for the next day. One of the funnest days of hiking I've ever had. Probably never get to see it again! Oh, and they no longer do walk-up permits out of Kanab. Everything is online via rec.gov.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

landslide said:


> Riverdoghenry,
> 
> I'd think you'd WANT to be notified via email or text if there was a follow up lottery of cancellation permits. The GC lottery always lets you know when there are dates available.
> 
> ...



The post 3/1 Dino and post 3/16 4-River cancelation process of having cancelled permits released randomly in a 24-hour period is working just fine. *Everyone has an equal opportunity to check rec.gov at any time 24/7. *

I’m able to get a permit every year by checking for cancelations often, despite having a hectic schedule. I choose to spend my few minutes of downtime looking for permits and not looking at Kardashian's ass, dancing cats on YouTube, or someone's political freak-out on Facebook.

*The inconvenience of checking often is the price of admission and what separates those who are more “hungry” for a permit than those who aren’t. Period!*

However, I believe that the only needed change to post 3/1 Dino and post 3/16 4-River Private cancelations, is that *commercial companies should not be allowed to obtained these private cancelation*s. 

On another conspiracy note, I’ve wondered if the potential exists for a river runner to have a friend or family member who works for rec.gov and can get insider information. For example, a rec.gov employee contacts their family or friend and notifies them that a MFS will be releasing at 4pm. If so, it would be likely this individual would get the permit. How do we know this potential does not exist?


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Having thought about this some more, I also believe that cancelled permits should only be available to individuals who participated in the lottery and paid the lottery fees.


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

I agree that the lottery participants should have first cut at cancellations. The cancellations are an extension of the lottery system. 10th Mtn Huts are done this way, and it gives folks with the motivation to submit for the lottery a second chance to make good on their fees.


----------



## UriahJones (Aug 10, 2015)

Interesting idea to limit the cancelations to the original lottery participants. Naturally, that would drive an increase in the lottery applications. But probably would still make the cancelations a little easier to get. There are a lot of people who do not even put in for the lottery who pick up cancelations. 

I am a case in point. I did not put in for the Hells Canyon permit, but knowing that cancelations were easy to get, I just snagged one without wasting the $6. 

I think the idea has some merit. Not sure where I fall on this yet.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Yes, I have never paid to enter the Hell's Canyon lottery since I know I can pick up a cancellation permit with relative ease. At least that was true in the past, and I would think it's still true now.

Maybe the solution is to have ONE follow up lottery for the non-confirmation cancellations that are released in mid-March. After that, any cancellation would be available on a first come/first serve basis on rec.gov, same as it is now. From the comments I've read so far, that would address most people's concerns. I think it would work for me.

Also, I'm afraid if rec.gov is asked to do more work (like run a series of follow up lotteries similar to the GC lottery) they would try to increase the fees a bunch, and I don't think people would care for that.


----------



## UriahJones (Aug 10, 2015)

I prefer the follow up lottery when there is a batch of permits, such as the March 16th releases that come out at once. Redistribute those through another lottery, entry only allowed by original lottery applicants. 

After that, individual cancelations can be given out through the current system. I think that would be just fine with more people. 

What I despise are systems that require me to sit at my computer all day if I am to compete for a permit. I don't want time intensive permit processes. Let's keep it simple.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

UriahJones said:


> Interesting idea to limit the cancelations to the original lottery participants. Naturally, that would drive an increase in the lottery applications. But probably would still make the cancelations a little easier to get. There are a lot of people who do not even put in for the lottery who pick up cancelations.
> 
> I am a case in point. I did not put in for the Hells Canyon permit, but knowing that cancelations were easy to get, I just snagged one without wasting the $6.
> 
> I think the idea has some merit. Not sure where I fall on this yet.



My sole motivation in suggesting that lottery participants should have first cut at cancellations; is that folks who participated and anteed up money, should get right of first refusal on cancelations. To be clear, I’m not suggesting this to “make the cancelations a little easier to get.” It’s just the right thing to do.

A good compromise would allow lottery participants 24-hours period to obtain an available permit, at which point it becomes free for the taking.


----------



## wyosam (May 31, 2006)

landslide said:


> Yes, I have never paid to enter the Hell's Canyon lottery since I know I can pick up a cancellation permit with relative ease. At least that was true in the past, and I would think it's still true now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Awesome. I think I'm ok with that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

landslide said:


> Maybe the solution is to have ONE follow up lottery for the non-confirmation cancellations that are released in mid-March.


Let's take it one step further. Allow only people who originally applied for the cancelled date be in the secondary lottery. Oh....and their last name has to begin with "W".


----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

Well, while all you guys were busy on here whining about the permit system and how to make it easier. I was on Rec.gov and snagged a spring Yampa cancellation. System seems to be working just fine.


----------



## Redside (May 10, 2013)

So I just got an email for GC 2017 cancellations. 3/25, 3/26, 3/28 were available. My questions are when did these get cancelled, are there boaters putting a grand trip together in a couple days or are these getting wasted? If they are wasted could they have been put to use if made available when cancelled? Rec.gov had its downsides but the 24hr random rerelease is not one of them.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Good for you, Riverwild. I hope you have an awesome trip! But, dude, you need to learn the difference between whining and a constructive conversation about how to improve the system.


----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

landslide said:


> Good for you, Riverwild. I hope you have an awesome trip! But, dude, you need to learn the difference between whining and a constructive conversation about how to improve the system.


 I understand you are trying to improve the system. But I'm just saying every year I pick up 3-4 permits personally from rec.gov for Dino and 4 Rivers pretty easily. I stopped applying for lottery entries years ago and my number of trips a year has easily doubled. The system is fine in my opinion.


----------



## wyosam (May 31, 2006)

Redside said:


> So I just got an email for GC 2017 cancellations. 3/25, 3/26, 3/28 were available. My questions are when did these get cancelled, are there boaters putting a grand trip together in a couple days or are these getting wasted? If they are wasted could they have been put to use if made available when cancelled? Rec.gov had its downsides but the 24hr random rerelease is not one of them.




Seriously. There are a LOT of high quality, short notice days in that list. Oh to be able to drop everything and drive south in a couple days... lottery on thursday for a Saturday launch? Props to whoever can pull that off. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## mowgli (Feb 24, 2010)

"Well, while all you guys were busy on here whining about the permit system and how to make it easier. I was on Rec.gov and snagged a spring Yampa cancellation. System seems to be working just fine."

That's hilarious!😂🤣😂🤣😂


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

> "Well, while all you guys were busy on here whining about the permit system and how to make it easier. I was on Rec.gov and snagged a spring Yampa cancellation. System seems to be working just fine."
> 
> That's hilarious!😂🤣😂🤣😂



This is coming from the guy who confessed to picking up Selway permits two (or was it three) years in a row! Yes, I'd say the system is working fine for you, mowgli! We are all envious of your good fortune, but every time I look for a Selway cancellation (ten times a day, at least), I don't see a single "A."

I wouldn't want the system to change, either, if I were you.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

I'm not sure where I stand on the follow-up lottery vs current cancellation system, but I do have a suggestion on the "wasted" Aug. 15 - Sept. 15 MFS permits. Same rules that apply for a permit launch no-show. If you win a permit during that time frame, and don't cancel prior to March 15, you are banned from applying in the MFS lottery for 3 years. I'd go even further and restrict the person from entering the MFS lottery or picking up a MFS cancellation for 3 years.

My friends & I have had terrible luck in the lottery for MS or MFS permits. However, we've done well with cancellations. On occasion we get a cancellation on March 16, but mostly we are the short notice pick up people. We plan ahead and pick a time frame that we can all go, and then we watch rec.gov as often as possible. We all work, don't have advance computer skills, and don't spend time looking at any celebrity ass shots online. We have scored permits anywhere from 3 months to 3 weeks in advance of our desired timeframe. Just dumb luck....right place, right time. We rarely ever pick up MFS permit cancellations, and just plan to fly-in to Indian Creek in September. Last year my friend scored an early August MFS cancellation in early July. That will probably never happen again.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

cataraftgirl said:


> I'm not sure where I stand on the follow-up lottery vs current cancellation system, but I do have a suggestion on the *"wasted" Aug. 15 - Sept. 15 MFS permits.* Same rules that apply for a permit launch no-show. If you win a permit during that time frame, and don't cancel prior to March 15, you are banned from applying in the MFS lottery for 3 years. I'd go even further and restrict the person from entering the MFS lottery or picking up a MFS cancellation for 3 years.
> 
> My friends & I have had terrible luck in the lottery for MS or MFS permits. However, we've done well with cancellations. On occasion we get a cancellation on March 16, but mostly we are the short notice pick up people. We plan ahead and pick a time frame that we can all go, and then we watch rec.gov as often as possible. We all work, don't have advance computer skills, and don't spend time looking at any celebrity ass shots online. We have scored permits anywhere from 3 months to 3 weeks in advance of our desired timeframe. Just dumb luck....right place, right time. We rarely ever pick up MFS permit cancellations, and just plan to fly-in to Indian Creek in September. Last year my friend scored an early August MFS cancellation in early July. That will probably never happen again.



“Wasted Permits” are a bigger problem than just these late MFS dates. A ranger on the 4-river system once told me that 38% of their high-use dates have at least one no-show. If this is true, then some lazy asses are by far the greatest reason folks are not getting cancelations. 

If there were a better way of addressing this no-show problem, it would most likely have the greatest impact on river community picking up more cancelations.


----------



## mowgli (Feb 24, 2010)

landslide said:


> This is coming from the guy who confessed to picking up Selway permits two (or was it three) years in a row! Yes, I'd say the system is working fine for you, mowgli! We are all envious of your good fortune, but every time I look for a Selway cancellation (ten times a day, at least), I don't see a single "A."
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't want the system to change, either, if I were you.



For what it's worth, it was the last two years. And I'd been trying to get a permit on the Selway for 20 years. I think it's fair to say I've paid my dues at least to a certain extent. 😉


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

I seem to recall a conversation on MB about a year or so ago about a new system being studied by the powers that be for the MFS. I may have some of this wrong, but I think it went something like this.....for every year you apply, you get a bonus application slot in the lottery. You have to apply and not get a permit every year. If you skip a year of application, you lose your bonus and go back to the 4 base application slots. Something along those lines. You had to apply every year without a gap to maintain your eligibility for the extra lottery try. I think, once you won a permit, you started over. I can't recall if there was a penalty for getting a permit and not using it???

Does anyone else remember this, or am I just getting old? What ever happened with it?


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

riverdoghenry said:


> “Wasted Permits” are a bigger problem than just these late MFS dates. A ranger on the 4-river system once told me that 38% of their high-use dates have at least one no-show. If this is true, then some lazy asses are by far the greatest reason folks are not getting cancelations.
> 
> If there were a better way of addressing this no-show problem, it would most likely have the greatest impact on river community picking up more cancelations.


You would think that a 3 year ban from applying in the lottery would deter people from no-showing, but you could still pick up a cancellation under the current policy. Perhaps if you are banned from holding any permit on that particular river for 3 years it would be more of a deterrent? I suppose if you are a member of a medium to large group of friends, then even a total ban from getting a permit wouldn't be that big of a deal. Someone else in your group could still score a permit and invite you along. Hmmm.....maybe if you no-show, you aren't allowed to float that river for 3 years. Kinda harsh, but I bet it would cut down on no-shows.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

cataraftgirl said:


> You would think that a 3 year ban from applying in the lottery would deter people from no-showing, but you could still pick up a cancellation under the current policy. Perhaps if you are banned from holding any permit on that particular river for 3 years it would be more of a deterrent? I suppose if you are a member of a medium to large group of friends, then even a total ban from getting a permit wouldn't be that big of a deal. Someone else in your group could still score a permit and invite you along. Hmmm.....maybe if you no-show, you aren't allowed to float that river for 3 years. Kinda harsh, but I bet it would cut down on no-shows.


Apparently the 3-year ban is not putting a stop to the no-shows. I’m not a 100% convinced the 3-year lottery ban is even being enforced. I’ve never heard of someone being denied an application to the lottery.

On the other hand, if I were sanctioned with a 3-year ban, I believe it would still be easy to get in the lottery. All I would have to do is get another email account, open a new rec.gov account, change my mailing address (i.e. PO Box), and go to Walmart and get a prepaid credit card. There are multiple men in the country that share my same first and last name.

There is no personal verification on rec.gov, I could set my dog up with its own account. This is also the reason they switched to the random release over a 24-hour period to prevent those who had additional accounts in their grandmas or dogs name applying for lotteries and then cancelling them to instantly put it in their real name.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Sad. But we humans are a smart bunch. Quick learners when it comes to getting what we want and figuring ways over, under, and around the rules and barriers that stand in our way. More people are discovering the rivers as a way to recreate, relax, commune with nature, challenge ourselves, and hang with friends & family. This means more competition for access to the resource & permits. For me, that means doing my part to protect the resource, and being grateful for the time I get to spend on rivers, lakes, and other wild places.


----------



## quinoa (Jul 5, 2009)

Riverwild said:


> I understand you are trying to improve the system. But I'm just saying every year I pick up 3-4 permits personally from rec.gov for Dino and 4 Rivers pretty easily. I stopped applying for lottery entries years ago and my number of trips a year has easily doubled. The system is fine in my opinion.


In the past I too have been able to snag cancellations for Dino. But that was with the old system- persistent checking and calling the river office. It was all on the phone. Since the process has gone to Rec.gov and the internet I haven't been as fortunate. I believe that the internet/computer access has greatly reduced chances by making access that much easier. I will keep up my persistent checking though. We all get lucky sometimes. Cheers!


----------



## jamesg (Sep 22, 2016)

They just need to implement a system of weighting and release cancellations with subsequent lotteries, like the grand. No more of the crazy clicking, busy phone line bullshit. 

There shouldn't be a max on points though, which will ensure that you will win a permit one day! they could set up a dashboard of all your rivers and points, with notifications of upcoming lotteries. I have been applying for Selway, Salmon, and Dino permits for years and never won a single permit. I should have mucho points built up.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Late cancellations suck for everyone, but they suck the most when the permit goes unfilled or cannot be filled due to Federal rules like the salmon closure. That's when folks get mad, and rightly so. But while it's tempting to want to punish people who cancel late, you really need a robust weighted lottery system to make that work. And that requires that each lottery applicant provide a ton of personal information to the administrators.

The obvious comparison is to the GC Lottery, of course. The only reason they can weight the lottery or reset your points when you win a permit or run the river is because the administrators have a lot of info on you and can track your history on the river. Administration of the GC Lottery is still controlled by the GCNP River Office. I DO NOT trust rec.gov with a lot of my personal info! They have been hacked in the past and personal info was stolen.

Given the present administrators of the 4Rivers and Dino lotteries, it would make me very leery to give them that much more power and control over the system.


----------



## goldcamp (Aug 9, 2006)

riverdoghenry said:


> Apparently the 3-year ban is not putting a stop to the no-shows. I’m not a 100% convinced the 3-year lottery ban is even being enforced. I’ve never heard of someone being denied an application to the lottery.
> 
> On the other hand, if I were sanctioned with a 3-year ban, I believe it would still be easy to get in the lottery. All I would have to do is get another email account, open a new rec.gov account, change my mailing address (i.e. PO Box), and go to Walmart and get a prepaid credit card. There are multiple men in the country that share my same first and last name.
> 
> There is no personal verification on rec.gov, I could set my dog up with its own account. This is also the reason they switched to the random release over a 24-hour period to prevent those who had additional accounts in their grandmas or dogs name applying for lotteries and then cancelling them to instantly put it in their real name.


I do believe the 3 year lottery ban is being enforced. I was notified that I my lottery application was denied because I had cancelled a permit on short notice. It was actually a mistake because I was cancelling a permit which I had picked up on short notice (less than 3 weeks) in favor of a better date. I was able to get the situation fixed by talking with some of the 4 rivers rangers.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Just a quick note about this thread:

"The Powers that Be" are paying attention, so if you want to add your input to the conversation, please do it now. It's not whining to think about problems in the current permit system if your goal is to identify ways to make it work better. 

We are talking about PUBLIC lands here. Which means that YOU have a say in how the system works, if you want...


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Late summer MFS should absolutely be reissued if they are rejected or not claimed by March 15. The way they do it now doesn't even meet their own rule. 

I like the idea of a followup lottery. But make people pay another $6 or whatever to cull out the riff raff. Yeah it sucks to bleed more cash to rec.gov, but I think it will benefit the motivated ones.

It is completely unacceptable that commercials can pick up private permits, those are OUR permits and not for outfitters. That would be easy to game too(if you won a permit) just enter as an individual (you and all your guides) and cancel to snag it as the cimoany. BS!


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

I have come to pretty much the same conclusion. After the initial lottery, there should be one (and only one), follow up lottery to distribute the non-confirmation permits. Since it costs money to run a lottery, there will need to be a separate fee to run the follow up lottery. I'm not sure what the appropriate fee would be, but certainly no more than what the initial lottery costs ($6). After the follow up lottery, any more cancellations would be posted randomly on rec.gov where they can be reserved on a first come/first serve basis.

So the only thing that has really changed is that there is a follow up lottery in mid-March to handle non-confirmation cancellations. Everything else is the same. 

What I like about this scenario is that boaters are free to do what works for them. If you want to maximize your chances of winning a permit, you'd enter both the initial and follow up lotteries. Or, if it works for you to pick up short-notice cancellations on rec.gov, you can just do that and skip the lotteries altogether. To each his own.

I agree completely that private permits should NEVER be made available to commercial outfitters. That's a system ripe for abuse and there's absolutely no reason for it. If the goal is to prevent launches from being wasted, then attack the problem by penalizing the no shows and late cancellers. Don't penalize all private boaters by taking permits away from us!


----------



## CaptBiggler (May 14, 2015)

Thanks to the OP for this thread. I have a lot of opinions as I was someone who put in for the MFS and Selway every year, watched on March 16th, and looked for cancellations and never drew a permit for 15+ year (I did get a Selway permit this year by pure dumb luck, so paying your dues does eventually work). I will keep my opinions here to two strong ones:


First, in my opinion someone who doesn't fork over the $6 for the initial entry just to pick up a cancellation is nothing more than cheap. I know the system isn't perfect but that $6 pays for the "powers that be" to maintain these rivers and system for the future. I know for a fact that the application fee is all that is keeping the Salt River office going. If you don't pay your $6 application fee, you shouldn't be able to get a cancellation.


Second, some people eluded to it, but there should be a point system for not picking up a permit. Every year you apply and don't get a permit or pick up a cancellation, you get a point. The more points you have the better chance you have of getting a permit. For those hunters in Colorado, it will be very similar to the preference point system. That way everyone has a chance to get on a river at least once in their life.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

quinoa said:


> In the past I too have been able to snag cancellations for Dino. But that was with the old system- persistent checking and calling the river office. It was all on the phone. Since the process has gone to Rec.gov and the internet I haven't been as fortunate. I believe that the internet/computer access has greatly reduced chances by making access that much easier. I will keep up my persistent checking though. We all get lucky sometimes. Cheers!


I remember before any of the permits were on rec.gov, many in the river community were griping why the permit system was not with the times and it would be way more expedient via the “World Wide Web” versus the archaic “snail-mail”. *In retrospect, we lacked the foresight to see that demanding this convenience would ultimately eliminate our ability to win prime dates.* As each permit system has switched over to rec.gov, I’ve ceased to win a lottery in those systems. 

Be careful what you wish for in having additional lotteries with rec.gov, I believe it’ll exponentially decrease your chance of obtaining permits even more so than now. I also believe that it will also lead to more wasted no-show permits. The old system was a hassle, but it weeded out those with less of a desire to be on the river. Now all you need is ninety-seconds and a measly $6 and then get on with your life. *This ease of entry has attracted lazy individuals who now obtain permits with ease and then no-show.*

Switching gears a little. We’re not going to snag a MFS cancelation every season and improbable a Selway, but we rely on the other river cancelation to at least get us on the river. *Having additional lotteries would also likely be adopted system wide on rec.gov, resulting in these other less in demand now cancelations we rely on now to at least get us on the river, would also become difficult obtain as well.*

All I'm saying is be careful. Previously, we lacked the foresight to realize that some ideas sound great in theory, but suck in reality.


----------



## quinoa (Jul 5, 2009)

quinoa said:


> In the past I too have been able to snag cancellations for Dino. But that was with the old system- persistent checking and calling the river office. It was all on the phone. Since the process has gone to Rec.gov and the internet I haven't been as fortunate. I believe that the internet/computer access has greatly reduced chances by making access that much easier. I will keep up my persistent checking though. We all get lucky sometimes. Cheers!



Well, my persistence has paid off! Was able to snag a mid June Yampa launch this morning while sipping my coffee. Just went on to rec.gov and there it was, the blue "A". I'm very happy with rec.gov right now. I got lucky!


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## mowgli (Feb 24, 2010)

quinoa said:


> Well, my persistence has paid off! Was able to snag a mid June Yampa launch this morning while sipping my coffee. Just went on to rec.gov and there it was, the blue "A". I'm very happy with rec.gov right now. I got lucky!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz



Good Job! Congratulations!! That will be a sweet time!!


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Yes, good work quinoa! Enjoy your trip!!!

Riverdoghenry, I have been thinking about your comments about how making access to permits easier only seems to make it easier for people who really aren't that serious about actually doing the river trip. People have become really good at hitting buttons on the internet and buying things they don't really want or need... but it's hard work to actually put together a river trip and some of the people who win a permit (due to easy access on the internet) simply aren't up to the task. They dream big, but can't pull it off. And, who cares, right? It only cost me $6!

So, how do we solve this problem? First off, the genie is not going back in the bottle. Online permit systems have become our present day reality and no state or federal agency is going to go back to paper applications via snail mail. Ain't gonna happen, so just forget about the good ole days.

A couple ideas:

1) We need a point system for 4Rivers. I realize this benefits newbies winning permits, but I think that's a good thing. But what it also does is allows the FS or NPS to penalize people who cancel or no show. Make it really hurt to cancel during the high season. Ban them from the permit system for three years! Or how about a mandatory $250 penalty to cancel a high season permit on short notice? That should take care of some of the problem.

2) Also, I thought of another way to handle the initial release of non-confirmation permits. Instead of doing a follow up lottery OR having rec.gov release the dates all at once, maybe rec.gov could release available launch dates over a period of a week or 10 days. It would be like it is now, but with many more permits popping up randomly. People who really put in the time looking for permits will have a better chance of winning. 

My only stipulation with this idea is that rec.gov employees CANNOT have any knowledge of what dates are being released before those dates are made available to the public. I still don't trust them.

I have been in a running conversation with the FS all week long and will start asking questions next week about how rec.gov manages their employees re: snagging permits and reservations before they are available to the public. It's not just river permits that are in high demand and rec.gov needs to have a robust system to manage employee access or someone will take advantage for personal gain.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Good ideas landslide.

I agree with the idea that putting in for permit in the lottery is wishing thinking for many people. The timing and planning of a multi-day raft trip for a group of people is not easy. It takes someone with the commitment & organizational skills to pull it off. It helps to have a core group who have run rivers together before. I think the idea of a points system sounds interesting. It would definitely benefit the new folks coming into the sport, especially those who will apply regularly and who will use the permit if they get it. Those of us who are older, and have been trying for permits for 10+ years, might not see the same benefit from the point system, but maybe we would? After all, we are the ones who might have more time off, a more flexible schedule, and more commitment to applying every year.

Whatever system is adopted, I totally agree that stiffer penalties need to be put in place for no shows and late cancellations. Perhaps a medium degree penalty for a late cancellation, and a high degree penalty for a no show. That would require rec.gov needing more detailed personal info to police the system. The Dinosaur permit system already gets your personal info, so that you only get one bite of the apple per year. I think they still do that???? You can't run Lodore and then run Yampa in the same year. That's the way it used to be. I could be wrong since it's been awhile since I did a Dinosaur trip.


----------



## dsrtrat (May 29, 2011)

The one trip per year in Dinosaur only applies to the high season which varies depending on the river.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

dsrtrat said:


> The one trip per year in Dinosaur only applies to the high season which varies depending on the river.


But they do collect your personal ID info, so there is a presidence for doing that. I think someone earlier expressed concern over giving rec.gov too much personal info that would be needed to better police and enforce increased penalties for no shows and late cancellations.

Does any one have the recent numbers on how many lottery applications there have been over the last ten years for the 4 River lottery? I'm curious to see how much the numbers have increased since the process has gone online.


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

*4 rivers applications*

Some increase in applications since 2010.


----------



## dsrtrat (May 29, 2011)

Does any one have the recent numbers on how many lottery applications there have been over the last ten years for the 4 River lottery? I'm curious to see how much the numbers have increased since the process has gone online.[/QUOTE]

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5408633.pdf

Last eight years of statistics, big jump in 2017.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Not the drastic jump in numbers that I might have expected with the advent of online application. It looks like a small to modest increase each year, with a bigger increase in the past two years. The bigger picture that these numbers show is that there are roughly 20000-30000 people applying for just over 1000 permits in the 4 River Lottery. In 2010 I had a 1:17 shot of winning a Main Salmon permit, and this year a 1:29 chance. So my odds were almost cut in half. The odds of getting a MFS weren't decreased quite so much, from 1:25 to 1:34 between 2010 & 2017. Once I look at the numbers, it's not a surprise that in 15 years, I've never won a lottery permit.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

landslide said:


> So, how do we solve this problem? First off, the genie is not going back in the bottle. Online permit systems have become our present day reality and no state or federal agency is going to go back to paper applications via snail mail. Ain't gonna happen, so just forget about the good ole days.



Landslide, I know that the genie is not going back in the bottle, hence my warning to not release another genie by adding additional lotteries. Under the 2017 lottery system, an individual with a single rec.gov account has a 1 in 72 chance of winning a Selway and a 1 in 29 chance of winning a Salmon. *In other words, on average it will take 72 years of apply for a Selway and 29 years of applying for a Salmon to obtain one of these permits.*

As of now, the only real chance of obtaining a permit is through the current cancelation system and to move this process to *an additional lottery will decrease your chances to once in a lifetime at best*. Just pointing out the reality of it.

Now that it’s come to light, the possibility exists to “game the system” when all the permits release at a known date and time, this needs to be addressed for the 2018 season.

I’m fine with keeping March 16th as the release date for cancelations. However, the releasing of all the Selways at a set time, *should be changed to randomly releasing one at a time over a 24-hour period*. Also, not just the top of the hour, but the minute should also be random (i.e. 9:13am, 1:27pm).


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

riverdoghenry said:


> Landslide, I know that the genie is not going back in the bottle, hence my warning to not release another genie by adding additional lotteries. Under the 2017 lottery system, an individual with a single rec.gov account has a 1 in 72 chance of winning a Selway and a 1 in 29 chance of winning a Salmon. *In other words, on average it will take 72 years of apply for a Selway and 29 years of applying for a Salmon to obtain one of these permits.*
> 
> As of now, the only real chance of obtaining a permit is through the current cancelation system and to move this process to *an additional lottery will decrease your chances to once in a lifetime at best*. Just pointing out the reality of it.
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm wrong, but don't all of the 4 River Lottery unclaimed permits release randomly after midnight on March 16?

From the 4 Rivers Lottery website - 
Unconfirmed reservations for the 4 Rivers will be released randomly beginning March 16th. These unconfirmed dates may appear at any time on the www.recreation.gov website.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

landslide said:


> 1) *We need a point system for 4Rivers. I realize this benefits newbies winning permits, but I think that's a good thing. * But what it also does is allows the FS or NPS to penalize people who cancel or no show. Make it really hurt to cancel during the high season. Ban them from the permit system for three years! Or how about a mandatory $250 penalty to cancel a high season permit on short notice? That should take care of some of the problem.


I believe a point system is a great idea. However, I believe if it were to “benefits newbies winning permits, but I think that's a good thing” is opening the system for potential abuse. Simply, it’s not a stretch to have multiple rec.gov accounts in a single individual’s name.

For example, I’ve been individually told by a couple of other river runners about a *wealthy individual who in another river group submits and pays for nearly 60 lottery applications every year*. From what I’m told, all of these applications are real people he knows, but not actual river runners, such as extended family, friends, employees, kids soccer coach and etc. This allows him to get most of his requested permit dates every year. He offers these people a free river vacation for allowing him to apply in their name and if they win.

In the same spirit, an individual can keep one account accruing points every year, but get a new PO Box # and new rec.gov account annually if it is beneficial to be a “newbie”.


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

riverdoghenry said:


> No! All of this years Selway permits released at 8am MDT on the 3/16 and this date/time was advertised beforehand.


And it has been done this way for the Selway for at least a few years.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

After giving this a fair amount of thought, I've decided that I'm ok with the system the way it is. A point system wouldn't benefit me because I'm older, and not likely to apply for that many more years. My points wouldn't build up enough to make any difference. Whatever system you come up with can be gamed in one way or another by anyone with the skills and motivation to do so. It's all a matter of more people wanting to use a limited resource. No new system can change those numbers.

As I've already said, in 15 years of regularly applying for a Main Salmon permit, neither myself nor anyone in my small core group of 5-6 people have won a lottery permit. However, we have done a Main Salmon trip or a MFS trip, or both most years, based solely on cancellations & post season permits. We have picked up permits on March 16 a few times, but the majority of our trips have been random pick-ups, anywhere for a few months to a few weeks before our target date. We have no special computer skills, and we have no huge pool of people applying or looking for permits. we are just "average Joes" who check rec.gov multiple times a day as our work & life schedules allow. We have a target date range in mind, and we are persistent & lucky.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

cataraftgirl said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but don't all of the 4 River Lottery unclaimed permits release randomly after midnight on March 16?
> 
> From the 4 Rivers Lottery website -
> Unconfirmed reservations for the 4 Rivers will be released randomly beginning March 16th. These unconfirmed dates may appear at any time on the www.recreation.gov website.



Yes & No! At 12am EDT on 3/16, the Selway showed 7 dates available, but when folks tried to book them, a notification pops up indicating the permit is not available till 10am EDT on 3/16. It's well known that the random release has been 10am EDT for a number of seasons, so not really random.

Now that folks know specifically the available date, 10-hours in advance, the potential exists to "game the system" by writing a program that rapidly pings the the "Book Now" button for a specific date. Starting just before 10am EDT.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

The above statement I copied from the 4 Rivers Lottery website, doesn't actually say "at midnight" it just says randomly on March 16. The statement that they won't be released until 10am EDT, doesn't seem that much different than saying, they'll show up after midnight. However, I do get the "not random" aspect of it if all 7 permits posted all at once at 10am EDT. Were they all posted at once at 10am EDT or were they randomly released after 10am EDT?


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

cataraftgirl said:


> The above statement I copied from the 4 Rivers Lottery website, doesn't actually say "at midnight" it just says randomly on March 16. The statement that they won't be released until 10am EDT, doesn't seem that much different than saying, they'll show up after midnight. However, I do get the "not random" aspect of it if all 7 permits posted all at once at 10am EDT. *Were they all posted at once at 10am EDT or were they randomly released after 10am EDT?*


For the last few years, all of the permits release at 10am EDT. Also with a 10-hour heads up on specific dates that will be available.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

riverdoghenry said:


> For the last few years, all of the permits release at 10am EDT. Also with a 10-hour heads up on specific dates that will be available.


Ok, so definitely not random. I wonder why some of the 4 Rivers permits are random after midnight, and some are released in a bunch at a certain, pre-advertised time? But, of course we are talking about rec.gov, so who knows. They royally screwed up my account a few years ago, then denied that they had done it. Claimed it was impossible for them to have changed my account info, but they did it. I talked to multiple people at rec.gov and explained exactly how, when, and why they had changed the info on my account and they continued to deny it. In the end I had to close my account and create a new account with a new email address in order to use rec.gov


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

cataraftgirl said:


> I wonder why some of the 4 Rivers permits are random after midnight, and some are released in a bunch at a certain, pre-advertised time? But, of course we are talking about rec.gov, so who knows.


I don't think rec.gov establishes the lottery process for each of the rivers. They are just the private industry contractor who runs the system. You should ask the USFS Ranger Districts that manage each river why they chose different methods for allocating unclaimed/cancelled launches.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Wadeinthewater said:


> I don't think rec.gov establishes the lottery process for each of the rivers. They are just the private industry contractor who runs the system. You should ask the USFS Ranger Districts that manage each river why they chose different methods for allocating unclaimed/cancelled launches.


Here's the Forest Service/USDA website for the 4 Rivers Lottery. This makes it seem like one governing agency controls the process, not a different agency for each river?

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnf/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=fsbdev3_029568


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

cataraftgirl said:


> Here's the Forest Service/USDA website for the 4 Rivers Lottery. This makes it seem like one governing agency controls the process, not a different agency for each river?
> 
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnf/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=fsbdev3_029568


Yes, one agency, the USFS, manages the 4-Rivers lottery. But I believe the Rangers Districts establish policies for the rivers they each independently manage.


----------



## cmharris (Apr 30, 2013)

*Cancellations/no shows*

Another option is to increase the fee to confirm a trip to $100 or even more. Currently the minimum fee to confirm a date is one person/one day, or $4 plus transaction fee. That's not enough. If people no show they aren't penalized since they have very little into it. So make this higher fee mostly refundable provided all the river rules concerning cancellation/no shows are followed. And for those who confirm and float the river, the confirmation fee would apply to the $4 per person/per day fee we are currently paying. I'm fine with increasing the minimum fee to float the river to $100 per group regardless of size. This applies to four rivers. I'm not sure how other rivers work.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

I believe that focusing on the late-cancelation and the no-show problem will have the greatest potential of increasing permits within the river community. Whereas, there are now just a handful of available permits on March 16th, and folks are having a knee jerk reaction, but not seeing the real issue. *The real issue, is that the river community is losing many times more permits to 3-day cancelations that are too late for others to utilize and completely wasted potential of no-shows, than the hot button March 16 issue in contrast. *

At times, I believe that there is a power in a single focus and we’re more likely to get a single issue addressed with the government bureaucrats, than a large laundry list of issues.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

OP here. I've been busy boating the past couple days and have very little free time to make more comments until tonight or tomorrow.

Two comments on the quick:

1) I agree that it's good to look at the numbers. Whether we're talking about lottery applications or cancellations, it's good to understand the actual trend lines. I will dig soon. However, even if there is no sudden spike due to the permit process going online, you can see that the trend is constantly up, up, up. So whether we break the system in 3 years or in 10 years, it's going to happen. That's why I want to have this discussion now, so that we (private boaters) can advocate for a solution that works for us. Many will tell you that when the GC management plan got reworked, private boaters got screwed. Let's stay ahead of it this time.

2) This is a place to discuss ALL ideas about the permit system. Please don't limit it to one specific aspect of the whole thing. It's all connected anyhow. I'm happy to hear from anyone who has an idea of what is going wrong and what changes can be made to make things work better.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

landslide said:


> I have been in a running conversation with the FS all week long and will start asking questions next week about how rec.gov manages their employees re: snagging permits and reservations before they are available to the public. It's not just river permits that are in high demand and rec.gov needs to have a robust system to manage employee access or someone will take advantage for personal gain.


 

Although I haven’t made up my mind on everything, you have given me an additional MAJOR CONCERN. You indicated that you are communicating with the Forest Service? Above you indicated that you welcome ALL ideas in this topic but you approached the Forest service before listening to all ideas? Are you pushing them as if you speak for all of us? I’m glad if I’m wrong, but if you did IMO it was premature! I’m not sure how, but there should be some sort of consensus made through an appropriate organization like AWW or something before approaching the “Powers that Be”. And… these ideas should be well thought out and discussed before comming to that consensus. (And well before you approach the Forest Service). 

A good example would be this “Additional Lottery” idea. Do you completely understand what you’re saying? The worst chance you have of getting a permit is through the lottery and you want to turn more of the system over to the worst part? I appreciate that you don’t want to sit in front of your computer and do the work but it is truly the best chance you have of getting a permit and it will be squashed if you add additional Lotteries. Now I’m not saying that I’m the authority on that idea, but at first glance IT SEEMS LIKE A TERRIBLE IDEA and I hope to see others chime in on it and I hope you didn’t push that idea to the Forest Service before letting everyone think it all the way through. 

There are other great ideas I’ve read here, I’ll give my two cents on those when I can but I wan't to say one more thing. The river permit system is never going to guarantee everyone a permit when they want one. The number of applicants is going to increase which means the number of disappointments is going to increase. That's just a fact and in my opinion any ideas to improve the system need to be made with that in mind.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Please relax.

As I stated in my very first post, I represent no one but myself and my only goal in starting this thread is to initiate a conversation about a topic that interests me. I have learned a ton here by tossing out ideas and listening to other people's ideas. Think of this as a brainstorming session.

At some point, I'm going to lay out what I think are the best ideas I've seen to address some of these problems. After that, I will probably send a letter to AW and to the different agencies involved like the FS or NPS, but I can only do that for myself because I only represent myself and no one else. If you want to advocate for a solution or a set of solutions that you think will work, then please write your own letters! I really mean it: everyone should do this! I don't represent you and I can't represent you. Advocate for yourself! Send a letter to AW or to the agencies. Get your boating friends to do it, too. They need to hear from us.

Re: the FS. The people with the most knowledge about the current permit system are the folks currently managing it. I emailed someone in the FS with questions and have received answers in reply. This has been hugely helpful to my understanding of the permit system. For Christ's sake, please don't get mad at a public servant who actually cares what private boaters think! And don't get mad at ME for seeking out answers to MY questions. If you have questions of your own, then contact the FS on your own!!!

Thanks


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

For whatever reason, the 4 River policy of “Failure to provide timely cancellation will trigger a no-show penalty. No-show status restricts you from holding a permit on this river for three years”, is not motivating many permit holders to not no-show or to cancel in a timely manner. 

I don’t know if the poor wording of “Failure to provide timely cancellation will trigger a no-show penalty”, triggers a negative response to some individuals needing to cancel 20-days or less. Some permit holders may feel that they’re already getting penalized as a no-show for needing to cancel just after the 21-day deadline, so why even bother canceling the permit. They’re already being sanctioned as a no-show.

I also suspect that some lottery applicants are some rafters 2nd cousin from Florida, who got talked into apply for the group and wins a lottery. Pays the $10 before march 15th, then a couple weeks later a member of the group snags a MFS cancelation. The Florida cousin then never bothers to cancel the permit, because the $4 refund is not worth the hassle of doing so.

Having reflected on this issue, I believe *having a requirement that a permit holder must e-file an update of intent to utilize the permit starting 31-days from the launch, and the permits that fail to be update with intent notification by 21-days out, are automatically released back to the public. *

An additional measure would require a $200 earnest deposit before 21-days out. The earnest deposit would be fully refunded upon the permit launch. For example, the permit holder who needs to cancel a permit 20-days or less, will be refund the deposit, minus $10 for everyday past the timely cancelation cutoff. The $10 a day penalty would likely motivate more permit holders to cancel as soon as possible. *As of now, the penalty makes no difference if a permit holder cancels 20-days, 3-days, or no-shows.*


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

It would be helpful to get stats on how many short notice cancellations and no shows there are for each river per season. Just how big of a problem is this really? I know it seriously impacts the Aug 15 - Sept. 15 MFS permits, but what is the real impact on the other rivers.

I don't think the 3 year ban on holding a permit really creates a huge impact. Can the person really not hold a permit of any kind or can they just not apply in the lottery? Can they pick up a cancellation? Most people are part of a larger circle of rafting friends. If they can't apply or pick up a permit, it's no big deal because someone else in their circle can get one. Maybe they are just an occasional rafter anyway, and skipping 3 years on one particular river isn't a big deal to them.

I don't trust rec.gov to handle extra money & refunds, so I wouldn't be in favor of the earnest deposit idea. Since all of my group's Main Salmon permits for the last 15 years have come from diligently pursuing cancellations, I'm not in favor of additional lotteries.

As I said earlier, it's really just about numbers. An increasing number of people wanting to use a limited resource that doesn't increase as demand increases.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Problem: Easy access to online permits almost encourages people to book permits they may not be able to use. The rationale goes like this: nab the permit first, decide if you can use it later. 

There are times when this rationale is actually valid, IMO. For example, I reserved a pre-season MFS permit. If flows are spiking over 8 feet, I'm probably not going to launch. Nor should I, since it could result in an emergency situation involving injuries, loss of gear, or worse.

Another valid reason for a late cancellation is a health issue. In 2012, I had a FS permit to hike the Enchantments in Washington. A couple days before my hike, my GF went to the hospital with what turned out to be lymphoma. I was a no-show for that permit and received a msg from the FS saying that I was banned from getting another Enchantments permit for a while. I can't remember the details of the msg, just that I received one.

In both of these situations, I feel that my reason to cancel is valid. HOWEVER, I still believe that it is perfectly acceptable that I be penalized for a late cancellation or no show. The fact that I did not use my permit means that someone else was denied a chance to use it. There should definitely be a penalty for that.

According to the FS employee I spoke with, the FS has not been in the habit of penalizing no shows and cancellations in recent years. Last year, maybe one MFS no show was penalized with the ban. That's it. So at the present time, there is really no penalty for a no show or cancellation.

So the equation works out to this: Easy online access to book permits plus no penalty to cancel permits equals lots of cancelled permits.


----------



## cmharris (Apr 30, 2013)

*More thoughts*

I'm fine with Rec.gov handling a larger confirmation fee. They are currently managing the system well, I assume, or the forest service would likely make changes. Again, if the large, refundable confirmation fee applies to the final floater fee, that should discourage cancellation/no shows and also not increase the fees most of us are paying.

I'm not in favor of a second lottery but would like to see the March 16 dates released randomly over a one week period. I'm not sure what happened this last March 16, but it was not fair to the average person with a normal computer/internet connection.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

cataraftgirl said:


> *It would be helpful to get stats on how many short notice cancellations and no shows there are for each river per season. Just how big of a problem is this really?* I know it seriously impacts the Aug 15 - Sept. 15 MFS permits, but what is the real impact on the other rivers.
> 
> I don't think the 3 year ban on holding a permit really creates a huge impact. Can the person really not hold a permit of any kind or can they just not apply in the lottery? Can they pick up a cancellation? Most people are part of a larger circle of rafting friends. If they can't apply or pick up a permit, it's no big deal because someone else in their circle can get one. Maybe they are just an occasional rafter anyway, and skipping 3 years on one particular river isn't a big deal to them.
> 
> ...


I previously shared a conversation I had with a ranger on the 4-river system, who told me that 38% of their high-use dates have at least one no-show. Our sport is seeing a significant increase in participation and demand for permits, but the number of allocated permits will not increase. Therefore, if the no-show problem is as big as this ranger stated, as a river community, we can no longer afford to have this lost potential being flushed down the drain. 

I know that my conversation with the ranger could have been embellished a little by him and that we need see actual data to support this. Changes need to be data driven, not through emotional assumptions. 

However, I know a river runner who goes to the Middle Fork nearly every year without a permit during the high-use and waits for a no-show. He typically doesn’t have to wait more than a couple of days to get on the river, so it’s easy to see a correlation supporting this rangers statement that 38% of their high-use dates have at least one no-show.

I can completely understand your legitimate concern of having rec.gov handling earnest money deposits. I’m just trying brainstorm a solution, because the current $10 permit confirmation and then crickets till no-show on launch day, is robbing others folks who would have actually used it. What are your thoughts on having a requirement that a permit holder must e-file an update of intent to utilize the permit starting 31-days from the launch, and the permits that fail to be update with intent notification by 21-days out, are automatically released back to the public?


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

To me, the most reasonable approach is to run the initial lottery (like Dec - Jan), then make subsequent cancellations/unselected launches reservable to those with failed lottery numbers (say, March - April), and then make all subsequent cancellations open to the public on a rolling basis.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

We’ve had a good discussion so far and I’ve learned a lot. At this point, I would find it helpful to take a step back and review the problems we’ve discussed and prioritize possible solutions. My basic belief is that it’s usually best to start with simple tweaks to the current system that can be made quickly and at low cost, and then move on to more complex solutions that will require time, effort, and added expense to make happen. 

Problem #1: The way rec.gov is releasing non-confirmation cancellation permits is not consistent with the regs and makes it possible for permits to be snagged by rec.gov employees before release, or by people using “auto-ping” software programs. By releasing all of the cancellations at once at a specified date/time, rec.gov created an inherently unfair situation this year.

Solution #1: The simplest solution is for the FS to provide very specific guidance to rec.gov about how non-confirmation cancellations are to be released. IMO, this release should start on a specified date and continue for a week or more, as permits are randomly spit out of the system at any time of day or night. This change will reward people willing to work to find a permit and it has no added cost for anyone.

Many posts ago, I suggested the idea of rec.gov offering a “notification service” when a permit is released. I DO NOT like this idea anymore!!! I agree with others that it is better to reward those who will work to find a permit because I believe those people are less likely to cancel.

Solution #2: I really think Solution #1 will be adequate to fix this problem, but if it doesn’t then it’s time to consider a follow up lottery. There are serious pitfalls with this solution. There’s the added expense and it continues to make it easy for people who aren’t particularly serious about doing a river trip to win a permit. And that just leads to more cancellations. The initial lottery offers everyone the same chances. After that, you have to work for it.

But if we go down this path, there should only be ONE follow up lottery per year, which would handle the initial batch of non-confirmation cancellations. After that, cancelled permits would be released randomly. The follow up lottery would have its own fee, separate from the initial lottery.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

markhusbands said:


> To me, the most reasonable approach is to run the initial lottery (like Dec - Jan), then make subsequent cancellations/unselected launches reservable to those with failed lottery numbers (say, March - April), and then make all subsequent cancellations open to the public on a rolling basis.


Excellent idea and fair compromise.


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

riverdoghenry said:


> Our sport is seeing a significant increase in participation and demand for permits, but the number of allocated permits will not increase.
> [/U]


In addition to sorting out the no show issues, it is probably worth asking if this is entirely true. The lottery river capacities appear to be based on existing camps. Sometimes there are geographic limitations to where camps can be established, but in other cases, it might be possible to add some camps to increase the overnight capacity. It does not seem that on-river density is the issue on most of these rivers, and a well managed and defined campsite is not necessarily a big deal in terms of impact.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Problem #2: Commercial rafting companies currently have the ability to reserve private permits when cancelled private permits are released to the public. Given several months to plan and sell an additional launch during the peak season, a raft company has a huge financial incentive to do so. This results in the loss of a launch permit that had been allotted to private boaters.

Solution: I don’t know if this practice is actually written into the regs or if it was just something that happened a few times and then became accepted practice. Either way, it needs to stop. Each raft company starts off with their allotment of launch dates and that’s all they should get. Demand for private permits is simply too high to see these launch dates shift over to commercial usage.

This change should be simple and cheap to make, if the FS can be convinced to do so.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Problem #3: Between August 15 and September 15, any private permit that is cancelled will not be reissued in order to benefit spawning salmon. As of today, March 28, 2017, there are already a total of ELEVEN permits that have been cancelled during this period that will not be reissued. At this point in the year, we have no idea what water levels will be like during that date range, and yet 11 permit “winners” have already decided that they don’t need their permit.

Solution: First off, people should not list a late season launch date on their lottery application unless they are serious about doing a low water trip. This is ridiculous! But I also question whether this practice really offers all that much benefit to spawning salmon. Maybe it does, but if so, why were these dates allotted in the first place? 

My own experience with salmon spawning closures on the Nooksack River in Washington is that although the closure applies to everyone, commercial rafters NEVER stop running trips! But as a private boater, I’m supposed to follow these voluntary rules? It’s a bit much to ask. I am all for helping salmon numbers rebound, but I can think of other changes (dam removal, reducing net quotas, etc.) that might offer bigger gains.

I don’t really expect the FS to change this rule, but I don’t mind asking to see it go away, either.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Problem #4: There is no real penalty to cancel a permit. Even late cancellations and no shows rarely, if ever, get penalized.

Solution: This one gets complicated. In keeping with the KISS philosophy, the simplest solution would be for the FS to actively enforce the three-year ban for late cancellers and no shows. As has been pointed out, this penalty has no teeth for most boaters or cancellations would not be so common. (A 38% cancellation rate, if true, is WAY too high!)

A second approach could be to initiate a monetary penalty. I am in favor of this solution. It’s great to make it possible for anyone to win a permit, but you really shouldn’t attempt to win a permit unless you have the skills and experience and gear to make the trip happen. Here’s my suggestion:

Non-confirmation cancellations from the initial lottery are free. No harm, no foul. The permit can be picked up by someone who has plenty of time to plan their trip.

Cancelling a permit within 30 days of launch triggers the three year ban OR a fee of $50. This fee is not so great that it would force someone to run a trip at high water that they can’t do safely, but it also encourages people to only book permits they are likely to use.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Problem #5: If it hasn’t happened already, at some point demand for private launch permits will reach the point where it becomes extremely rare to win a permit in the lottery. Experienced boaters with large groups of rafting friends still get invited on multiple trips every year, but newer boaters seldom get to go.

Solution: This is a long-range problem and I imagine it will require a long-range solution. The GC has its weighted point system. Dinosaur NM uses a “one time rule” for high season launches. I’m not sure what is the best solution for 4 Rivers, but I favor the “one time rule” more than the weighted point system because it’s simpler and less expensive to manage and enforce. And in all fairness, is it really fair for one person to do three or four runs per year on the MFS, Main, and Selway when others get none? (Okay, don’t answer that! I know what you’re thinking.)


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Schutzie has always thought the "one and done" rule is the only way to address the skyrocketing demand for private permits; go once and enjoy, but no repeats, or perhaps repeat only once very 5 years. Some folks manage to wrangle a GC trip every year while others wait 10 plus years to go at all.
It is not logical to eliminate commercial permits all together; if running is a business you have to know launch dates and group sizes well in advance or marketing becomes impossible. Those permits are in the end all most companies have of any real value.
As to the permit process itself; Schutzie has no real opinion except that an unused permit should carry serious penalties, and a short notice cancellation should at least carry the loss of first born males. Or something. Even a great excuse for cancellation at the last second still means the permit goes unused.


----------



## idaho_h2o (May 5, 2005)

You could address many of these problems by requiring full fees to enter lottery. All fees are non refundable unless you don't pull a permit. Example of this would be certain controlled hunts in Idaho. You have to submit full amount to apply. 

Any cancellation or no show should be loss of fees and blackout for 3 years. It should cost at least $100 to not use a permit you won. You would still need some motivator to get folks who have to cancel to do so. Perhaps return 50% of fees or lower blackout to 1 year if cancelled within a certain window. This will greatly cut down on the number of entries and solve many of the problems. The necessity of a second lottery and rolling cancellations issues would be greatly reduced.

If you aren't comfortable using a permit because of water levels, DON'T APPLY FOR THOSE DATES. It isn't difficult to find historical flow data. If you apply for an early June Selway, you should be prepared to run it at 8 ft. If you aren't, you are ruining it for those that are willing and capable. 

In addition, completely agree on Middle Fork cancellations. No way should these just go away. Just invites folks with ulterior motives to game the system with no penalty.

Also, don't see any reason commercials should be able to apply for cancellations. At the same time private boaters need to make sure the system is working so no dates go unused. Until that happens you really have no grounds to complain about someone using that launch.

My last pet peeve is the folks that don't have the gear or skills to run the river applying. Although I know it would never fly, I would be all in favor of a "no rentals" policy. This leads to folks having 100 of their closest friends and their grandmas applying with the knowledge that that person will take care of all of the details if they win. If you don't have the knowledge, skill and ability to lead the trip you shouldn't apply. These folks should be on a commercial trip.

Last of all, there should be a 100X entry multiplier for rivers in your home state


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

*Employee Perks?*



landslide said:


> Problem #1: The way rec.gov is releasing non-confirmation cancellation permits is *not consistent with the regs and makes it possible for permits to be snagged by rec.gov employees before release*, or by people using “auto-ping” software programs. By releasing all of the cancellations at once at a specified date/time, rec.gov created an inherently unfair situation this year.



Landslide, how do you know that the way rec.gov is releasing cancelations is not consistent with the regulations, by-so, allowing an employee perk for rec.gov staff to get first dibs on cancelations before releasing to the public?


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

The regs state that cancelled permits will be released randomly. (cataraft girl already posted the citation above.) This year, permits for non-confirmation cancellations were released all at once on a specified time and date. *That is NOT RANDOM!* 

Worse yet, rec.gov posted the available cancellations five hours before they were released, but no one outside the system had the ability to actually book the permit. This left lots of time for someone to set up their "auto-ping" software to flood rec.gov with hits until one of them went through and scored the permit. According to someone at the FS, rec.gov does have some sort of program to thwart this kind of "attack," but I don't have any evidence that they do, or that it works. Besides, hackers are always finding new ways to beat a system, so why not remove the temptation altogether by releasing the dates randomly over a week or more? Make it harder to cheat, not easier.

My other concern is that a rec.gov employee inside the system could reserve the permit prior to its release to the public. If it's posted on their website, someone working their call in center can see it, too. Why not book it yourself or let one of your friends have it instead? It's not stealing, since the permit will be paid for, so what is the problem? People working at call centers don't make much money. This would be a hell of a perk!

And just for the record, I don't think employees of rec.gov are any better or worse than any other human beings. I consider myself to be a pretty honest person, but if you put me in charge of handling cancelled permits for the MFS or Selway or The Wave Hike or The Enchantments, I would probably succumb to temptation and keep a permit or two for myself. I have no idea if this actually happens or not because rec.gov is a very secretive company. For example, if you go on the rec.gov website and click the "About us" link, they do not even mention that they are a private company! Instead, they imply that they are the government. And I really don't like that!

Personally, I would like to see much more transparency from rec.gov. Post some information about the company on your website. Post info about how lotteries are run and what policies are in place to make sure that permits are handled fairly. Post results from audits done by the government (if such audits even exist!) See what I mean? A lot of the public's concern about fairness can only be addressed through transparency. Right now no one knows what goes on behind the curtain. 

Finally, I didn't post this earlier, but my computer got hacked an hour after I noted that someone on mountain buzz posting on the "rec.gov has been gamed" thread might be a sock puppet. An experience like that doesn't generate much trust!


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

I'm aware and have previous written that the Selway posted the available permits 10-hours in advance, not 5-hours, but this is not what I was asking. I was asking how do you know that this situation is being taken advantage of by rec.gov employees?


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

Just for the sake of things being a little better grounded, I looked at the link that cataraft girl provided to the USFS website, and it does say that cancellations will be released randomly. However, that is NOT a "reg". It's a posted practice, and an inconsistency apparently, but not a violation of law from what anything can tell. 

I also think the idea that a bunch of random people employed at some east coast database company are interested enough in Idaho river permits to sneak them for their friends to be far fetched. And that even assumes it is possible for them to create a reservation outside the open dates, and there is no evidence that is true, and it seems at odds with how date-stamped database entries would work. It would also, I am fairly sure, be in violation of the terms of their federal contract if it was occurring. It seems to me like a pretty unfair conclusion to reach in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing. 

And as for getting more information about how the system works, maybe a polite email to the following would get a reply. Myself, I'd probably focus on the inconsistency between the USFS web posting, and just say this got you interested in learning a little more about how the program is managed, and I'd probably omit any mention about their employees scooping private rafting permits. You may or may not get a canned response. 

Contracting Officers Representative/Program Manager, National Recreation Reservation Service Contract Management Office (NCMO), at the following address:
231 North Main Street
Rutland, VT 05701
Email: [email protected]


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

landslide said:


> The regs state that cancelled permits will be released randomly. (cataraft girl already posted the citation above.)


Yes, but there is a clause for the Selway, _"...successful lottery reservations that are declined or revoked will be posted on the www.recreation.gov website at a random time within 24 hours of being released, except for Selway reservations..."_.

However, I disagree with this Selway clause and feel that it needs to be changed, but it's technically does not fall under them not keeping with the regs. Again, I fail to see how this allows rec.gov employees to benefit more-so than the general public at 10am on March 16th, unless they are allowed to book permits before 10am as a perk. Is this happening?

The individual rivers in the 4 River system have a lot in common, but are actually managed by separate offices and each has their own subtle differences in rules. Everyone needs to be mindful of what works on the MFS, does not necessarily work on the Selway.

For example, MFS requires a 21-day cancelation and failure to cancel in a timely manner is sanctioned with a 3-year penalty. But the Selway requires a 14-day cancelation and failure to cancel in a timely manner is sanctioned with a 1-year penalty.

Selway office just chooses to to release all the cancelations at once like Dino and not do the random 24-hours like the other 3 River offices.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

riverdoghenry said:


> Yes, but there is a clause for the Selway, _"...successful lottery reservations that are declined or revoked will be posted on the www.recreation.gov website at a random time within 24 hours of being released, except for Selway reservations..."_.
> 
> However, I disagree with this Selway clause and feel that it needs to be changed, but it's technically does not fall under them not keeping with the regs. Again, I fail to see how this allows rec.gov employees to benefit more-so than the general public at 10am on March 16th, unless they are allowed to book permits before 10am as a perk. Is this happening?
> 
> ...


RiverDog, I don't have time to open you link yet. the above text states that the Selway cancellations are NOT released randomly, but does it spell out how they ARE released? 

If there is any river permit that should have an equal lottery and draw and cancellation system it is the Selway.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

markhusbands said:


> I also think the idea that a bunch of random people employed at some east coast database company are interested enough in Idaho river permits to sneak them for their friends to be far fetched. And that even assumes it is possible for them to create a reservation outside the open dates, and there is no evidence that is true, and it seems at odds with how date-stamped database entries would work. It would also,* I am fairly sure, be in violation of the terms of their federal contract if it was occurring.* It seems to me like a pretty unfair conclusion to reach in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.


Markhusbands, also it would be a serious federal violation of a handful of federal laws and acts that don’t allow government employees, including contractors, to use their position for private gain or for that of persons or organizations with which they are associated with personally. It would be felony corruption, so doubtful their allowing their employees this perk.

Landslide,

Shifting gears, it is potentially possible that a rec.gov employee can have access to knowing when a permit cancels and the specific time it will become available, then they could share this info with an outsider. This would then allow an individual to be poised and ready to pounce. Is this information available to all rec.gov employees or just a few individuals on a need-to-know?

On the other hand, the odds of a river runner with a family or friend working for rec.gov would be very unlikely. Worst case, it wouldn’t be more than one or two individuals benefitting, and in the big picture of a couple thousand permits, it would be better to spend our time addressing more pressing issues. Just saying.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

landslide said:


> Problem #1: The way rec.gov is releasing non-confirmation cancellation permits is not consistent with the regs and makes it possible for permits to be snagged by rec.gov employees before release, or by people using “auto-ping” software programs. By releasing all of the cancellations at once at a specified date/time, rec.gov created an inherently unfair situation this year.


Is this confirmed? Do Rec.gov or FS or ANY employees get some sort of benefit of grabbing permits or cancellations outside of the normal lottery / cancellation process? 

That might explain something for me. Years ago when I was first getting into boating, I was in a large crowd and I heard someone in the pavilion say that he had a relative at REC.GOV that "hooks him up with cancellations and that is how he gets to float IT so often" I have no idea who this person was or what river he was talking about but it proved to me that the current system is FIXED. 

I agree with Landslide. This is PROBLEM 1! 

This is not some "for profit" private company that can hand out bonuses to their employees for a private product! This is a Government contract for managing a PUBLIC RESOURCE and I'm sick and Fing tired of hearing how some of those resources are being handed out under the table as favors or benefits. Is there any accountability at all to this system? HOW?


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

ob1coby said:


> Is this confirmed? *Do Rec.gov or FS or ANY employees get some sort of benefit of grabbing permits or cancellations outside of the normal lottery / cancellation process?
> *
> That might explain something for me. Years ago when I was first getting into boating, I was in a large crowd and I heard someone in the pavilion say that he had a relative at REC.GOV that "hooks him up with cancellations and that is how he gets to float IT so often" I have no idea who this person was or what river he was talking about but it proved to me that the current system is FIXED.
> 
> ...


Again, under federal law it would be *unlawful* for an employee to personally benefit in this manner or use their position for private gain or for that of persons or organizations with which they are associated with personally. In other words, they would be receiving a permit as a gift or favor. This would be a 2nd degree felony.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Do I* know* that any employee at rec.gov has ever used their access to secure a permit? Of course not! Unless I was benefiting from such an arrangement, I wouldn't know about it. And I'd probably keep it quiet, too, so others don't find out.

My personal understanding of human nature says that if someone has access to something that is rare and valuable, and there is little chance of being caught, then someone, somewhere is going to take advantage of that situation.

FWIW, the FS holds the same view as others here, that it is highly unlikely that anyone at rec.gov uses their access to score permits for themselves or their family and friends. I find that view to be incredibly naive. I'm no fan of Tom Brady, but someone stole his sweaty Superbowl jersey because they knew it was rare and valuable. Give someone an opportunity to take something rare and valuable and some folks are going to do it.

The other thing to remember is that rec.gov manages far more than just highly sought after boating permits. They also handle highly sought after hiking permits, highly sought after camping reservations, highly sought after hunting tags, etc., etc. If you don't personally want or need any of those things, then you probably know someone who does.

My view is that our wilderness areas are America's crown jewels. Access to see the crown jewels is no small thing. It's an extremely valuable resource and lots of people want the chance to see them. Let's start treating these permits as being valuable, rather than treating like they're free tickets to the zoo.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

landslide said:


> Problem #1: The way rec.gov is releasing non-confirmation cancellation permits is not consistent with the regs and makes it possible for permits to be snagged by rec.gov employees before release, or by people using “auto-ping” software programs. By releasing all of the cancellations at once at a specified date/time, rec.gov created an inherently unfair situation this year.


Okay then the way Lanslide wrote this is that the system has loopholes that enables it to happen intentionally or otherwise. Either way it needs to end. 

And unlikely or not I know it's happening. It's not a conspiracy theory, I heard it with my own two ears. 

Problem is, how can it be monitored and accounted for? 

Also I'm looking through the stats that RDH and LS have been posting. Unless I'm mistaken, Private permits have not increased but Commercial Launch allocations HAVE been increasing over the last couple of years. Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

ob1coby said:


> That might explain something for me. *Years ago when I was first getting into boating, I was in a large crowd and I heard someone in the pavilion say that he had a relative at REC.GOV that "hooks him up with cancellations and that is how he gets to float IT so often"* I have no idea who this person was or what river he was talking about but it proved to me that the current system is FIXED.


If it is true that this person you overheard bragging that they’re getting hooked up with permits by their relative that works for rec.gov, I doubt they’re doing this by directly getting them permits. This would be blatantly unlawful. 

As previously stated, I see it would likely be something along the lines of insider trading, and their relative can see when a permit cancels and see the specific time it will become available. Then they’re sharing this information with said relative, then this relative is poised and ready to pounce at that time.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Hers is a good recent example of how a Utah BLM agent unlawfully used his position to get Burning Man perks:

Utah BLM agent used position to get Burning Man perks, report says | The Salt Lake Tribune


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

I doubt anyone who has "enhanced" access to permits via a relative at rec.gov would see it as such a grave violation. More like a small favor... "Hey, so long as you've got the fridge door open, grab me another beer." Nothing clandestine or hush-hush. It would be quite casual. And why not? If the FS doesn't think these permits have much value, why should anyone care at rec.gov?

This is why I'd like to solve the problem by making cancellation permits become available on a truly random schedule. The fewer people who know what dates are going to be released or when those dates are going to be released, the better. Don't tempt anyone. Don't make it easy to cheat. And don't rely on the honor system. Just make it random, as it was supposed to be in the first place, according to the FS.

Is it a regulation that stipulates permits must be released randomly or is it just accepted practice? I don't know. All that really needs to happen to make the system work better is to provide detailed, specific instructions to rec.gov about how they are supposed to do their jobs. And, yeah, an audit or some oversight might help, too. This should not be a difficult problem to fix.


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

Be a cool person, cook well, don't get too drunk all the time, buy a four door truck and trailer that can carry 2-3 boats and gear, have your own boat and know how to row it, learn river rescue and first aid, buy a groover and offer to handle it, do more than "your job" the trip before, point out where the fish are and let others have the hole, "settle" for non-lotto trips occasionally, know a couple good new jokes every year, be nice to outfitters, don't bail on too many invites, pay invites back in like kind, pay your share of the trip costs without complaining, and always be holding. 

You won't get skunked too many seasons. 

Yeah, there's room for improvement on the lotto system but I have a hard time believing it's rec.gov or the USFS's fault that people are not getting river time. 

-I don't want private trips to be allowed to hire a guide. Part of the experience is not paying someone to take care of you. 
-Points system-don't like it. Read up on point creep for certain hunting tags. Plus, only one person has to draw a tag for 23 others to join in. 
-I don't think commercials should be able to grab private trips. They bought license for a certain number of trips per year. We pay taxes and fees for the rest of the trips. If they want to pick one up for a guide trip, but treat like a private trip financially, that's cool. 
-There should be a 30 day cancellation policy unless due to a medical condition or death of immediate family. Under 30 days and the person cancelling is barred for three years from applying or going on someone else's trip. 
-I think anyone should be able to apply for the trip but cancellations are released randomly so the Floridian who draws can't tell his buddy in Ketchum when he's dropping and then that guy picks it up. 
-I don't mind short cancellations if water is too high to be deemed safe for a majority of boaters. Our weather and snowpacks have fluctuated a lot the last few years and I'd rather see a permit not used than people dying. But yeah, short term cancellors should have to sit out the next few years. 
-I'm not too solid on this idea but what if applications cost the price of an average group size and if unsuccessful, all but $10 is refunded?
-Late season cancellations should be put up for grabs before certain date but after that date (whatever the biologists think is best) I don't mind those permits going unused. 

We are going to see more applicants every year and we can't make more rivers. I don't want to see more permits issued.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Good summary, conundrum. Although you're new to the Buzz, it's pretty clear you have a lot river trip experience. I liked your opening paragraph because being a great river trip participant will result in far more river trips than being lucky in the lottery. However, we've already had many, many discussions on Mountain Buzz about how to be a good river trip participant, so I kind of hope this discussion about the permit system doesn't head off in that direction. It's already long enough!

I think if you've been running rivers for 20 or 30 years, you've probably got a large stable of friends who put in for permits every year. And most every year that means someone you know is going to win a permit and invite you on the GC or the Selway or MF Salmon or Gates of Lodore or Yampa. Maybe not every river, every year, but quite a few trips. In other words, the current system works fine for you.

If you're a newer rafter without a large stable of river-running friends or you're a lowly kayaker in need of raft support, then you need the permit system to be as fair as possible so you have a chance of winning a permit. Because if you don't win a permit, you're probably not going to get to do a trip. 

My main push in this thread is to make sure the permit system is operating as fairly as possible. After that, it's up to each person to be a good TL or a good participant so they get invited on future trips.


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

I've only been lurking for 13 years. I was a lonely kayaker for five years before safety boating for some rafters who decided I wasn't a bad guy and could save their shit occasionally. They started carrying my beer, then my gear, then converted me many years ago. Now I'm a post-op rafter and just gave my old creek boat to another friend because it sat on the side of my garage for far too long.

For new people, that why I wrote "be a cool person" as the first line. We always try to bring a couple new passengers with us and usually a new rower if the water allows. For those experienced boaters saying it's not fair for the newer folks, try inviting a newer boater on one of your trips. Doesn't have to be the Selway...could be a lower Salmon or Hells. 

Case in point. We loaned my buddy a boat for Hells last year. Yeah, he flipped in Green Room, we flipped him back. He had a blast. He put in this year, bought a rig, got a Memorial Day weekend Hells and invited me this year. Last summer again-let a brand new rafting buddy ride in my boat down a Hells, loaned him my personal rig for an August Main I couldn't make (he was with very experienced other boaters), he put in for a Selway and got it and I'm taking him down the Selway June 17th this summer. I get to do a Selway and a new boater also gets to do the Selway. There's probably no way a brand new boater would have a good experience on the Selway that time of year without some other folks to help and I'm without a permit. Win-win under the current system. I was skunked this year and both my new rafter buddies got me on two trips this summer because I got them on trips last year. We won't talk about the trips I can't make due to work.

Took me eight years of applying for my birthday launch MF before drawing but as a new boater, I always did a trip. Maybe it was a Bruneau, Grand Ronde, Owyhee, Lower Salmon, Main, something but yeah, all those people got to go on my 8th attempt for a pretty good launch date MF.

My point is, new people have the same chance as the rest of us and there's nothing wrong with earning your stripes along the way. I think our current system works for this. In fact, as an Idaho native, I don't even complain about out-of-staters having the same odds as me for Idaho rivers (they belong to everyone). Look at hunting tags-lot more in-state opportunities than out-of-state. I get the hunting is controlled by the state while boating is feds but it's still mostly on fed ground.

I think with a few tweaks-cancellation reissue and outfitter opportunities, I think the current system is fine. Depending on the date and river, you're usually looking at a 2-15% draw rate. Yeah, you could say you with those odds you'd have to wait 50 years to draw your tag. You might be forgetting that only one out of 16 or 24 people have to draw which greatly increases your odds of getting on a river unless you're that vein that you need your name on the permit. Personally, I'm at the point that I would rather get invited and do what I'm asked than TL but I also think everyone should take a stab a TL'ing with a mentor if not capable. It's a different way to look at a trip and you learn a lot.

Executive summary-if you could randomly release cancellations and tighten up the software so auto pingers don't grab the permits, I'd be happy with the way things are. And that comes from a guy whose benefited from a lot of cancellation tags.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

I've been running Idaho rivers - including all of the 4 Rivers - for over 15 years now. While I agree and disagree with much of the analysis and solutions posted in this thread, for the most part it is very good discussion. Things can always be cleaned up and improved. 

I do agree with a previous poster about unintended consequences of making changes, however. This is something we should always keep in mind. 

Also, I'm very much in agreement with the idea of capping the commercials and not allowing them to snag released / cancelled permits. 

Other than that... frankly, besides the Selway I don't think figuring out how to get on a river trip is that difficult. We've been able to pick up early season and/or cancelled permits just about every year. For the years we can't get one, we do the MFSR before or after the permit season. 

I know my experiences are fairly narrow and unique; I completely understand that. 
But I think for those who really want to get on the river, they'll figure out how to make it happen. For those who want to be able to snag a permit mid-June through early August, and organize their own trip... well, the odds of that happening are always going to be slim. Like event tickets or anything else that has more demand than supply, you either have to work harder, be willing to pay more, or be more flexible to make it happen. That's just reality, even if the system were perfect. 

To be honest, the most fair system is one that would probably result in winning a river permit a once in a lifetime deal. Not sure anyone really wants the system to be perfectly fair, either.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Conundrum said:


> Be a cool person, cook well, don't get too drunk all the time, buy a four door truck and trailer that can carry 2-3 boats and gear, have your own boat and know how to row it, learn river rescue and first aid, buy a groover and offer to handle it, do more than "your job" the trip before, point out where the fish are and let others have the hole, "settle" for non-lotto trips occasionally, know a couple good new jokes every year, be nice to outfitters, don't bail on too many invites, pay invites back in like kind, pay your share of the trip costs without complaining, and always be holding.
> 
> You won't get skunked too many seasons.
> 
> ...


Well thought out post that reflects years of experience and knowledge! 

Having reflected on how point creep with the point system has made top elk hunt units less appealing than easy to draw or over-the-counter units for my tags. I had arrived at the conclusion, I'd rather experience the opportunity to at least be out in low unit, than wait for decades on the top units. 

Here’s an over-simplified version of how point creep would adversely affect permits. 

All the applicants who tried and failed to draw this year, will have one more point next year. They give out 310 permits a year, but 1,200 people get in line every year, so on average each new person in line must wait longer and longer to draw their permit. 

As an example, this will eventually result in a new rafter getting into the point system, thinking that on average it will take 4-years, but due to point creep it will take 9-years on average to draw a permit. 

Unlike a hunter who can choose to not participate in top units and opt for low units, there are only a handful river permits and it would be the equivalent to insanely high demand top hunt units. This would result in point creep effect being exponentially worse than in the top hunt units.

The next generation of rafters (our children) would have to get into the point system at 18 years old, in hopes of getting their permit by 40 years old. Point creep would result in just mostly old-timers having the luxury of drawing permits. 

Let’s just stay with the annual lottery that everyone starts over from scratch and has an equal chance every year. The old timer has a much of a chance as a newbie.


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

Thanks for explaining point creep. There's a unit in AZ that my buddies always tell me to put in for. I'm 37. Due to point creep and at my age, it's mathematically impossible to draw that tag in my lifetime. Do we really want a system that mandates your parents need to start entering you as a toddler for you to have any chance of a Selway in your 30s? It will happen with a point system. And then what happens when the feds realize this? You really think someone is going to be okay with dropping 25 years' worth of points when the feds do go back to straight lottery? 

There's no real fair way to new people other than a straight lottery with everyone getting one chance each year. I've put in for almost 17 years now for the 4-Rivers. I've drawn one high demand MF and it took eight years. Let's flip that, my girlfriend drew the same trip the following year on her first year of applying. Some people are lucky (me) and some are not. I doubt I'll ever draw a Selway but that's not to say I don't get to experience it and will continue to put in every year. And honestly, I've stopped applying for Mains and Hells a long time ago. All the draw odds are on the website. Study up and take some calculated chances instead of always shooting for that early July launch and then being disappointed at "not successful" emails. Or learn to fly fish and crush the cutties in August when the draw odds are a lot better.

The Feds are in a tough spot (I'm not a Fed employee nor do I know anyone that works there). They've got a huge demand for a very limited supply June-August. Couple that with reduced funding and a bunch of assholes that get out the pitchforks when application and river fees ever go up. They've got outfitters hitting them from one side, extraction from another, the environmental concerns, regulations, and a bunch of dirt bags trying to sleep on the side of a river complaining that they can't ever draw a June 29th Selway.

I guess I would maybe, slightly, be okay with one peak season 4 Rivers draw in a lifetime but someone would have to make a very good argument for that. Actually, no, I wouldn't.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

This has been a GREAT discussion. New ideas and view points are still rolling in. I like it!

I am fully aware of the law of unintended consequences which makes me very wary of making big changes all at once.

I'm open to discussing any solution, but if you look at the solutions I proposed recently (which start on post #75 of this thread), it's pretty clear that I think a few simple tweaks to the current system are the best place to start. No added fees, no new regulations... just some much needed changes to current practices. And then maybe wait two or three years to see if those changes are sufficient.

But I see no problem discussing the big changes, either. Maybe we don't need a point system now, but we might need one in the future. I keep looking at the GC system and asking, "What can we learn from it and what can we do to stay ahead of the problems that occur from increasing demand?" If private boaters just sit around and wait for the system to actually break, then the commercial industry will step in and propose solutions that work best for them, not us. Sound familiar?


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

landslide said:


> If you're a newer rafter without a large stable of river-running friends or you're a lowly kayaker in need of raft support, then you need the permit system to be as fair as possible so you have a chance of winning a permit. Because if you don't win a permit, you're probably not going to get to do a trip.


Landslide, I'm not sure I'm following you here. You are looking for a system that is fair to new boaters but continue to mention a points system. Maybe you see a points system differently than I do but my opinion is there couldn't be a system more unfriendly to newcomers than points. What am I missing? 

And if you are a new rafter without a large stable of friends, whose going to show you the ropes on that first trip on the MF when the flows are higher than you expected because of a high snow pack and a temperate spring. You now have to cancel and you're locked out for three years because of a safe decision based on good self awareness of your abilities. 

Really, with my circle of friends and the ability to run some more difficult shuttles (privately for friends) therefore being on a lot of lists of favors owed, my experience and gear, and the number of self-issue permits close to me, I don't have any worries about getting on trips. So yeah, the current system does work for me and my tribe. But I also want to keep an open mind and be part of the conversation so I hope you don't take my questions as poking sticks at you.

I don't see how anything but a straight lotto will do anything for newcomers for two reasons. 1-there will be a point in time they won't ever draw. 2-If we go to a "you've done it once so you don't get to anymore", who shows the new guys? So we have to decide, do we award those who have tried longer or keep it fair to new boaters? Do we lock people out after success? Who brings the new folks? I don't have a great answer for all of these questions but I continue to meet new people from my state and out-of-state on the river. Some are first time boaters, some are experienced boaters first time on that particular river, and some are better boaters that have done that stretch a lot more than me.

And, if you really want to get on a river and don't have a permit, or the knowledge and gear, or really want a certain time of year, you can always pay for a commercial trip. So is the conversation how do we give the unique and rare opportunities to those who can't afford it, haven't put in the time to be there, or don't have the gear? Sounds like river socialism  I'm joking with that statement of course.


I completely agree on your other ideas in post #75.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

conundrum, good question.

What do I mean when I say I want the system to be "fair?"

To me,
Fair means that someone can't game the system from the outside using their computer skills.

Fair means that someone with a friend or relative working at rec.gov doesn't have a better chance of scoring a permit than anyone else.

Fair means that commercial rafters can't score permits that were originally allotted to private boaters.

Fair means that no shows and late cancellations are penalized in some way for wasting launches that could have been used by someone else.

That's my idea of "fair." And as far as I can tell, just about everyone commenting on this thread agrees with these things. These solutions don't cost money to implement or require new regulations. Just a few tweaks to the management of the current system. (And BTW, post #75 was only one of five different proposals I made. Keep looking.)

After that, things become more complicated. I'm starting with the idea that at some point in the future... maybe 5 years from now, or maybe 20... demand for permits on 4Rivers and Dinsosaur will be so great that more structural changes in the permit system will be needed. That's the context in which I've mentioned a point system. And, yes, a point system like the one used on the GC is *designed* to favor newbies over experienced river runners. I'm not ready to advocate for such a system because I think we can forestall it somewhat with better management. But at some point, I think it will become necessary, and I'm not afraid to talk about it now.

In regard to your specific question about newbies winning permits, the way I see it is this: As you stated, many experienced rafters invite a newbie or two along on their trips, when conditions permit. And that's awesome. But if you're a newbie another way to go on trips is to win the permit yourself, and then invite experienced boaters to join your trip. This happens all the time on the GC, because newbies have much better odds of winning a permit.

My situation is a little different since I'm a kayaker. There are WAY more kayakers wanting to be invited on multi-day trips than there are rafters willing to invite them. Even if you are a solid safety boater with tons of multi-day trip experience, there are only limited invites available. That's just life. One solution that works for me is to paddle a crossover kayak so I can do self-supported trips, including solo trips. This provides me even more freedom to go on a wide variety of trips... with or without raft support.


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

Thanks for the explanation even though you didn't owe me one. I agree with all the fairness points. I did read the rest of the thread...should have mentioned that. 

I hope we never see a points system on 4 rivers regardless of whether it's like GC's weighted system or something else but everyone is entitled to their opinion on allocation of permits. I can't comment on the Dinosaur way of doing things. I've got to many good options close to home so I don't get out much.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

There are a few points in all this I find important. 

The first is allocation. 

How did we get to the allocations of use today? In Grand Canyon and Dinosaur, the allocations of today were arrived at in large part by the commercial operators and the agencies working hand in hand to exclude the do-it-yourself folks. This happened in the 1950's for those of you too young to remember. Corporations running concessions contracts in Grand Canyon and DINO receive federal subsidies for their operations. This has to end. There are simply too many do-it-yourself folks wanting to recreate by boat to justify set-asides in the prime boatable season. 

The only way to have an equitable allocation is without an allocation. Companies who have no set-aside allocations remain in business. They get work when people bring them permits and ask for assistance. Look at the livery companies in Flagstaff that cater to DIY river runners. They have no set-aside allocation, keep costs low and quality high.

Once we deal with allocations, then we need to look at lotteries. 

Having looked at the hunting model as well, lotteries that give no preference to anyone, as long as they include everyone (including the folks who want to get commercial assistance), are going to be the future. Otherwise we will accrue points till we die while folks can pay a high price to a commercial corporation to sit on a corporate boat and watch some employee row. 

Then we need to look at restrictions.

Over the last 20 years I have seen more and more restrictions added by agencies unwilling to reallocate. The added restrictions attempt to dampen demand in the Do-It-Yourself sector while similar restrictions do not apply in the corporation sector. Do commercial passengers get banned from commercial trips for three years if they no-show? Uh... no. 

What I have not seen is any attempt by the managing agencies to find out why folks are cancelling. It certainly appears that the restrictions and hurdles can be so steep that trips become no-shows. The agencies should be doing everything they can to get lottery winners to the river, not shaking the permits out of the winners hands to re-deploy to another permit holder, doubling the agencies revenue from permit fees in the process, as is done at Grand Canyon.

We will be working on these issues of how to doll out access to scarce resources more and more. We should remember our federal lands are to be managed for all of us, not just those who can pay the high price of immediate access to a corporate middle man.

All the best to you and yours, Tom


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Tom, thanks for your thoughtful insight. You’ve always been a voice of reason amongst our community, and I appreciate all the work and education you provide us.

The weighted lottery used in many high demand hunting units is essentially the same as a pyramid scheme. Just like a pyramid scheme, those who joined in early will benefit, but those who join later won’t. For the folks who were not early adapters, “will accrue points till we die” due to point creep.

As you’re aware, the Grand Canyon is a weighted lottery with a twist, that attempts to overcome the effect of unsustainable exponential progression in weighted lotteries by automatically giving 5 points to newbie applicants. In other words, a newbie applicant is automatically placed 5-years ahead in line, which is the front of the line. *However, the automatic 5 points for newbies in the Grand Canyon weighted lottery is allowing river groups to game the system.* As cataraftgirl previously stated, “_Sad. But we humans are a smart bunch. Quick learners when it comes to getting what we want and figuring ways over, under, and around the rules and barriers that stand in our way._”

Lets look at some figures:

*Of the 463 permit opportunities in the 2018 lottery, 314 (67.82%) were won by those with 5 points, 23 (4.97%) were won by those with 4 points, 0 (0%) were won by those with 6 points.

It doesn’t take being a statistician to realize that those with 5 points should only be getting about 20% more permits than those with 4 points. This means that most of those who won with 5 points, were newbies this year. 

I understand this sport is experience growth, but not remotely close to the big number of newbies the Grand is experiencing.
*
River groups are the equivalent to wolf packs. A lone wolf is too weak to bring down an elk, but not in a large wolf pack. Likewise, the odds are poor for a lone river runner to get on river, but exponentially increase in a large river group. I don’t know other wilderness users who go backpacking or backcountry skiing with 12-16 other people.

There is a convincing evidence that strong alpha river groups have adapted to using newbies to get on the Grand every year or two. For example, new applications increased 6.56% on the Middle Fork from 2015 to 2016, but the increase was 14.23% for the same period on the Grand Canyon.

In 2007, the Grand Canyon had follow-up lotteries for 112 dates. This more than doubled to 240 follow-up lottery dates in 2008 *(114% cancelation increase in one season)*. I suspect this massive increase in follow-up lottery dates in just one season was because folks understood the new weighted lottery was heavily favored to newbies, so folks started offering to take every non-boater they knew down the Grand if they entered and won a lottery. However, many of these non-boater winners pull out when they realize the 14-day to 23-day commitment, but many newbie non-boaters jump at the opportunity.

Since the lottery switched in 2006 to the weighted lottery, I’ve turn down 2-3 Grand invites a year (7-8 one year). Unlike before the 2006 switch, I’m usually told that the permit holder is a non-boating relative, friend, college roommate, co-worker, or occasionally an actual boater on their virgin Grand trip. On one occasion, I was informed that the permit holder was a nephew in college and was too broke to fund his own way, but the others didn’t mind chipping in. More-or-less, the nephew was being offered a free outfitted trip at the expense of others being leveraged, so they could at least get on the Grand that season. 

Therefore, I’m against any weighted lottery system in the other river permit systems. Sorry for the long post.
Cheers!


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

My personal experience with the wolf pack theory has been different. I have been involved with a large local outdoor club with an active boating division on & off for over 20 years. In all those years, with a pretty large (20-30) group of people applying for 4 Rivers permits, no one has ever won a lottery permit. So the large pack of applicants were no more successful than my small "river family" in winning a lottery permit. Funny thing is, rarely do any of those club members score & share a cancellation permit. The club has a pretty full slate of non-permit trips to keep people busy all summer.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

landslide said:


> My situation is a little different since I'm a kayaker. There are WAY more kayakers wanting to be invited on multi-day trips than there are rafters willing to invite them. Even if you are a solid safety boater with tons of multi-day trip experience, there are only limited invites available. That's just life. One solution that works for me is to paddle a crossover kayak so I can do self-supported trips, including solo trips. This provides me even more freedom to go on a wide variety of trips... with or without raft support.


I really enjoy the discussion you are prompting, and think it's important despite the point I'm going to make:

Regarding this comment here... if you're a kayaker, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to get on the MFS or Selway before or after permit season, and likely even during.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

To add something to the conversation besides my own observations:

I don't wonder if decreasing the group size allowed on a single permit, but then increasing the number of permits awarded, wouldn't be a decent solution, along with some of the others proposed.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Someone mentioned going with an outfitter if they have only a tight window to do a trip. I did that on several Main Salmon trips and one MFS trip when I was a newbie. The boating club folks I was rafting with never got those permits and I really wanted to do those rivers. So I saved up my money and found I great outfitter that had no issue with customers bringing their own cat or raft. I had a blast and learned a lot about running the rivers and also a lot about basic trip planning. Note everyone can afford this option, but it worked for me. We always had private kayakers on those trips as well.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

*Smoking Gun: It's Being Gamed*

I found the smoking gun: It appears scalpers are using automated programs to instantly snag cancellations for Yosemite reservations on rec.gov.

*“Officials say it appears that some scalpers may have devised ways of jumping the reservation queue, possibly through automated computer programs that can instantly snag cancellations.”
*
If scalpers can “game” the rec.gov system for Yosemite campsites, then it’s not so farfetched that someone is using an automated computer programs to instantly snag river permit cancellations.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

That is a 6 year old link that lists your idea as a hypothetical possibility with no evidence or follow up. Its not a smoking gun at all but a vague stab in the dark.

If people are truly concerned about this hypothesis then it seems prudent to query the agencies or rec.gov about the systems and any data that may be available. If there is evidence of malfeasance than having the community advocate for safeguards is smart. Until then its largely tilting at windmills and could harm our credibility. Especially given the reality that we all know how many people fail to win launches each year (clearly more than actually win) and are awake on the release date to refresh their browsers in hope of snagging a cancellation. That option seems to best satisfy Occam's Razor given the information we have. I would wager this is why advocacy groups have yet to have a public campaign about released permits. The reality is the scale of the scalping claim mandates evidence of similar caliber and its just not there (at the moment).

Phillip


----------



## MountainMedic (Apr 24, 2010)

Anchorless said:


> To add something to the conversation besides my own observations:
> 
> I don't wonder if decreasing the group size allowed on a single permit, but then increasing the number of permits awarded, wouldn't be a decent solution, along with some of the others proposed.


That would likely equate to either having to create more designated sites or sharing with other groups.

Sent from my XT1585 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

OP has been vindicated:

How it Works - River Nerd



> A script runs twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week monitoring recreation.gov for available permits.
> When a permit is made available by the Forest Service due to cancellation, you are promptly sent a text and email making you aware of the date that is now available for reservation.Example permit availability update.
> At this point the first person to reserve that permit will be the new permit holder. With our service you have a great chance at being that person. If you want that launch date, simply follow the link on the message and reserve the permit for yourself.
> To receive these updates and make sure you have the best chance at getting yourself a Middle Fork trip, sign-up for the Middle Fork Permit Updates.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Anchorless said:


> OP has been vindicated:
> 
> How it Works - River Nerd


Greedy scum bag Utard! Time to go back to a low tech system.

Contact info from their website:

River Nerd
Billy
[email protected]
801-702-7828


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

riverdoghenry said:


> Greedy scum bag! Time to go back to a low tech system.


I sent him a nasty gram. 

But it proves that people are writing scripts which can instantly ping users once a cancellation is released, which is likely exactly what is (and has been) happening.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

Anchorless said:


> OP has been vindicated:
> 
> How it Works - River Nerd


 
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY SHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIT! 

Permits going to the money right now. How long before they simply go the highest bidder?


How many hours have I spent in front of my computer clicking refresh while permits were snatched right out of under my fingers? 

I guarantee that guy isn't the only one doing it and the bottom line is that these programs are only taking advantage of a system the way it was designed.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

According to the FS, rec.gov has some sort of software to identify and prevent an "attack" on their system by an auto-ping service, but even if that was true at some point in the past, people with computer skills are always finding new ways to get around such barriers. It would be interesting to know whether this service is actually functional.

But if it does work as described, then I think the next step in the perfection of the system probably goes something like this: once your desired permit is released on rec.gov, the Rivernerd service instantly notifies your computer, which automatically claims the permit for you by auto-filling the reservation form and making the payment. (And why not? The data fields on a reservation form are pretty standard. You could easily have all the info ready to go ahead of time.)

The great irony here is that one of the goals of putting the permits on-line was to make them more accessible. Instead, it seems like technology is making permits become more inaccessible. What's the solution here?


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

ob1coby said:


> How long before they simply go the highest bidder?


I'd expect there's someone in the Trump administration working on that right now...


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Solid find. Anybody contact the website owner? How long the website has been live?

His service definitely increases the pay to play pressure on the permits. 

Other than going to regular follow-up lotteries what option do the feds have in regards to letters? I am always a fan of dialog with land managers but I am not sure they have any direct, legal recourse with such websites. Its an eloquent service that bypasses any legal issues of scalping as the website owner never obtains the permit. 

I also wonder what influence it has on the chance of success for permits that are released on certain days and times? They ultimately don't increase their odds of winning the permit beyond whatever luck the statistics allow (beyond the benefit of knowledge). It definitely increases your odds on random releases, especially while his subscriber base is low. But how long will people keep their phones on in the middle of the night to check if its a text about a cancellation? I know I get tired of push notifications when I forget to turn my phone off or to "do not disturb" at night. 

Best of luck folks. Hopefully it will get the agencies thinking about follow-up lotteries mid-spring, after the initial applicants have the chance to accept. 

Phillip


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

ob1coby said:


> Permits going to the money right now. How long before they simply go the highest bidder?


When another greedy asshole writes a program that not just text availability, but auto fills and reserves a permit to the highest bidder for a given date.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Andy H., you are probably not far from the mark. 

The FS is like every other federal agency that has been told that it needs to operate more like a business (i.e., be more profitable). If you start with that idea, which river users should be allocated more permits, commercial outfitters or private boaters? And how can you generate more money from those cheap ass DIY private boaters? I have no doubt the idea of putting private permits up for auction has already been discussed.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

May explain March 16th:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/BYUKayaking/permalink/10154982369649906/


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

The ability to program these updates just argues for a system in which original lottery participants have a second round opportunity, either by lottery or reservation.


----------



## Rockgizmo (May 21, 2009)

I would have to venture and say this site is new. Or I wouldn't have been able to pick up a cancelled June 5th MF permit a few weeks to a month ago.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

Rockgizmo said:


> I would have to venture and say this site is new. Or I wouldn't have been able to pick up a cancelled June 5th MF permit a few weeks to a month ago.


Probably somewhat new. Also, given it's a $100 with no guarantees, he likely doesn't have a ton of users yet. 

It's more of the principle - if he figured out how to ping the rec.gov site, others likely have too. Maybe even more, because I don't think those sort of scripts are very complicated.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

markhusbands said:


> The ability to program these updates just argues for a system in which original lottery participants have a second round opportunity, either by lottery or reservation.


Agree on follow-up lottery, fundamentally disagree it should just be for original applicants. Remember, the river is a public resource, not just just one for lottery applicants. The Grand has done it right by announcing cancellation lotteries and allowing anyone not disqualified by the the one trip rule to apply.

The idea that only those who originally applied should have access to follow-up lotteries is a cure almost as bad as the disease in my book.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

https://www.facebook.com/pg/rivernerd/posts/

Let him know how you feel.


----------



## Fishn (Apr 8, 2012)

I believe that people using this service to book their trips are no longer "private" trips. Here is a section from the MFS rules and regs:
A formal, complete passenger list will be required on the day of the launch. At that time each person will be required to sign a document certifying that their trip is a private trip. A river trip is not commercial if: (1) There is a bona fide sharing of actual expenses, including transportation to and from the site; (2) The trip does not include any costs for payment of salaries or expenses of any person to help with the trip or logistics of the trip; (3) Costs shared by trip members include the costs of damaged or lost equipment, renting or buying minor equipment or the acquisition of new equipment to the advantage of an individual or an organization. Persons involved in unauthorized commercial operations are subject to fine and/or imprisonment.​
I don't know that the creator of this service is breaking any rules or regulations, but individuals applying for private permits with this paid service are...


----------



## tmorton (Feb 12, 2015)

I have read this entire thread with great interest. I am new to rafting but have been whitewater canoeing for over 30 years . I have only commented twice on mountain buzz and this was prompted by the thread after the cancellation release this year for the Gates of Lodore. I was amazed that all available cancellations were gone within the first second. As a computer technologist, I knew then ,this was not possible with random people trying to book. But With an auto ping program and auto fill data script being run thats a different story .You see the auto ping ties up other's access for a short period . After posting this on mountain buzz I emailed the Dino park service with my concerns. Was told to their knowledge rec.gov had no way to prevent this . The ranger told me he would forward my concerns to rec.gov and they would contact me directly. That's been around eight weeks ago. Fortunately My group was able ,last month ,to at least get a permit for Deso so I dropped it. Reading this thread started by Landslide has me engaged again. I am not sure of the idea of a point system, but do agree with most of the other ideas discuused .
I do feel the auto ping programs could have a
big affect on cancellation chances . The scripts can be easily written and utilized and if rec.gov is not up to date with blocking these It doesn't take many people using them to slant other's chances. I applaud all of you for taking interest in rivers and river running and support any efforts to help people enjoy the sport ,new or old, and hopefully help make the system as fair as possible. This in my opinion can only happen if the river community comes together with a common purpose and voice. 
I saw this happen myself on the Occoe river in Tenn. (eventual site for whitewater Olympics ) 
!
I think this discussion is on the right track and hope you guys and gals stick to it like the Occoe people did many years ago.They along with groups like the American Whitewater Assoc. had a huge impact on the paddling community with their determination ,suggestions and follow through. We can either be part of the problem or part of the solution! it's our choice I guess Since am am nearing 70, it's your choice , but I offer my support and encouragement .


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Just saw this..... Awesome, now everyone on the planet will be ready to pounce on that cancellation all at the same time. The Captcha thing is good though. I preferred the old system of random chance, fate, and diligence.

Recreation.gov
alert	Four Rivers Permits: Cancellation Policy Change (Selway, Salmon, Snake & Middle Fork of the Salmon Rivers)


Effective midnight Eastern Time on May 1, 2017, cancellations for float permits for the Four Rivers will no longer be released randomly. Cancellations for control season launch dates will only be available for reservation during a one-hour booking window each day. The booking window will open daily from 11 a.m. to noon Eastern Time (10 to 11 a.m. Central Time, 9 to 10 a.m. Mountain Time, 8 to 9 a.m. Pacific Time). There will also be a “CAPTCHA” (verifies users are not robots) requirement when reserving a launch date.

How do I reserve a cancelled permit? When a reservation is cancelled, it will no longer be held by the computer for random release, but is expected to show up as an “A” on the availability grid on the Recreation.gov website. HOWEVER, the cancellation cannot be reserved until the booking window opens (11 a.m. Eastern Time). The first person to secure the reservation will get the launch date. If the launch is not reserved during the open hour, the cancellation will be held until the next day’s booking window.

How will I know if there is a cancellation? Boaters are encouraged to check the Recreation.gov website BEFORE the booking window opens; there should be an “A” on the availability grid if there is a launch date that will be available at the designated time. Cancellations may also show up during the booking window that could be reserved.

What rivers and dates are affected? The control season dates for float permits for each river.
Selway: May 15-July 31
Salmon: June 20-Sept. 7
Snake: May 26-Sept. 10
Middle Fork Salmon: May 28-Aug. 14 (Aug. 15-Sept. 15 launches are not reissued due to spawning salmon in the river)
If you have questions about the cancellation policy change, please contact the Four Rivers team at [email protected].


----------



## crossfox21 (Feb 27, 2010)

As predicted by most folks...the new system for obtaining a cancelled permit flat out sucks. Like Cataraft Girls says..everyone on the planet will try for one cancelled permit at the exact same time. I tried for the MFS June 9 cancellation today. I kept hitting "book permit" 10 minutes continuously before sale time. The last 2 minutes the site went wonky...one minute the permit was available..the next minute it was saying reserved..back and forth it would go. 

My house Wi-Fi is very slow, it takes a full 3-5 seconds to refresh the page. I lost yet again.

At least with the old method you could win a cancellation through fate and diligence.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

Sounds to me it's just more of the same - a bunch of people vying for a single permit. Only now you don't have some leeches offering a notification system for those suckers wanting to give him $100. 

In other words, nothing really changed, but now River Nerd is out of the game.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Anchorless said:


> Sounds to me it's just more of the same - a bunch of people vying for a single permit. Only now you don't have some leeches offering a notification system for those suckers wanting to give him $100.
> 
> In other words, nothing really changed, but now River Nerd is out of the game.


Granted the fix isn't great, but maybe its a stopgap measure to keep folks from using an automated pinger while they work out a more long-term solution. It seems like setting up something like a cancellation lottery is tougher to do on the fly in a Federal agency. 

Has anyone talked with the USFS about whether the current fix will be permanent or whether they're working on something else for the longer term?


----------



## quinoa (Jul 5, 2009)

It would be better if the cancellations would be put out randomly in the days following someone cancelling. Not in a specified window. A safeguard needs to be put in place so that a computer program can't lock them up. This is how it works for Dino, but I don't believe any safeguards are being used yet. Fortunately I was able to get a cancellation this June. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## mowgli (Feb 24, 2010)

I think every time a permit becomes available one person is going to be totally stoked and 6K are going to say the system sucks and it's not fair etc. Regardless of the system, at the end of the day the bottom line is, there are only a few permits and a shit ton of people who want them. That means a shit ton of people are going to be disappointed. The odds of getting one of these permits are very long. No system is going to make those odds any shorter for you, me or any of the other thousands of people wanting to get on these rivers. I bet the folks at recreation.com are probably laughing their asses off at all the whining. There is no way that everybody is going to be happy short of allowing everyone on every river. Oh, wait! Then everybody would be bitching and moaning and about too many people on the river. Hahaha! You can please some of the people some of the time but you cannot please all of the people all the time. Anyway, there's one instant solution to making things a little bit better. Add one or two more permits per day to the Selway. I've never understood why it has to be kept at one launch per day. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

To quote riverdoghenry from post #3......

[I absolutely DO NOT want the permit system to start notifying everyone through mass email/text notification of cancelations. It should be equal chance, but not more convenient. 

I honestly believe that some individuals have more of a desire to obtain a cancelation and dedicate time to constantly search for a cancelation. Whereas, other individuals would rather dedicate their time to staying informed on the most up-to-date pictures of Kim Kardashian’s ass. 

I believe that permit cancellations need to be released in a manner that is equally accessible. However, mass email/texts will only make it more convenient for the masses only, not more equal. In other words, someone who would rather spend their time looking at Kardashian’s ass, could briefly interrupt their vicarious ass viewing session via text alert to get a permit.]

Well, the new system isn't actually a text alert, but it's pretty close. I suppose you do have to put enough effort in to checking to see if there's an "A" on the board. Then put the effort into being online at the right time (along with the other 6K folks) and see if the river gods grace your keyboard skills. This new system seems the same as the way the Selway permits were being released in a non-random manner. Even though the 4 Rivers Lottery cancellations were all supposed to be random releases. If I remember correctly, the timed release was the issue that got the most negative feedback in all of the recent threads/posts on how to improve the system. Unfortunately, at least in my humble opinion, all the complaints made it worse instead of better.

Oh well....we got our Main Salmon cancellation permit before all this nonsense happened.


----------



## mcfarlandandrew (Apr 8, 2006)

So a handful of us have been shooting for early season MFS and Selway cancellations and have noticed recreation.gov's new system is not working as described. Cancelled dates will show as A in the minutes leading into 11am EST. However, 10-20 seconds prior to 11am, some will switch to R and become unavailable. You can watch this happen by refreshing a few times in the seconds leading up to 11am. We have not had any luck doing what we assumed others were doing and clicking "Book Now" 10-20 seconds early. Anyone else noticed?

We have synced our computer clocks via rec.gov's instructions with no luck. Both rec.gov and the FS have replied that they are looking into the issue but have not sent an explanation or expected remedy yet. Anyone out there know how these can be switching from A to R at 10:59:45?


----------



## sporkfromork (Dec 16, 2020)

Can we just start another permit-bitch thread for every single comment reply? There aren't enough of these yet


----------



## tBatt (May 18, 2020)

Has anyone talked to the people at rec.gov about including the most recent pic of Kim Kardashian's ass in their Facebook posts or reminder emails? 

Asking for a friend...


----------



## cowboy907 (May 3, 2017)

here's the deal. river management moves at a glacial pace. there are many stakeholders that must be considered in the management of river recreation. In the case of the dino systems it has been left unchanged for many, many, many years. The logistics of obtaining permits have changed, i.e. technology and rec.gov etc. however, the actual administration of the dino regs are relatively unchanged since the first management plan was developed, many years ago. national parks have been set aside for all people of our country to enjoy, and yes it's a bummer the amount of commercial trips that go down our beloved rivers, however, commercial trips enable people who don't have the means to visit the national parks, (monument) a way to visit the park. I agree it need to be changed. The best change is a weighted lottery. It is stupid that I can do the grand 3-4 times, on permits, that I have won or buddies have won, but none of us can pull a dino or selway. WEIGHTED LOTTERY!


----------

