# Frivolous Permit Lottery Entries



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

Mogur,

I'm with you and I too have similar stories, I just don't know how to proceed. There is interest in this topic and many of us would contribute to a go fund me to raise $$ for the cause or donate the money to American Whitewater if it falls through. 

We need a champion for this issue, I just don't have the tools or skill set to manage such a project. I'd don't know where to start but I would pull if I knew what direction.


----------



## tteton (May 16, 2014)

*stats*

Where are you finding the cancellation stats? I'm unaware of where to look. Would like to find out if everyone bailed on my September date. One can only hope to get the MFS to themselves.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Deso has become the latest victim. Something needs to change.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

tteton said:


> Where are you finding the cancellation stats? I'm unaware of where to look. Would like to find out if everyone bailed on my September date. One can only hope to get the MFS to themselves.


Rec.gov MFS premits


----------



## Koffler (Aug 4, 2015)

My two cents: You don't need to up the entry fee. But you do need to create an incentive to show up or cancel (early).

How about you put down some level of a $100-400 deposit. Get it all back if you show up. Get 90% back if you cancel a month in advance. Get 50% back at 3-4 weeks, get 5% back if you cancel any less than that (yeah, I'd like to make it zero, but you need to give someone a reason to get on the phone.......................).
Or, if every day counts, have the percentage returned decline on a daily basis........


----------



## MountainmanPete (Jun 7, 2014)

Koffler said:


> My two cents: You don't need to up the entry fee. But you do need to create an incentive to show up or cancel (early).
> 
> How about you put down some level of a $100-400 deposit. Get it all back if you show up. Get 90% back if you cancel a month in advance. Get 50% back at 3-4 weeks, get 5% back if you cancel any less than that (yeah, I'd like to make it zero, but you need to give someone a reason to get on the phone.......................).
> Or, if every day counts, have the percentage returned decline on a daily basis........


Seems simple but don't forget... You are dealing with the government.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

Koffler said:


> How about you put down some level of a $100-400 deposit. Get it all back if you show up. Get 90% back if you cancel a month in advance. Get 50% back at 3-4 weeks, get 5% back if you cancel any less than that (yeah, I'd like to make it zero, but you need to give someone a reason to get on the phone.......................).
> Or, if every day counts, have the percentage returned decline on a daily basis........


Cancelling after 8/15 should result in 100% lose of all moneys and lose of future application status! See water is always bad that time of year, weather is hot, so they know what the deal is. Its the most predictable time of year on the water. There are no supersizes! This is where a fat $500 none refundable deposit would work.

The issue wont change if it does not hurt to cancel. The cancellations started showing up in June! A great deal of them in July. Nobody will get those permits. The permit holder would still get their money back, be eligible for next year, and disenfranchise everyone who selected those dates. 

The real issue is going to come in a couple years when outfitters go after those permits. They wont stop there either. They will go for more permits all year! If we the public boaters willing fail to exercise the permit alocations, we will lose access for all in the future.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

DBK, are you saying that although none of the rest of us can access the cancelled permit, commercial guides can?


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

ob1coby said:


> DBK, are you saying that although none of the rest of us can access the cancelled permit, commercial guides can?


I'm saying that they're there, and they can go at the drop of a hat. Can you get a week off to go rafting on three days notice? Can you even get to the river with your raft in that time? Neither can I. But an underemployed guide in North Fork? No problem.


----------



## rivh2o (Jan 17, 2013)

so Mogur are you saying that a rafting guide is a commercial outfitter


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

rivh2o said:


> so Mogur are you saying that a rafting guide is a commercial outfitter


Not that I'm aware of.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

I agree with you Ken, except the part about commercial guides getting the cancelations, when I was a guide, I was hard pressed to get a day off, much less a day off that was predictable more then a day out, though I did work on the Ark running day, and half day trips, so could be different elsewhere.
Regardless, the whole win a permit and hold on to it forever till last thing is getting old, it should hurt financially to hang on to permits till the last second and bail, thereby screwing over boaters that are responsible and have to work for a living.
I doubt that a system in which the governing agency gives back a deposit, would work out, just because it is against there nature to give back money, EVER, if they have anything to say in the matter. They really hate giving back money. But letting them keep permit fees further out for the flakes could help, and disqualifying people from getting a permit next season, that flake out within a certain time period, might help with this particular form of Bull shit.

While I'm at it, being annoyed with permit issues, "boaters" that win Grand Canyon permits, and then get on the Buzz, to ask unlimited numbers of questions, because they have no clue whatsoever, as to what they might be doing, or don't have even an idea of who they would boat with, really piss me off, kind of a lot. Sorry for thread deviation.


----------



## SKeen (Feb 23, 2009)

The Mogur said:


> There were 260 other first choice applications in the 4 Rivers Lottery for the river and date I applied for. Four permits were issued to the lottery winners for that date. Two of those permits were put up for grabs during the last ten days before the launch date--too late for most people to take advantage of. One of the permit-holders was a no-show.
> 
> So I extend my personal THANKS A LOT to you three rectal orifices.
> 
> ...


I can't wait to pay $25 to apply for permits I probably won't win! Great idea.


----------



## rivh2o (Jan 17, 2013)

SKeen said:


> I can't wait to pay $25 to apply for permits I probably won't win! Great idea.


 Well that'how it is on the Yampa/ Ladore I pay my 15 bucks and never win in 31 years can't wait till next years donation. yee ha!


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

rivh2o said:


> Well that'how it is on the Yampa/ Ladore I pay my 15 bucks and never win in 31 years can't wait till next years donation. yee ha!


Kinda feels like your in the business of just getting fucked sometimes doesn't it, between some of the regs, and some of the douches getting into boating.
To many people, and although we're talking about an additional reg, to much government.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

mattman said:


> .....I doubt that a system in which the governing agency gives back a deposit, would work out, just because it is against there nature to give back money, EVER, if they have anything to say in the matter. They really hate giving back money.


Here's an exception to your whiny anti-government drivel: BLM Moab (Westwater) allows folks that cancel within a reasonable time before their launch date to apply their paid trip permit fees to later trips in the same season. That's kind of nice and they're not just keeping your money just because they can.

-AH


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

Privatization is the answer


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Buzzards, Andy and I rarely agree, so when we do, you all might might be interested...

Disincentives piss people off. They will sit on a permit till the end and dump it as a way to tell the agency "This is not working." 

Incentives encourage river runners into a permit system that wants to see them launch at the put-in. How COOL is THAT!!! Letting folks cancel but use their $ later in the season makes sense. 

To those of you who don't like new folks winning permits and then asking lots of questions and looking for experienced folks to go boating with, welcome to the world of river running. This has been going on since the days of John Wesley Powell. 

What is wrong in this system is the unjustifiable set aside of allocation for commercial use. That statement would be a thread hijack unless I added this: If all river runners had to play the river access lottery, I bet some very incentive-rich and transparently fair permit systems would have been created by now. 

Andy, help me hobble off this soap box now... :>)


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

*Private Federal Contract is the Problem*

Sounds like Moab BLM may have made some innovations that the faceless corporation behind recreation.gov never will. Kudos!

The dead hand of Reagan gave this federal function to private contractors who could care less about anything other than cash and data mining the applications.

https://fcw.com/articles/2014/12/16/for-fun-and-profit.aspx

http://federalnewsradio.com/technology/2016/05/recreation-gov-peoples-vacations-hands/

My guess is the cancellation policies on recreation.gov are set to maximize application fees and therefore corporate cash, and not to achieve anything discussed so far in this thread. 

Give public service back to our public servants. At least when government employees screw it up, we have some right to redress our grievance.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Very mature of you Andy. Implying that I don't realize Government Agency's ever refund money is a pretty big insult. 

I am not saying that all government is bad, but I do think we have to much, with a large portion of it being corrupt and doing a poor job.
There are Agency's that do a fantastic job, in my opinion, I think highly of all the BLM rangers on Deso I have met, the town of Fraser has been very cool to work with, starting a Business this past year. There are quite a few very awesome Government employees that work for less then awesome Government Entities.

But I still maintain that returning money is against the nature of governing agency's. 
Think back on the extra revenue the state of Colorado collected on recreational marijuana sales, they even stated how they did not want to give the money back to the tax payers.
Not a huge fan of giving river management Agency's hundreds of dollars in excess of the permit fee, then asking for it to be returned. I do agree with The Mogur that it would be good to address this problem though, just not exactly in that way.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Tom Martin;44167
To those of you who don't like new folks winning permits and then asking lots of questions and looking for experienced folks to go boating with said:


> Tom,
> I can only assume you are talking about me, I do not have a problem with new folks asking questions, I answer lot's on mountain Buzz, but what does annoy me is people applying for and winning a highly coveted permit without seemingly having put any amount of effort into learning about boating.
> 
> There are so many people that have spent years running other stuff and learning to boat there, first. Then some one with no experience that has not put in effort, gets the permit, then they ask basically how to run rivers, I don't mind the folks that are just asking questions to make sure they are ready for the next step in boating, just people that don't seem like they did anything to try and learn before they applied.
> ...


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

ob1coby said:


> DBK, are you saying that although none of the rest of us can access the cancelled permit, commercial guides can?


Not currently at the moment. 

But I have heard grumbling from guides that if we willing let those permits go to waste every year, year after year, than they should get those permits from the get go. So on the days where there is 1 commercial and 3 private. They will lobby for 2 commercial and 2 private with no impact to private boaters. 

If we do not use our current allocations they will win and they should because we are not being good stewards of the private permits. 

Guides pack every trip and give access to lots of ppl.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> Incentives encourage river runners into a permit system that wants to see them launch at the put-in. How COOL is THAT!!! Letting folks cancel but use their $ later in the season makes sense.


Will that is not very cool on the MFS, cuz you wont have anther opportunity in that year. And if you cancel a 8/15 of later permit no-one will have the opportunity. 

That is why I like the fat nonrefundable deposit for post 8/15 private permits. 

Everyone knows what the MFS is like after 8/15. Its the same every year. There are no suprises 

*THERE ARE NO GOOD REASONS TO CANCEL A 8/15 OR LATER PRIVATE PERMIT!!!!!* (maybe medical)

I have no issues with pre 8/15 permit private system.


----------



## JustinJam (Mar 18, 2009)

It would be nice to have the fees reapply for later in the season. I know this doesn't apply to the post 8/15 permits. However I have won 2 out of 4 early season MFS permits in the last few years ( early june). First year was perfect, 2nd year was huge high water and beyond the skills of my crew. I ended up cancelling the 2nd year and running Hells Canyon instead. It would have been nice to try for a later ju,e or july cancellation and have my fees apply to it.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

JustinJam said:


> It would be nice to have the fees reapply for later in the season. I know this doesn't apply to the post 8/15 permits. However I have won 2 out of 4 early season MFS permits in the last few years ( early june). First year was perfect, 2nd year was huge high water and beyond the skills of my crew. I ended up cancelling the 2nd year and running Hells Canyon instead. It would have been nice to try for a later ju,e or july cancellation and have my fees apply to it.


Its only $6 to land a later permit. You only lost $6 on the early cancellation and someone had the opportunity to go on your permit. I don't see how $6 would make or break anyone. A $6 cost is peanuts. Hell I lost a $6 fishing lure last week and I didn't sweat it. Just a thought......


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

So, nuance and caveats are a reality in life. I think the system needs to be addressed but I don't subscribe to black-and-white notions stated above. 

1) To me the sheer #of cancellations exposes a misuse of the system. I believe it's about hedging and applying for permits as secondary options with limited interest in actually using it. Could be wrong.

2) There are plenty of reasons to cancel a permit beyond personal medical problems. Life happens. I don think penalizing people heavily for unplanned circumstances makes sense. We all work too hard for the little $ most of us make for an agency to take it out of petty consequences. The agencies and public servants I know would agree.

3) Most if the river permits I have used refund $ minus a small transaction fee. They are not greedy. The caveat is cancelling with advanced notice, normally about a month. Seems plenty fair. Scapegoating agencies for a complex issue doesn't seem to lead to solutions. As much as I dislike Rec.gov it had a built in cancellation system that is clear and consistent with the industry.

I agree with Tom on this that an ideal solution incorporates positive incentives, though I think it needs to also be coupled with negative measures for repeat offenders. The goal should be to funnel people into ideal behavior. 

All said and done I have yet to see an ideal lottery and permit structure for resources with heavy demand. 

Phillip


----------



## squeaks2 (Jan 5, 2013)

On the other hand, doesn't a large amount of no-shows reduce the net impact on the river? 

Is this a bad thing?


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

squeaks2 said:


> On the other hand, doesn't a large amount of no-shows reduce the net impact on the river?
> 
> Is this a bad thing?


If you just burn your boat and stay home it will reduce the net impact on the river. Is that a bad thing?

This isn't about impact on the river. It is about (as the thread title says) frivolous entries in the permit lotteries that make it unnecessarily difficult for people serious about boating to get a permit.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

squeaks2 said:


> On the other hand, doesn't a large amount of no-shows reduce the net impact on the river?
> 
> Is this a bad thing?


I go back and forth on this issue myself. Ideally, the agency us supposed to have designed a permit structure that balances recreational needs with resource protection. I think most agencies do an acceptable job in this regard. If that is the case than filled cancellations should be have no increased impact on the river corridor. That is the argument with the MFS issue at hand and allegedly the biological assessment agrees.

At moments I still lean towards the notion that bless is better but its hard to justify rationally, except for a solitude perspective (which I love). But in reality our community has been forced to minimize our most notable impacts: human feces and urine; micro food trash; fires; etc. The worst I normally see is hardened soil at campsites and that is an issue that is inherent with any designated campsite lication

It's tricky balancing recreational demand with resource protection and it's a delicate relationship. Not sure there will ever be a definitive answer.


----------



## squeaks2 (Jan 5, 2013)

I am not sure I would want to be around while my cat burned? 

I see your point and I understand it. I just got on the Yampa after our group put in for forever.

BUT, per your numbers the usage (ignoring commercial use) would increase by 300% if all permits were used. It seems to me that this would have to have an impact on the river corridor.

Note: I almost typed my prior comment a few times and then did not because I did not want seem that I was arguing for the sake of arguing. I am actually interested in your thoughts.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I wonder why more rivers have not gone to point systems and weighted lotteries? Seems to mitigate much if this type of misuse. 

The Utah hunt lottery also takes the time to call those next in line (likely hard to define) when a premium.tag is turned in (rare because of consequences and positive incentives).


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

squeaks2 said:


> On the other hand, doesn't a large amount of no-shows reduce the net impact on the river?
> 
> Is this a bad thing?



Short run NO but long run YES. You see right now the impact is super low. Private boaters will push small parties this time of year and currently there are lots of cancellations.

The issue would be that in the future commercial permits would replace un-used private permits. 

Once that occurs then there will be more ppl on the river forever because commercial parties gather larger numbers consistently.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

dirtbagkayaker said:


> Short run NO but long run YES. You see right now the impact is super low. Private boaters will push small parties this time of year and currently there are lots of cancellations.
> 
> The issue would be that in the future commercial permits would replace un-used private permits.
> 
> Once that occurs then there will be more ppl on the river forever because commercial parties gather larger numbers consistently.



I think that is a very valid point, where I used to guide ( the Ark), historical use played a huge roll in future allocation of user day's for outfitters. Giving outfitters unused private boater permits could really decrease the number of private permits in the future, depending on the rules for the particular river in question.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

restrac2000;441709
I agree with Tom on this that an ideal solution incorporates positive incentives said:


> Negative measures for repeat offenders does seem like a pretty fair and reasonable solution, with less chance of harming people with legitimate reasons to cancel.
> 
> I also like DBKs' idea of more weighted lottery's and point systems.
> I actually like a lot about the Grand Canyon lottery system, as much as I have bitched about many other aspects of how things seem to run in that national park.
> ...


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

I mean Philips Idea, sorry


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

In Idaho there are lotteries in hunting that seem to work well.

Some draws are "Once in a Lifetime" "Super Hunt" type things. How great and profitable would a "Super Float Lottery" be? Everyone puts in $6 and 1 person floats what ever river in Idaho on any day they want too. Or how about a "Mega Float" where the winner gets all 4 rivers. I digress....


----------



## basinrafter (May 12, 2009)

They actually have that lottery on the Smith in Montana - every year they hold a "super permit lottery" in addition to the regular one, and whoever wins gets to pick any date they want for their launch. Only $5 per entry!


----------



## afox (May 10, 2004)

I agree that something needs to be done about the unused permits. The opportunity lost by unused permits is not really measurable in dollars. Also, the permit costs do not reflect the total expense to the US taxpayer for everything that makes your river trip possible. 

The same thing has happened in recent years with reservable campsites on public lands. Now that you can reserve a $15 per nite campsite 6 months in advance online there are many campsites that are paid for and reserved and are going unused. It really does cost more than $15 per nite to make those campsites available to the public. Also, there is a huge opportunity loss in that many people who would actually go camping (me) dont have the opportunity since all of the campsites are reserved. At $15 a nite if you dont show for a weekend and are out $30 its no big deal for almost everyone. The solution is simple, a monetary deposit that is non-refundable in case of a no show.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

basinrafter said:


> They actually have that lottery on the Smith in Montana - every year they hold a "super permit lottery" in addition to the regular one, and whoever wins gets to pick any date they want for their launch. Only $5 per entry!


They have the super permit lotteries for just about anything that requires a draw permit, Big Horns, elk, bison, moose, mtn goats, etc. but think of it as a revenue generator not a means of acquiring a tag. The odds are really low. It's much more like buying a powerball ticket then putting in for a river permit.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

I've been following this discussion and have thought a few times about adding my two cents but have refrained. Now that I'm here, one thing that has come up was the increase in impact that would occur if all those 8/15 to 9/15 permits were reissued... well unless I'm mistaken the powers that be set the quota assuming those dates would be used. They have already said (in essence) that the resource can handle all those user days filled or they wouldn't be able to allow that many user days. If I'm not mistaken that is a requisite portion of their management plan - an analysis of sustainable impact. I'm sure part of that is based on a certain number of no-shows, but I doubt it was based on 75% no-show, or even 50%. Long story short, in my opinion any argument about increased impact if the permits were reissued she be a non-issue - that "increased" impact has already been accounted for in the management plan. 

This is just a way for someone (or somegroup) within the service to push an agenda: They want to limit use below what their plan states so they found this "loop hole", if you will, to reduce user days. It's analogous, in a way, to Carvedog's statement that the FS has budget to plow the road to boundary creek, but doesn't - Supposedly to let the camps rest a little longer...(I hope I'm paraphrasing that correctly, it's been a while since I read it). It's probably the same folks pushing to reduce use of the resource.


----------



## azpowell (Aug 14, 2014)

i hate the grand canyon lottery point system, i have been able to get down there the last 2 years but i haven't been able to bring family, or even a passenger. going on the river every year knocks my points to 1 so people who have never gone are 5 times more likely to get a permit on any day i put in.... i would rather see the bonus points come from consecutive years without getting a permit that one enters the lottery... by basing your points off of how long one abstains from the river, it punishes those of us who are willing to help get a random group down the river, by lowering our chance to get a permit to take our friends and families...


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

The Mogur said:


> I'm saying that they're there, and they can go at the drop of a hat. Can you get a week off to go rafting on three days notice? Can you even get to the river with your raft in that time? Neither can I. But an underemployed guide in North Fork? No problem.


I would tell you that in fact I can go at the drop of a hat, and get a week off in a moments notice, (or at least try) and that I always try to keep my gear ready to run because that is just about the only way to get permits anymore. I would tell you that but that's not the point. 

The point is that this is a PUBLIC RESOURCE and there shouldn't be any special favors to guides or anyone else. Do you remember a little thing called "equal treatment under the law"? Don't worry no one else does either. 

If the cancellations are available they should be available to everyone and if most people can't make it happen due to short notice then they would end up going to the "underemployed guide" anyway, at which point we can go back to DBKs original issue of stiff penalties to those that cancel too short or at all.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

ob1coby said:


> The point is that this is a PUBLIC RESOURCE and there shouldn't be any special favors to guides or anyone else. Do you remember a little thing called "equal treatment under the law"?


I agree that we're talking about a public resource, however I would be very surprised if private permits are commonly given to outfitters because outfitters usually need months lead time to fill their trips and often the allocation is designated for either private or outfitter use. 

This practice may have changed, but the only place I know of user-day allocation going between private boaters and outfitters is the San Juan where outfitters would return any unused allocation to a common pool a week or two before launch if they couldn't fill trips. This allowed private boaters the chance to snag last minute small-group trips if they hadn't won permits in the lottery.

Does anyone else know of whether this is still the case? More importantly, are there rivers where private allocation is given to outfitters if the privates cancel? 

My understanding is this thread is about private boaters hedging their bets with more permits than they planned on taking, and then cancelling late when they go on a more desirable trip.

Thanks,

-AH


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

Then I must have misunderstood something here. I understood from DBKs statement that commercial outfitters / guides have access to the cancelled permits. Is that correct?


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

dirtbagkayaker said:


> The real issue is going to come in a couple years when outfitters go after those permits. They wont stop there either. They will go for more permits all year! If we the public boaters willing fail to exercise the permit alocations, we will lose access for all in the future.



This one...


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

Actually he put out an IF statement.... If things continue then, this is his projected outcome....... It does not currently work that way. It's just a well founded fear.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

ob1coby said:


> Then I must have misunderstood something here. I understood from DBKs statement that commercial outfitters / guides have access to the cancelled permits. Is that correct?


I don't think so. The way I understand it DBK is talking about overall allocation of the use over a longer term. An example of this would be during a 5-year review river managers look at the total number of user days used by the two groups. If private boaters had not used nearly our share, the managers may say, "well, the private boaters have lots of cancellations and unused days, so let's shift some of that unused allocation to outfitters." They may then decrease the number of permits available to private boaters and increase those for the outfitters in a management plan revision. 

This does seem to be a possibility and has happened before, on the Ark I believe, with allocation being shifted between private boaters and outfitters (both ways but on different reaches of the river) to more realistically allocate usage to what's actually occurring. I think in that case it helped prevent implementing a permit system for private boaters in the mid oughts after private boaters exceeded our allocation on Brown's back in about '03.

-AH


----------



## Fumble (May 23, 2013)

Dutch auction instead of lottery


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Fumble said:


> Dutch auction instead of lottery


I guess that's what GaryJohnson would do. The highest bidder gets it. Not sure if that's how I want to do it...


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

The Mogur said:


> I'm saying that they're there, and they can go at the drop of a hat. Can you get a week off to go rafting on three days notice? Can you even get to the river with your raft in that time? Neither can I. But an underemployed guide in North Fork? No problem.


I know of no guides who boat any of the main rivers except pretty much exclusively in the shoulder seasons. In the nearly fifteen years guiding professionally I don't think I ever did a peak season private trip. And if guides are taking a week here or there and thus unavailable to the outfitter, they won't be guides for long. 

Edit to add: Yes I can and do go boating at a moments notice. Best I ever did was talk to my buddy Thursday afternoon and we drove the put in the next afternoon. Launched at six pm for a 26 hour plan to hit the river.

In the BC times (before children) my wife and I hit the MF in as little as three days notice a couple of times. One of the reasons I loved her, she cleared the plate for river trips. Try boating in October, there is very little competition for permits. 



elkhaven said:


> This is just a way for someone (or somegroup) within the service to push an agenda: They want to limit use below what their plan states so they found this "loop hole", if you will, to reduce user days. It's analogous, in a way, to Carvedog's statement that the FS has budget to plow the road to boundary creek, but doesn't - Supposedly to let the camps rest a little longer...(I hope I'm paraphrasing that correctly, it's been a while since I read it). It's probably the same folks pushing to reduce use of the resource.


You are paraphrasing correctly. I nearly choked on my coffee when he said that. That 'Ranger' is no longer working on the Middle Fork from what I have heard. I haven't spoken to the new ranger but will soon.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

We all know how it works. Over the snowy months you talk with your river buds, deciding what rivers you want next year. Come time to apply, you fire off applications to every agency, for every river, for whatever you can get.
Some years you get the permit(s) some years the permit(s) get you.
In any case, then the horse trading begins; We'll run this river on your permit, that river on mine, but wait; Joes' wife doesn't like my wife, and I don't want to be in the same state with that loafer Caleb...............
It takes months of high level horse trading and butt hurt feelings to get it into the best possible season.
And then, and only then, do the unneeded permits get canceled.

Greed runs rampant in the permit system; understandable, but regrettable.

Non refundable entry fees would only increase the stress level, non refundable permit fees would force quicker decisions. "reusable" permit fees would further complicate the entire process.

Schutzie would think a higher (refundable) entry fee coupled with a non refundable permit fee would get the desired result.
Once you win a date, you have XX days to pay the permit fee or forfeit the entry fee. Once the Permit fee is paid, you forfeit if you don't use it.

This would force applicants to think twice about shotgunning the permit system, and force them to make a decision early enough to allow for permit reissues.
And a pox on Joe's wife; my wife is a better cook and she can row the rig.

One other thought; maybe the late cancellations are because we just got a last minute permit on our first choice river, but it conflicts with our Idaho permit, so now we gotta dump the Idaho permit at the last minute.

Again; greed prevails. I want what I want when I want it and I want it free!

Quick comment on the greedy commercial fat cats; for better or worse, they have costs and risks private boaters cannot appreciate. Ease up a bit until you've been there, done that.


----------

