# Grand Canyon Rafting: Why don't commercial users haft to apply for a lottery..



## buckmanriver

Hi all, 

This year I have been compiling and analyzing the non-commercial lottery data from the Grand Canyon website. What I found was that 95% of applications lose the permit lotteries. The question that arose from this information was why is it that only the non-commercial user group must apply to the lottery for access? Why not have an equal common pool system for all users? 

I looked into the history and put together a screen on what I found. 
https://youtu.be/XSpcmmXlbZE

https://youtu.be/XSpcmmXlbZE

What are your thoughts? 

Is this viable? Is the current system ethical? 

Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## galaxyknuckles

Love the video, love the research. I have been struggling with the depression associated with the knowledge that I may NEVER end up getting a permit to run the Grand. Now I get hard numbers from your video that really illustrates that point. I want everyone (including the NPS) to watch it and take note.


Just please change the "haft" to the proper "have to" in the title. I know it's a small thing, it just stands out on a well researched and thoughtful video to have that kind of typo in it. Sorry to be a grammar nerd, but this one stood out. Again, I loved the video and I thank you for the effort. It's truly fantastic research and I am going to be recommending it to every river rat that I know.


----------



## climbdenali

A few thoughts that aren't necessarily cohesive:

-The upward trend in the number of applicants is a big thing. I think it's driven a lot by the e-culture we are now living in- think selfies, facebook, pinterest and DIY. Combine that with the trends toward outdoor/adventure travel and there's a lot more pressure on all of our outdoor resources. This is driving a lot of the statistics.

-The NPS has a "dueling mandate" to both preserve and provide for enjoyment of the parks. That's a tough thing. "Provide for enjoyment" doesn't just mean for those of us who can go do it themselves, but also for segments of the public who otherwise wouldn't have the means or skills to participate in a non-commercial trip.

-Educating a broad swath of the public on conservation, through providing experiences of a place like Grand Canyon, has proven invaluable to the conservation movement. We have to expose these places to a wide segment of the population if we hope to keep them around for our children.

-Outfitters fill a large niche that non-commercial boaters never can or will (and I suspect, would never want to) fill. Can you imagine taking the Texas oil man and his family down a Grand Canyon trip? But if you accept the premise that these Parks are for all of us, they have a right to be there, too, and if you believe that getting more, wealthier, and influential people into these special places might one day protect the place, better than you or I could, then that family needs to be taken on trips like GC.

-If we had a "common pool" would outfitters have the same number of chances as you or I? How could they make a living or be able to plan year to year and continue to offer the services if it were all left up to chance on whether or not they get to do any business next year? Who would decide who gets to put in as an outfitter? Unlimited outfitters?

-I've gotten two permits myself, and have been on three other non-commercial GC trips in the last 10 years, since the system was transitioned to the lottery, and haven't applied or been available to go on a trip in the last 3. That's 5/7 - not too bad, and not nearly as bad as the statistics might suggest the odds are. But then again, statistics can be deceiving. I was willing (happy) to go in Nov/Dec a couple of times, so the odds were considerably higher than if I had demanded only September launches, for example.

Last thought- no permit system that I've encountered is perfect, but IMO, the GC lottery system is one of the fairest systems that I've used- far more fair than the first-call, first-served "systems". Allotment between commercial and non-commercial is always going to be debated, but the outfitters do benefit us non-commercial folk in ways that aren't always immediately apparent.


----------



## richp

Hi,

Nice presentation, but a bit thin on implementation detail. Indeed, for me, implementation was the real problem, not the legal stuff. (The legalities of the CRMP were examined extensively in Federal court, which supported the Park plan.)

Long ago in a faraway universe, before I got involved in GC river issues (from which I am largely retired), I was a "One Big List" guy. Then, as the draft CRMP was revealed, I briefly was a "One Big Lottery" guy.

But I could never find -- on my own or in anyone else's thinking -- a workable answer to one key question. There were others, but this one seemed to be at the core of the problem.

If everyone going on a trip has to be a lottery winner, how can I, as a private trip organizer, be assured that the other 15 people I want on my trip will be able to win the same lottery as well?

Commercial passengers take it for granted they will be thrown in with a group of strangers. Most private boaters put a premium on freedom to choose their river companions -- a feature the "One Big Lottery" system doesn't seem to offer in any workable manner. 

I would briefly add a second important concern. Suppose there was a single entry point for all GC river trips. Instead of competing in a lottery against a few thousand prospective private boaters, the competition for a single private boater would be against additional tens of thousands of prospective commercial passengers. 

I don't see how a unified lottery would improve my chances of getting on the river. In fact, every rational indicator seems to suggest that under a single lottery system, private boater chances would be diminished significantly from the current level.

So as tough as the current statistics seem, I still support the existing system. 

In doing that, I note the Park's annual report also shows that a significant number of each year's lottery entrants do go on a trip -- on someone else's permit. So things aren't quite as grim as the raw lottery numbers appear.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Rick A

I have seen a few of your videos, and your view sounds much like the view of Tom Martin. I left a few Facebook groups because I found myself annoyed by his many of his whinny posts. Of the boaters I know, most of those interested in running the The Canyon have been on a trip, as a matter of fact some have multiple trips. Then you have folks who do a trip damn near every year complaining that they can't get a permit and how unfair the system is. My guess, only considering the U.S. Population is that private boaters capable of of running the river on a non commercial trip is less the one percent of the population so in my mind getting 8-10 percent of the user days seems pretty fair. Asking for equal protection under the law might mean somebody starts looking into the percentage of those user days that are used by people who have several trips under their belt. The outfitters give the 99 percent of people who do not have the means of running the river on their own a chance to go on a trip. I'm simply saying watch what you ask for or you may see the number of private trip permits decreased.


----------



## richp

Hi Rick A,

Actually he is using old allocation numbers. Under the CRMP, it's roughly a 50/50 user day split. 

True, they are not spread equally seasonally between private and commercial. But all winter launches are private, which is in the less crowded, no motor, portion of the year --
a big benefit in the eyes of many. Admittedly however, the seasonal launch differential remains a sticking point for some folks.

Sure, for a person who wants their own permit, the lottery is tough to win. But permit parties and networking seem to operate to make actual private trip availability more prevalent than the raw lottery numbers suggest.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## mattman

I don't think a lottery system for outfitters would work, it would be extremely difficult to run a business with that level of uncertainty, very harsh for guides, who, one season have a job, than that outfitter does poorly in the lottery and they get layed off.
Some sort of yearly allotment system for the commercial side is the only system that I can see continuing to work.

I have never been a Grand Guide, and I would like to see a larger number of permits available to private trips, it does seem that the numbers have been less than fair to private boaters since the inception of River Regulation in the Grand, but I don't think we should do anything to put commercial outfitters out of business, either. 
Like DC said, outfitters really do make some important contributions that can be less than obvious.
I think over all, the GC permit system is at least one of the better ones I have dealt with, though the odds continue to be very sad do to demand.


----------



## jbomb

Just need one lottery and allow people to hire a guide to run their permit if they so choose. Sure it will be tougher on guides to lose their monopoly on summer user days, but who cares?


----------



## Tom Martin

Hey Buck, 

Thanks for putting that video together. The quest for wilderness equity in access and protection from mechanization in the backcountry of the Grand Canyon has been going on since a very long time.

Here’s a little review:

In the mid 1950s, Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) and Dinosaur National Monument (DINO) put in place very restrictive river permit policies. For the next 15 years, up to 1970, the NPS worked hard to boost the commercial river companies and deny DIY folks access, encouraging DIY hopefuls in their hundreds to go with commercial companies. This was true for both GRCA and DINO.

The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. This act spoke to two things: mechanization and commercialization of wilderness areas. 

As to mechanization, the use of motors on boats was to be phased out. While DINO was able to get motors off the Yampa and Green, the concessionaires fought back in Grand Canyon and the majority of concession passengers have no choice but to go on motorized watercraft to this day through the Grand Canyon, a stunning place that is otherwise managed for its wilderness values. 

As to commercialization of wilderness, the DIY folks had to litigate against GRCA in the 1970’s to get a little better access. While the NPS had already realized there were too many visitors, the Park responded by increasing DIY use. The Park did this by adding yet more use on top of an already crowded house. This same thing happened again at GRCA in the late 1990s-early 2000s. 

Still, the issues remain. Equitable access has yet to be achieved and wilderness management languishes. 

Right out the gate, allocations to river access were arbitrary. They still are today.

So now what... Let’s look at some of the arguments put forward on this thread: 

Some people will say the upward trend in permit applications is due to e-culture. That could be, but the population of the country from 1970, when use ceilings were first recognized as being needed in wilderness river areas, to today, has increased by over 100,000,000 people. Do you see future population growth looming large? You bet you do... thus the sooner an equitable permit system is put in place, the better.

Some people argue the NPS has a dual mandate, to both preserve and to provide enjoyment. The courts have consistently pointed out the non-impairment (preservation) mandate takes precedent over the enjoyment mandate. 

Some people argue the NPS has a mandate to serve the public who otherwise wouldn't have the means or skills to participate in a non-commercial back-country wilderness river trip. This is true, but not in wilderness areas. Almost all NPS wilderness areas are managed for 10% or less commercial use in wilderness areas. This is why the river concessions and their employees fight the very thought of a wilderness river in Grand Canyon.

Some people argue passengers get educated to conservation on commercial river trips and become advocates for the resource. While the data does not prove this out, regardless of whether they do or don’t, this has nothing to do with inequitable allocation. Advocates are born on DIY trips as well.

Some people argue river concessionaires fill a large niche that non-commercial boaters never can or will fill. One could easily argue DIY river runners would use every available launch in Grand Canyon if given the chance. But this argument misses the point that the access models and allocations are inequitable and arbitrary.

Some people argue that getting more, wealthier, and influential people into these special places “might one day protect the place.” How long do we wait for that to happen? It so far has not, and in the meanwhile, inequitable allocations remain. 

Some people argue concessionaires would go out of business in a common pool. This has been shown to not be the case. In Grand Canyon, none of the rental companies that supply river gear to DIY trips have a guaranteed launch. They rely on low costs and good quality service in a free market. It is not the duty of the National Parks to preserve a broken subsidized oligopoly while DIY demand for access continues to climb. 

Before 2006, the goal of DIY river runners hoping to run the Grand Canyon was to get your own permit. That goal is still in place on many other permitted rivers. But in Grand Canyon, since 2006, an argument has popped up that just getting on someones permit is the goal. Is it appropriate to say DIY folks can go in the winter and they got to go on another person's permit, so everything is fine...?? I beg to differ. Others here agree that use distribution over the seasons is totally out of kilter. And it is. Making beggars DIY river runners is what is happening. Is that right? 

Some people think paying thousands of dollars per person for a five or six night river trip with immediate prime time access or going into a lottery where the odds of winning are 5% or less (a lot less) is one of the fairest systems they have heard of. Buck, you mentioned a few access models that are much more fair and equitable. 

Some people say implementation of an equitable system is impossible. This is a great way to hide behind the present imbalanced system. The only way this system will move forward is through change. And it will need continued modifications as the plan moves forward. But it is easy to shoot holes in any forward thinking plan, and try to block any advancement. The way common pool systems work is the common pool is for a permit. Folks can fill it with concessions help or not.

Some people see competition in a bigger lottery as a reason not to have one lottery for all permits. Well, right now we have folks paying exorbitant prices or joining an already overflowing lottery. How is that any better? It is not clear that DIY chances in a common pool approach would be worse than they are now. The access system would be equitable, and the resource protected. 

Some folks argue that a significant number of each year's lottery entrants do go on a trip -- on someone else's permit. Last I checked, 29% of the folks in 2015 trying for 2016 Main Lottery permits either won the lottery (399 permits) or went on another person’s trip (1026 did indeed do that, which is 21%). In 2017, there were almost twice as many lottery applicants as in 2015. This feeds the illogical argument that you should not complain if you get on a trip and didn’t get your own permit. 
You can see those stats here: https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/River_Stats_2016_Update.pdf


Some people try to shoot the messengers. Would you like some cheese with that whiney post? We see you down there every year they say. The number of people who are on the river on DIY trips are very small, and they bring with them a resource knowledge base and friendly attitude that helps them get to go. Is it easy? No sir. Does that make the system equitable and fair? No sir. 

We will do well to remember that 1/10 of 1% of American citizens will travel the river through Grand Canyon in 100 years. Arguing that the river concessionaires cater to a greater subset of that 1/10 of 1% simply maintains the status quo. 

Bottom line: 

Thank you Buck for your YouTube film. Thank you for raising this issue. Like all equal protection under the law issues based on inequality, this issue will not go away. So now, do we sit back and wait another ten year for the 2006 river management plan to run its 20 year course? You ask folks to write their legislators about this issue and complain, That is an excellent idea. There is much work to be done. 

Cordially yours, Tom Martin


----------



## richp

Hi jbomb,

The core problem under your idea is this -- when a single person wins the lottery, is it just for her/him, or for 8, 16, or 35 people (the current allowed group sizes)? 

That answer has so many river management implications that one might argue it's the main obstacle to a unified track system.

These discussions are interesting. But in reality, the current system has been in operation for ten years, so radical reform is probably unlikely.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## jbomb

Hi Rich,

We'll call it 16. Next problem? Also, saying that because a system has been in place for 10 years so we can't change it is . . . reprehensible?


Regards,
jbomb



richp said:


> Hi jbomb,
> 
> The core problem under your idea is this -- when a single person wins the lottery, is it just for her/him, or for 8, 16, or 35 people (the current allowed group sizes)?
> 
> That answer has so many river management implications that one might argue it's the main obstacle to a unified track system.
> 
> These discussions are interesting. But in reality, the current system has been in operation for ten years, so radical reform is probably unlikely.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


----------



## richp

Hi jbomb,

My point is that for the 15+ years I've been involved in this stuff, I've never seen a full-fledged proposal for a unified track system that covers all the resource protection, launch logistic, and other issues that the CRMP dealt with.

Of course it would be more desirable if bureaucracies and regulatory structures were more flexible and adaptable. My comment about the prospect for change was more about how I see the real world than anything else. 

But I also know the background processes that led to the CRMP, and the way legal events unfolded after its passage, have solidified the current framework. In particular, if the full-fledged (but losing) legal attack that was waged on the CRMP did nothing else, it gave the NPS a vested interest in maintaining the CRMP pretty much as is.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## jbomb

Thanks for the clarification Rich, and I appreciate the point that change is difficult. But, in the last 15 years you've seen the transition from the waiting list to the lottery, so trying to shut down the conversation based on the argument that it won't happen just feels a bit disingenuous.


----------



## buckmanriver

Rich,

Point taken. Change is hard. Probability is low.

I believe that the larger the group of people advocating for change the more likely change is to occur. The 2019 lottery year held in February 2018 will have 1000's of losers. Trend lines from historical data suggest that 96% of applicants will lose. 

That is *7,278* losers. Of that subset of lottery losers how many do you think will share your view that the probability of changes is too small to pursue? 

Eventually, there will be a tipping point where the 10,000's of private boaters come together and demand equal access to the Grand Canyon river corridor. 

Link to main lottery date 2008 -- present: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HWf9xXsjXOX4VIMkUJ8Ab70IRmK2sR35ihYkn75272Y/edit?zx=aab8gw3ms7ik#gid=126936643


----------



## buckmanriver

richp said:


> Hi jbomb,
> 
> My point is that for the 15+ years I've been involved in this stuff, I've never seen a full-fledged proposal for a unified track system that covers all the resource protection, launch logistic, and other issues that the CRMP dealt with.
> 
> 
> Rich Phillips


We're not advocating to recreate the wheel. Were advocating for equal access. 

A plan would be simple. 

1. Every user applies to the same lottery. With the same structure as the existing non-commercial system. 
2. A permit winner would then choose a private or commercial trip. If they choose a commercial trip they would then have the ability to invite 15 folks on that trip. 

Put it another way. Teachers did not change the fundamentals of teaching multiplication after we ending segregation based on race. They did not build dramatically different schools. Both groups were allowed in the same classrooms. After which, access to education was more equal. 

Access to the Grand Canyon should be more equal. 

Thanks, 

~B


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

buckmanriver said:


> We're not advocating to recreate the wheel. Were advocating for equal access.
> 
> A plan would be simple.
> 
> 1. Every user applies to the same lottery. With the same structure as the existing non-commercial system.
> 2. A permit winner would then choose a private or commercial trip. If they choose a commercial trip they would then have the ability to invite 15 folks on that trip.
> 
> Put it another way. Teachers did not change the fundamentals of teaching multiplication after we ending segregation based on race. They did not build dramatically different schools. Both groups were allowed in the same classrooms. After which, access to education was more equal.
> 
> Access to the Grand Canyon should be more equal.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ~B


I think the main problem with that is your average commercial trip is comprised of multiple smaller groups getting thrown in together. I think its pretty rare for one group of family/friends to fill an entire concessions trip.

I still think it could work, but you'd have to figure out how to make it work someone only wanted to take themself plus a 1-6 other people rather then having to fill an entire trip. Its one thing to expect that from the DIY crowd but quite another to expect it from the kind of person that just wants to plunk down $5000 a person for a concessions trip.

I laugh when some of ya'll talk about the concessions companies providing for the "general populace" like it is something it is available to everyone.

Sure, it is, but only if you can afford it. I'd say your average middle to lower class citizen would struggle to afford one of those trips. Even the short 4-6 day trips are expensive and that is certainly a barrier to most. I don't fault the concessions companies for charging what they do since they need to make a profit and they actually seem to pay their guides a living wage, which can't be said for a lot of other commericially used rivers. However, to say that they provide a chance for the general populace a chance to run the river is a bit out of touch with reality.

As far as non-commercial trips go, I would advocate for increasing how many group sizes are available. In other words, make it so that someone can apply for a Solo trip and maybe a four person trip. This would make it so that if you wanted to run it Solo or with a very small group, you aren't denying 7 or 15 other people the ability to go on a non-commercial trip. I also think its reasonable that someone should be able to apply for a special use permit if they want to do a speed run rather then having to go through the lottery.

I guess I'm just saying that there are ways to maximize use for the user days that are already available to us non-commercial users that go unused.


----------



## jbomb

Electric-Mayhem said:


> As far as non-commercial trips go, I would advocate for increasing how many group sizes are available. In other words, make it so that someone can apply for a Solo trip and maybe a four person trip. This would make it so that if you wanted to run it Solo or with a very small group, you aren't denying 7 or 15 other people the ability to go on a non-commercial trip. I also think its reasonable that someone should be able to apply for a special use permit if they want to do a speed run rather then having to go through the lottery.
> 
> I guess I'm just saying that there are ways to maximize use for the user days that are already available to us non-commercial users that go unused.


I don't have a strong opinion on this one, except to say that this is the way the Rogue works and the river feels a whole lot more crowded when all the user days are taken by 2-3 person trips vs when there are a fewer amount of large groups on the river. Not that it really matters anyway when the outfitters rabbit boat all the camps. Perhaps making a minimum permit size of X and always collecting the $100 / person for the X spots regardless of whether they are filled would incentivize filling permits.


----------



## almortal

Probability For Dummies Cheat Sheet - dummies


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

jbomb said:


> I don't have a strong opinion on this one, except to say that this is the way the Rogue works and the river feels a whole lot more crowded when all the user days are taken by 2-3 person trips vs when there are a fewer amount of large groups on the river. Not that it really matters anyway when the outfitters rabbit boat all the camps. Perhaps making a minimum permit size of X and always collecting the $100 / person for the X spots regardless of whether they are filled would incentivize filling permits.


I can see how it might crowd the river a bit and increase competition for camps if there was the possibility of smaller small trips too. I see the value in wanting to do a Solo trip or two person trip. Maybe have a single boat permit system, and have a rule where you have to use smaller camp sites.

I agree that it is nice that most of the Southwestern rivers have rules about not "Rabbiting" like that. I know of a few times when people have tried sending kayakers out in front to grab a certain camp and they've been told to pound sand when another trip shows up before the rest of their group on the Grand.


----------



## climbdenali

"Some People" think that there is a perfect system, but in the last 10 posts I've heard several different ideas: common pool, smaller groups, limits based on users not launches, etc. That was my point about there being no such thing as a perfect system. There will always be those who feel that whatever system is implemented is unfair/imperfect- that's politics.

My assessment of GC lottery being one of the fairest in the country is based on the process- not the commercial/non-commercial allocation. If we ignore the allocation issue, the rules that govern the lottery make it pretty damn fair, if you ask me. Way better than any type of first-come first-served system.


----------



## Rick A

"This feeds the illogical argument that you should not complain if you get on a trip and didn’t get your own permit." 

Hey Tom, 

Just tell me where and who you would like me to send my letter to, I will ask that you get your very own permit each year so you can be the "boss" i mean, trip leader of your annual trip.


----------



## semievolved

some good stats thrown up here, especially about how many who apply to the lottery actually score their permit.

how about the question of how many who desire to go on a commercial trip are turned down?

why should someone who is willing/able to cough up the big$$ have the ability to sign on for a trip any/every year at whatever time of year suits them best (unlikely they would prefer dead of winter) while those who choose not to pay someone else to take them down have virtually no chance of scoring their own permit?
i have a friend who had never been down who decided that he and his wife would like to go in early october. they called up O.A.R.S. a couple months ahead, plunked down $12K or so and booom they were on for 16 days to Diamond. doesn't seem right.


----------



## buckmanriver

climbdenali said:


> "
> My assessment of GC lottery being one of the fairest in the country is based on the process- not the commercial/non-commercial allocation. If we ignore the allocation issue, the rules that govern the lottery make it pretty damn fair, if you ask me. Way better than any type of first-come first-served system.


Let's ignore the allocation issue. Say for example each group get's an allocation you think is best. Would you then consider having all users enter the same lottery for that type of allocation?


----------



## buckmanriver

semievolved said:


> i have a friend who had never been down who decided that he and his wife would like to go in early october. they called up O.A.R.S. a couple months ahead, plunked down $12K or so and booom they were on for 16 days to Diamond. doesn't seem right.


Compare that with the lottery demand for October Dates. It is bleak. There was not a single October day in the 2/22/2018 lottery with less than 69 valid applications. 

* 10/2/2018 had the most with 447 apps listing that date. 
* 10/23/208 had the least with 69 apps listing that date. 

Link to data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C83IHlGjSXYpWxK2i6Pm9JwANZisEHTFI6dLzF9-b5Q/edit#gid=1004155739


----------



## trevko

Both climbdenali and richp make very good points. There is another reality that you don't hear too much about. The outfitters are politically connected and powerful. The issue of motor use is a prime example of that and for the same reasons motor use is allowed the outfitters will not lose user days. It sucks but it is a reality. The other option is to increase non-commercial use during the high season, which would, in my opinion, diminish the overall experience.


The only way to change the allocation is to become more politically connected and powerful than the outfitters.


----------



## climbdenali

buckmanriver said:


> Let's ignore the allocation issue. Say for example each group get's an allocation you think is best. Would you then consider having all users enter the same lottery for that type of allocation?


I guess I don't get what you're asking. 

Do you mean non-commercial permit-holders-to-be enter a non-commercial lottery for their launch permit and at the same time outfitters enter a commercial lottery for their launches? 

Or do you mean each non-commercial participant enters a non-commercial lottery, and each "customer-to-be" enters a lottery for commercial participants and then chooses an outfitter?

I guess if it's either of these, I don't get the point of holding the lottery for the commercial side. Is it just so that new outfitters could enter the fray?

Ignoring the commercial thing again, what about this: EVERY participant (not TL) must enter the lottery for a date, and then gets matched to their group based on who drew which launch?? That would be the fairest- no playing favorites with your buddy who has the sweet 18' kitchen boat in his garage.


----------



## dsrtrat

climbdenali said:


> I
> Ignoring the commercial thing again, what about this: EVERY participant (not TL) must enter the lottery for a date, and then gets matched to their group based on who drew which launch?? That would be the fairest- no playing favorites with your buddy who has the sweet 18' kitchen boat in his garage.


I see no way this would work for many reasons. As someone who has put together several Grand Canyon trips the logistics are hard enough with a group of friends that I know and trust on the river. 
To suggest that I should go on a 21 day river trip with a bunch of strangers selected by a lottery is just not in the realm of possibility.
There seems to be people on message boards looking for trip participants if you are willing to jump on a trip with people you don't know. 

In my opinion the present system is working for the vast majority of people who are serious about boating the canyon. 
And yes I do have a gear hauling boat bought and cared for at my own expense, a lot of river time in the Grand Canyon, and a willingness to help put a trip on the water. 
I doubt that I will ever be lucky enough to win the lottery and organize my own trip, the weighted lottery pretty much favors someone with 5 points for prime dates. 
The NPS has done a good job of structuring the lottery so it can't be gamed. Nothing I have read here seems to offer anything that is better than what we have now.
The NPS is working to see that almost all the trips are going out even with some short lead times due to cancellations.
The biggest problem in those cases seems to be with the boaters themselves, someone who has 5 points in the lottery, wins a trip, then can't or doesn't care enough to follow up and put a trip together.


----------



## buckmanriver

dsrtrat said:


> In my opinion the present system is working for the vast majority of people who are serious about boating the canyon.


Dsrtrat,

What would you say to the over 7,000 folks that are set loose the 2019 permit lottery? I understand and respect that in your view the system is working for you / the majority. 

Imaging speaking to two fully packed high school gymnasiums of people who lost the lottery. Visualise the faces of over 7,000 people. This is a big majority were talking about. 

It feels wrong to say that this large group of private boaters is deserving of a different access system than a would be commercial user or "serious" canyon boater. 

Thanks for posting though. 

~ B


----------



## buckmanriver

climbdenali said:


> I guess I don't get what you're asking.


I agree that we may not be using a common language which could be confusing for our communication. 

1. I define *allocation* as who get's what. 
2. I define a *equal system * as a construct where both groups have the same path to entry as one another. 

Changing allocation ratios would affect the equality of said system. 

Broadly speaking, the current system for access is getting worse over time as demand increases for private permits. The data show's this clearly. 

There is no chance of changing this system for the would be private boater if we do talk about the issue. Or if when we do talk about it we get stuck on the difficulties in changing an unjust system. 



Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## buckmanriver

Rick A said:


> Hey Tom,
> 
> Just tell me where and who you would like me to send my letter to, I will ask that you get your very own permit each year so you can be the "boss" i mean, trip leader of your annual trip.


Rick A, 

Why the need for a personal attack? River runners are better than this. 

Thanks, 

~B


----------



## buckmanriver

jbomb said:


> Just need one lottery and allow people to hire a guide to run their permit if they so choose.


Were surfing the same wave. ~B


----------



## Rick A

buckmanriver said:


> Rick A,
> 
> Why the need for a personal attack? River runners are better than this.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ~B


Well Buck, I have a couple things to say about my comment since you ask:

I made a very similar comment to yours about river runners right before I chose to leave that Facebook page I mentioned earlier. My comment was a smart ass thing to say, but it was much nicer than the the comments I received from some of Toms followers in that group for having a opinion different than theirs as a matter of fact it was on this very subject. I do admit that since then, I probably get a bit more pleasure than I should by trolling Tom a little, but if you consider that comment a personal attack you might be a little thin skinned for the Buzz.

Rick


----------



## richp

Hi,

As I stated earlier in this thread, there was a time when I favored the unified track approach for both segments of the GC boating community. And today, if I saw a proposal for a practical way to transition from the current system to a new one, I would sure look hard at it.

But I abandoned my former view when neither I -- nor anyone I interacted with -- could put together a complete, detailed, truly workable proposal. Historically, that's why it wasn't adopted as part of the CRMP. And yes, the idea was considered -- among many others -- by folks much smarter than me.

So I think the challenge for members of this community -- if they are serious about having a single track system -- would be to somehow stimulate development of a complete, workable plan that all parties in the GC river community can live with. 

Not just a sketch. Not addressing just a single component. Not just something that meets the declared needs of one segment of the GC boating community. What is needed is a thoughtful, fully fleshed-out package that could legitimately be presented to Park authorities for full and fair consideration -- ready to answer all the hard bureaucratic and orgznizational questions.

Now this next part will be tough for some folks. But it reflects the real world. 

Such a plan -- if it is to have the slightest chance of adoption -- must have some level of support from the commercial sector.

(A major reason the CRMP broke the decades-long logjam in Park policy was the fact private and commercial folks worked together to jointly formulate and endorse a package that helped the Park out of what previously had seemed to be an insoluble problem.

Parties to that process were vilified in some circles. And yes, compromises were made. But the facts remain -- private time on the river was increased greatly, motor use was curtailed, and the plan survived a lengthy legal challenge. That was because two of the three parties with a legitimate interest in the outcome worked in cooperation to give the third party -- the Park -- a workable plan.)

Now all of us keyboard warriors can tap away to our hearts' content; I, for one, am about typed out. But the prospect of actual change coming out of this discussion is slim. That is, unless the collective wisdom represented here can stimulate the kind of realistic proposal I mentioned earlier.

And since the Buzz itself really isn't the best vehicle for such things, maybe some existing river organization could be persuaded to take on the organizational task involved. 

Good luck with that. 

GCRG is likely not one bit interested in this kind of change. RRFW probably burned its bridges with the Park by pursuing a lawsuit to the bitter end. AW might think this idea is not far-reaching enough in scope. GCPBA is under new leadership, and it's not yet clear what they are ready and/or willing to do. 

I know representatives of at least two of these groups follow the Buzz. Perhaps we can hear from them about what concrete steps they are willing to take in this enterprise? If any...

Enough said, except to note the good thinking that is represented in many of these posts. Gonna sit back and read, and see what happens...

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## buckmanriver

Rick A said:


> but if you consider that comment a personal attack you might be a little thin skinned for the Buzz.
> 
> Rick



Rick A, 

I thought you would respond to my last post. This space is going to be what we make it. 

I am ok with the thickness of my skin. Furthermore, I see the value in creating a community where we can communicate a human first manor. 

I appreciate that you have the capacity to self-identify your communication style as a person that derives pleasure from harassing others in an online environment. 

Cheers's ~ B


----------



## jbomb

In my experience, trying to shut down conversation about a possible change as impossible to implement is a fallback tactic for people who are happy with the current status quo but can't or don't wish to state their actual reasons for it.


----------



## climbdenali

buckmanriver said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by jbomb: Just need one lottery and allow people to hire a guide to run their permit if they so choose.
> 
> Were surfing the same wave. ~B


So in that system, who determines who's qualified to be hired as a guide/outfitter? Is it limited to the existing/current outfitters? Open to anybody with the right experience? Insurance/Bonding requirements?

I'm not trying to be a dick, really just trying to envision what you are seeing.

One other concern I have with the kind of system I think you're wishing for, which I think echos what RichP said early on, is that if the pools get combined, we're all competing with FAR more people entering the lottery. Last year, ~19,000 passengers went on commercial trips vs under 7000 private (launches were 632/497 comm/priv., while total user days were pretty similar). https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/Calendar_Year_2016_River_Statistics.pdf

Imagine the marketing that companies would create, pushing people to register for the lottery. It's conceivable to me that lottery entrants who plan to go commercial could drown out the private users and wind up making our odds WAY worse.


----------



## jbomb

climbdenali said:


> So in that system, who determines who's qualified to be hired as a guide/outfitter? Is it limited to the existing/current outfitters? Open to anybody with the right experience? Insurance/Bonding requirements?
> 
> I'm not trying to be a dick, really just trying to envision what you are seeing.


Also not trying to be a dick, but I think this kind of thing would be really easy to sort out. I don't really care, except to say that I would not limit it to current outfitters just because I am obviously fairly anti-outfitter. Insurance yes.



climbdenali said:


> One other concern I have with the kind of system I think you're wishing for, which I think echos what RichP said early on, is that if the pools get combined, we're all competing with FAR more people entering the lottery. Last year, ~19,000 passengers went on commercial trips vs under 7000 private (launches were 632/497 comm/priv., while total user days were pretty similar). https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/Calendar_Year_2016_River_Statistics.pdf
> 
> Imagine the marketing that companies would create, pushing people to register for the lottery. It's conceivable to me that lottery entrants who plan to go commercial could drown out the private users and wind up making our odds WAY worse.


Good counter point (probably the only one that I can think of so far). But the real comparison should be commercial passengers to private lottery applicants, seeing as how both groups want to get on the river that year. Now tell me how the numbers stack up.* Same point - the private wait list stretched to 18+ years. How far ahead do commercial trips get booked out? I don't think this is a problem and even if it is - it is a more fair system.

EDIT: Well still in favor of commercials I guess - only 7700 individual applicants for private launch in 2016. Woops.


----------



## climbdenali

Someone with more history in this issue could comment more intelligently on this point, but I'm pretty sure that during the waitlist era, private launches were far fewer than they are today. I thought I read somewhere 8% of total launches? But in some AW info I'm reading now, I see something like ~200 launches/yr were private under the waitlist system. https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/display/full/articleid/1257/

I'm also not sure of this one, but I do believe that many of the companies book out a year or two in advance, and maybe further for choice dates. Any guides down there have a comment on this or somebody who's tried to book a May/Sept. GC commercial trip?

I think the numbers get even worse if a common pool system gets opened up to more outfitters than currently exist- imagine how hard those new outfitters would be pushing their potential future guests to be applying to the lottery. I just think we'd get killed, and I'm happy we have some segment of the usage that's reserved for those of us who do have the capacity to DIY a GC trip.


----------



## mkashzg

I started working down there in 2003 and the years before the change in the management plan the private usage was sporadic at best with many unused launches. When doing motor trips we would figure on passing about 2 private trips a day and there were times where we would go several days and not see a private trip. With the new management plan and cancellations being handled properly now the private usage is at an all-time high in my opinion. At least the new system offers an opportunity annually to apply whereas before once you used your permit you had to go back to the bottom of the list and if you are creative and flexible your options open up immensely.


----------



## mkashzg

climbdenali said:


> I'm also not sure of this one, but I do believe that many of the companies book out a year or two in advance, and maybe further for choice dates. Any guides down there have a comment on this or somebody who's tried to book a May/Sept. GC commercial trip?


You are correct, at least for the company I worked with in some cases. The majority of the 'Charter trips' where people book and pay for an entire S-Rig(15 people) or 2 or an entire 24 person oar trip are booked quite often a year or more in advance and those do fill up as they are limited but the 'Regular Trips' where you just sign up and get paired with other people or groups are often available a few months out depending on the dates you are looking for.


----------



## buckmanriver

mkashzg said:


> You are correct, at least for the company I worked with in some cases. The majority of the 'Charter trips' where people book and pay for an entire S-Rig(15 people) or 2 or an entire 24 person oar trip are booked quite often a year or more in advance and those do fill up as they are limited but the 'Regular Trips' where you just sign up and get paired with other people or groups are often available a few months out depending on the dates you are looking for.


mkashzg,

Thanks for joining this discussion. I was wondering if you know of any public data scourses the commercial companies have on non-commercial trip demand. Unfortunately, the park does not include any of this in their river use statistics.

I hear what you're saying about booking a trip for a big group. However, it looks like it is very easy (takes about 3 minutes) to book a trip for one or two people right away from the companies that show up on google. https://youtu.be/UoHPMjqpqdA?t=8m56s


NPS data: 
https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/River_Stats_2016_Update.pdf 


Thanks, 

~B


----------



## buckmanriver

richp said:


> In doing that, I note the Park's annual report also shows that a significant number of each year's lottery entrants do go on a trip -- on someone else's permit. So things aren't quite as grim as the raw lottery numbers appear.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


Richard, 

I believe you're referring to this document in the report I linked in my last post.

This data is a bit misleading as it only looks at main lottery applications. The not total application's from the calendar year. If we look at total applications data from the 2017 year *not just the main lottery totals the total number of lottery applications that end up on NC will drop to about ~10% using 2015-2016 data. This may be confusing so I have a screencast where I explain it visually. Hope it helps: https://youtu.be/6B8V_SDGGKE?t=3m49s


Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

Since virtually all secondary lottery entrants were also in the main lottery, it seems the core point remains -- a rather significant number of unsuccessful lottery applicants do get on the river in the year they hoped to.

No solace for individuals with a burning desire to "have their own trip", of course. But it's a fact that ought to be blended into overall consideration about access.

Thanks for your industry in putting these materials together.

Rich Phillips


----------



## buckmanriver

richp said:


> Hi Buck,
> 
> Since virtually all secondary lottery entrants were also in the main lottery.
> Rich Phillips


Rich, 

Can you point me to where you got that data/information? I may have inadvertently overlooked it during my research. 

Thanks,

~ B


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

That's my recollection from a meeting I was in several years ago with River Office staff.

Logic supports it as well. When you enroll in the main lottery, you indicate if you want to be automatically advised of any secondary lotteries for that year. There is no additional cost for those subsequent entries. Some folks may come in mid stream, so to speak. But it seems reasonable that the preponderance of secondary lottery entrants had already been in the initial lottery.

If it's important to your analysis, perhaps you could inquire of the River Office, and they could help further.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## buckmanriver

Richard, 

After my last post, I remembered that this information was on the Grand Canyon National Park River Statistics Calendar Year 2016 .pdf on page 5. 

https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/Calendar_Year_2016_River_Statistics.pdf

Total individuals who applied [in 2016] = *7,747 *

While still smaller than the 16, 257 total application submitted during that calendar year. It is still much larger than the 5,550 main lottery applications from the same year. 

Suffice to say Steve Sullivan excluded 2,197 individuals that applied to the 2016 GC lottery a single time from his calculation for which your point is founded on. 

Add those numbers to the total and the percentage will go down proportionally. 

Hope that helps add clarity to the issue you raised.

Thanks, 

~B


----------



## buckmanriver

Richard, 

Those number also show that less than half of all lottery applicants applied to multiple lotteries in 2016.

Even though the rules allow them to do so and it does not cost extra. 

As is such the data shows that the majority of applicants applied to only one river permit lottery in the 2016 year. 

~ B


----------



## dsrtrat

In my case the one trip per year rule prevented me from applying to the follow up lotteries as I was asked on a trip following the main lottery. In my experience people who win and want someone to go on their trip line up the boatmen as soon as possible and then figure out who they want to add to round out their trip. Just one more thing for your calculations. 
So as Rich P pointed out, want is your solution? Do you have a plan to present to the NPS for consideration?


----------



## kanoer2

Interesting thread.

After thinking for a few days, these are my thoughts. 

Someone had earlier mentioned that commercial are priced for those who have money and I’ll say that means an income of $100K or more , not for the lower - to middle class, $75K and less.

So non-motor commercial trip of 14 days, with travel costs was about $5K pp, and with travel time was roughly 3 weeks (2015).
Private trip (2004), 10 years waiting, was $1,300 pp and everything provided by an outfitter, for an 18 day river trip and with travel time was about 3 ½ weeks.

In 2004 my boss wouldn’t let me have the time off, my sweetie took it as unpaid time. I saved for 10 years to go on a commercial 14 day trip, and as stated above, 3 weeks-non paid, I retired the following year. So that would be $5K plus 3 weeks salary.

Most private boaters have pretty good incomes IMO. You have to in order to afford the equipment. This sport isn’t for low income outdoor enthusiasts, lower-middle income folk will struggle to buy the gear and do the trips. Rafting is pretty much a high income sport no matter if private or commercial, and very few low-middle income folk can get 3 weeks off paid vacation to do the Grand. Yes there are lots of private boaters trying for a permit, but creating a system where commercial customers have to try for a lottery spot is a little nuts. Why? Again, across the board it’s about vacation time. Most employers require vacation requests to be submitted at the first of the year. My boss was great as he let me wait until I could apply for Idaho permits for vacation request, and then the whole office closed down and took vacation time based on my luck with drawing a permit. 

Ok, that was my 2 cents worth

think snow, potental CFS


----------



## mattman

You're probably right about most private boaters having pretty good incomes Kanoer2.
Definitely not all of them though, I know my own quest to get on the river keeps me from having one most of the time, just kinda redirects my life and priorities, and keeps me a little broke usually.
I am not completely dirt poor either though.

Hope you get a chance to run it again!
-Matt


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

Yeah...agreed... I know plenty of lower income boaters (some are basically poverty level). I'd say most are lower middle class, but I'd say most of them don't make anywhere close to $100k a year.

I've setup my life in a way that works allright with going rafting. I'm an independent contractor and can decide whether to work or play as I see fit. This summer was a bit skewed towards rafting rather then working and I've done 93 days on the river this year. I definitely had to turn down work to get that done, but no regrets.

You don't have to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to get into this sport. There are several used setups in the classifieds for $2-3k that would be good enough to get you down the Grand or any other multi-day. $1300 for a two week private trip seems pretty high...I know you can do it for A LOT less. I've paid around $700 for both of my trips and one was 23 days. I know a lot of people say "Its a Grand for the Grand" but so far, since I provide gear, it has been a lot less.

Honestly, if you can work out a cheap shuttle, I often find its cheaper to be on the river then it is to stay at home. As a river rat friend of mine says "he'd rather be 'not working' on the river then sitting at home". If you are a low income "transient" raft guide type, you choice is to squat at someones house or go on a river trip. Pretty obvious choice for me.

So yeah, if you try a bit to keep costs down, a grand trip can be pretty cheap. My TL from my upcoming grand trip has said he only collected $400 or so from each person for the last trip, and that included shuttle costs and permit fees. That was purchasing/preparing all their own food, having participants provide all the gear, and pulling in favors from friends and family in flagstaff for the shuttle. Not sure about you, but I can pretty easily spend $400 at home in two weeks on just food and gas so the trip fee washes for me.

There are certainly plenty of affluent people in the raft world though. I have a paddling buddy that has a fleet of rafts that are each fully set up for multi-day rafting. He has an 18', 16', 15' and 13' Maravia fleet plus an original series Aire Puma. Awesome dude and I love boating with him, but he's a total gear slut with the income to back it up. I don't think he is typical though.

Story short, its a much bigger deal to be able to plop $5k per seat down to go do a commercial GC trip compared to the typical private trip. The fact that because you have money to afford a commercial trip and choose whatever date you want and us "normal" river users who can't afford it or choose not to use the concessions companies have a much harder time is pretty unfair and disheartening.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is much that is gonna change anytime soon about it, so I've been thinking that a "if you can't beat them join them" strategy is the way to go and plan to try and get down the canyon as a baggage boater/swamper/guide trainee next summer.


----------



## buckmanriver

Electric-Mayhem and Kanoer2, 


I think you both make good points on the income inequality inherent within the system.

Folks that can afford an expensive trip are typically retired. Age 55-65

Folks that can only afford the cheaper do it all yourself private ~$500 trip are generally in the age range of 20-35. 


Of course, there is overlap between the two groups. 

Additionally, the age group least likely to get a permit are in the 35-55 age range. The majority of these folks are in a profession where they are choosing their career over applying for a grand canyon permit. Perhaps they have such little vacation per year that they choose to use it in a way where it is not all spent in one place. As is such they are self-selecting out of the allocation system.


----------



## buckmanriver

dsrtrat said:


> So as Rich P pointed out, want is your solution?



Good question.

1. Continue with my research on the GCRA available data and advocacy utilizing that data. 

2. Continue advocating for a change of the current system to that of a common pool. This may be long term. As more people continue to lose the permit lottery year over year. I believe there will be more people willing to advocate for change. 

3. I think about how our the great environmental forebears such as Thoreau, Roosevelt, Muir, Leopold, Powell, Abby, Katie Lee, and Terry Tempest Williams, would see this situation. And I know that they would work to change it despite pessimist of the Grand Canyon Boating world.


----------



## kanoer2

little off topic as this is regarding my experience with Idaho and the Salmon Rivers. But

So first off, as an open ww canoeist for 27 yrs., I have never had the desire to boat the Grand on a private trip, where my sweetie did. We are very lucky to have a set of best friends who have provided raft support for our trips these past 20 yrs., and it was their permit that Dave was able to canoe the Grand in 2004.

We have been very fortunate to get permits for the MF & Main Salmon every time we tried, but I'm sure the reason was we went low water in August. On 2 different Main trips we were 1 of 2 privates that launched.

So, someone earlier said that the winter month permits are much easier to get. 

I know that isn't an option for lots, but ???

Unfortunately there won't be an easy answer. Extent the 1 yr ban to 2, or 3yrs ?? How many repeats trips have their done and how close together are their trips?

The commercial Grand trip I went on with 2 friends, I'd be willing to bet that we were the "poor" of the group as I strongly got the impression that the majority of the clients earned multiples in the 6 figure range. But it was a really fun group and about a 5 of the group had a ww boating background. I think of the 16 clients, the 3 of us were the only active boaters. The group ranged from 18 to 72 yrs in age, and the 3 of us are 60+.

Oh well


----------



## mattman

Wow, Canoeing the Grand, Bad ass!
Winter Permits are easier, but still hard to get, you definitely need to be on your game, and prepared for cold temps, maybe snow. Deal with any carnage fast, and be ready to treat hypothermia quickly. We had 20 degrees last winter on launch morning, for a December trip, did warm up as we went down riv. Dry suite only unless you never ever get cold, and have great neoprene/ fuzzy rubber.
You can run the Grand as a private boater once a year, if you get EXTREMELY lucky, or more likely are willing to arrange your life around going on trips, and have a lot to offer as a boater.

I might be OK with people waiting 2-3 years in between being eligible as a permit holder, but I feel like being allowed to GO on one trip a year is reasonable, especially during winter, when a lot of people are just not willing to go.


----------



## mattman

I to would like to see more of the user days allocated to Private trips, though I don't personally think the common pool would work out, and don't agree with totally kicking out the commercial trips as some folks on the thread say.A re- allocation of private/ commercial numbers seams reasonable to me, but I think outfitters would fight that tooth and nail. Thank you for posting Buckman river, and all the beta you put out there for us, hope we can improve the situation eventually.


----------



## kanoer2

"Wow, Canoeing the Grand, Bad ass!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWjFO391lFQ

My Dave paddles stern as a lefty, Larry his bow partner is a lefty too, so had to paddle right and they had never paddled tandem together before that trip.

The motor rig in Hance lost a sheer pin and finished the drop with a non functioning prop.
On my commercial trip, I had the privilege of swimming Lave, and I was sooo glad I had brought and wore my dry suit - it was an April trip. 

All the kids survived, and have grown up into productive adults. None of them are boating on their own thou. Unfortunately 3 have pass on into the big river in the sky.

And we're all slowing down. Half of us have either knee or back issues. But boy do we have memories!


----------



## richp

Hi,

The heart of the matter actually is twofold -- how to put together a practical proposal, and finding an effective vehicle for elevating it for official consideration.

As I have said before, as an individual I formerly was in the "common pool" camp. I would consider rejoining it if someone could come up with a complete, practical scheme that could be inserted into the current CRMP architecture under its "adaptive management" provision. That would seem to be the angle to pursue, since the Park has announced that there will be no complete CRMP review at this time.

For background, I'm a former GCPBA officer who has been off the board for about four years now. I was involved in the early stages of CRMP implementation, as well as putting together and presenting -- both in writing and in person to Park officials -- numerous proposals for CRMP changes over the years. GCPBA got fair hearings on those proposals, some of which were eventually accepted, some of which were not. We were always treated with courtesy and respect -- they listened to us.

But those proposals were not slapped together on the back of a paper napkin the morning of our meeting. They ordinarily started with some advance organizational contact with the Park, months of research, brainstorming among multiple parties, and numerous drafts. As best we could, we tried to define the issue as completely as possible, consult with others who might be impacted, and present a complete, practical option for change. At the same time, we tried to anticipate objections the Park might raise, and to be ready with useful answers.

It wasn't always done quite this way, we never completely satisfied all our varied members with our actions, and we often didn't get what we wanted, but you get the picture.

So now to my point. In my experience, if you want the Park to consider changing the current system, it's not enough to highlight some of its problems. You have to be able to give them a coherent package that also covers impacts on other members of the river community, possible changes in social and environmental parameters established in the CRMP, transition strategies, required changes in the River Office, and so forth.

Unless and until some structure coalesces around discussions like this, they will be highly unlikely to produce change. Sure, somebody from the Park probably follows this and other internet discussions. And in some vague way, that might inform the thinking of one or more individuals. But not enough for the Park to be motivated on its own adopt a common pool access system based on this level of data alone. They developed this system, it works reasonably well from their point of view, and so why change it?

Buck, I'm no longer active in GC issues, so take this for what it is worth. And notwithstanding the above, I'm not a nay-sayer -- I'm a realist. And your brief responsive points in your last post are fine. All I'm trying to say -- which I tried to highlight in my last post -- is that as a practical matter, any serious move to change the current permit selection system will require a different, very concrete approach, ideally via one or more of the established river organizations.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## dsrtrat

I might be OK with people waiting 2-3 years in between being eligible as a permit holder, but I feel like being allowed to GO on one trip a year is reasonable, especially during winter, when a lot of people are just not willing to go.[/QUOTE]

The one trip per year rule was pushed by the commercial outfitters who thought that the few people that were doing multiple trips were cutting into their business by facilitating trips. It was a red herring but they got their way.

In fact the number of people who did more than one private trip over a 5 year period from 1995 to 2002 was a little over 10% with the majority 9.65 % doing two trips over a five year period. The rest were scattered over the remaining years. The percent of people doing 5 trips or more was .69%. These statistics were used in the planning process for the management plan.

I have no problem with the one trip per year rule as it stands but statistics would argue that banning people for more years than that would not do much to change the availability of permits. 

By the way commercial passengers are not checked for ID's in any part of the process so there is nothing stopping someone from going more than once using an assumed name or simply using another outfitter.

There is also the practice of people with commercial contacts doing more than one trip per year listed as crew when in fact they are friends and family, a small number probably but under the rules bogus.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

It is my understanding that the NPS allows the Concessions companies to self regulate once they have gained a license to run. No idea if they audit the companies or how often if they do. I imagine they get away with some stuff, but I also think they overall are pretty responsible and stick by the rules. That said, I know some of the higher ups in the commercial GC world have a lot of influence over how stuff is run in the canyon and have been known to lord it over the rangers if they start getting "uppity". Can't say that would work for ANY private boater really.

It has been occuring to me that if I had the ability to change ONE thing about the system it would be to change it so that the commercial companies did not keep a lifetime stranglehold on their concessions license. There is basically no way for new blood to come in and that feels stagnant to me. Pretty much the only way to do is for the owners of a company to decide to retire and sell their assets, but by the time that decision is made they have a buyer lined up and it tends to be one of the other concessions companies. So basically...its always gonna be the same group of commercial companies.

Honestly, my dream occupation would be to own one slot for the entire commercial season i.e. do a single trip, get off, repack and then launch again a week later with a new set of customers. Make it a low overhead boutique concessions company for the customer willing to have a working vacation. They would have a great time, but I'd expect it to run similarly to a private trip with some extra downtime and a professional crew of boat captains. Currently there would be zero way for that to happen since I would never get a license unless I had enough money to make one of the current concessions company's "an offer they couldn't refuse" crazy price. I still say if I ever win the lottery... I'll try to do that. I think it would take a lot though....like millions of dollars.


----------



## buckmanriver

mattman said:


> I feel like being allowed to GO on one trip a year is reasonable, especially during winter, when a lot of people are just not willing to go.


I agree this is reasonable.


----------



## buckmanriver

richp said:


> Hi,
> 
> The heart of the matter actually is twofold -- how to put together a practical proposal, and finding an effective vehicle for elevating it for official consideration.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips



This is a good way to frame the issue. As you eluded to in your post, with the last revision of the access system, you/GCBA had several things in place: 

1. You had an organization with an outlet for communication with the park. 
2. You used that organization as your vehicle to create change over the course of years. 

Since 2006 both GCBA and GCNP have ossified. For example, simple things like streaming meetings live on YouTube are not being done, something each meeting participant could do with the smartphone in their pocket. 

Furthermore, the access issues that the park’s own river allocation data illuminates year after year has been dismissed by both parties, time and time again. Through this dismissal, it is suggested that the current CMRP is working for private boaters. 

I see myself as a person that is willing to start the assembly of a new vehicle. 

My willingness alone is not enough to precipitate instantaneous change.

I am content with this discussion being the first step in a long journey. 


Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

I'm content to leave things in the hands of the next generation. As you go forward, I would urge you, however, to give very careful thought to the other concern I mentioned several posts ago. 

I think that adding a large, but unpredictable number of commercial passenger applicants to the lottery will have a serious adverse impact on private boater chances. 

My judgment is that modeling this change would be difficult without knowing the other interlocking elements involved. A further confounding factor is not knowing what adaptive measures the commercial boating segment surely would adopt to stabilize their piece of the market.

Consider this as one more point you will need to cover as you proceed to compile your proposal some day in the future.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## climbdenali

richp said:


> I think that adding a large, but unpredictable number of commercial passenger applicants to the lottery will have a serious adverse impact on private boater chances.


I agree with Rich on this one. I think that private boaters will be giving up a *guaranteed* slice (a large one- nearly half) of the pie for an unpredictably small piece. From where I stand, better the devil we know, than the devil we don't.


----------



## Shitouta

I agree with the sentiments expressed by richp and climbdenali above. The current system may have some issues but with the proper application of strategy, networking and a little flexibility it is very possible to join a private grand canyon trip every year. Which is awesome. As climbdenali pointed out, private boaters are guaranteed nearly half the pie. Would more be better? Sure. Is that _realistic_ given the history of commercial rafting in the Grand and other permitted rivers, in the context of management or economics? Probably not. Is it worth risking a guaranteed slice for a slice of unknown quantity, possibly larger possibly smaller? Definitely not...but I'm not a gambler. I haven't read through the entire thread so I may be missing something. I know I'm fortunate, but having been on four grand trips in the last decade (and heading on a fifth shortly) and turned down many, many invitations due to work or school conflicts it's hard for me to find fault in or complain about the current system.


----------



## jbomb

Seems like privates are guaranteed only about 28% of the pie during the summer, which for work reasons is when I can go.

I also disagree with the suggestion that my lottery chances would decline if the lottery were unified, but acknowledge that is just my personal guess. Finding numbers to support what the relative demand would be in either direction has been a challenge. 

Since we're changing things already, can we ban motors while we're at it?


----------



## richp

Hi,

Not to belabor a point, but in terms of raw numbers, in 2016 there were 18,800 commercial trip participants, and only 6,600 private trip participants. (Note that privates use roughly an equal amount of user days as commercials because the average private trip is much longer.)

That's a bit less than a three to one ratio -- one that presumably would feed into a common lottery application pool in roughly the same proportion.

When I see that, I ask, "Do I really want a common pool lottery that puts me in competition with three times as many people as I am up against now?"

Buck, is there some other, less disadvantageous way to look at common lottery? Even assuming more launches would be in the mix, I just can't see how privates don't lose big.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## jbomb

richp said:


> Hi,
> 
> Not to belabor a point, but in terms of raw numbers, in 2016 there were 18,800 commercial trip participants, and only 6,600 private trip participants. (Note that privates use roughly an equal amount of user days as commercials because the average private trip is much longer.)
> 
> That's a bit less than a three to one ratio -- one that presumably would feed into a common lottery application pool in roughly the same proportion.
> 
> Rich Phillips


You keep belaboring a clearly bogus conclusion. Imagine a system where the private allotment was 1 private launch per year. You logic would claim the demand for private trips is 16 people vs. the 18,800 commercial participants. 

You would be better served to incorporate the fact that only 1,425 of the 6,600 trip participants in 2016 applied in the main lottery (29%), but even using these numbers you would still be making an awful lot of assumptions - especially about how many of the 18,000 commercial trip particpants would have actually applied for a lottery.


----------



## richp

Hi jbomb,

But the many unknowns (one of which you allude to) are another part of the problem of modelling this proposed change.

We don't know how many total launches will be authorized.

We don't know what maximum trip size will be.

We don't know what maximum trip lengths will be imposed.

We don't know how many user says would be apportioned to each sector.

We don't know if the allocation will be spread as it is now, or seasonally equalized. 

Each of the above -- and many other factors -- have to be considered in order to allow access without adversely impacting the Canyon or the social interactions that make the river experience down there so unique.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## jbomb

Hi Rich,

I'm curious as to whether you were cognizant of these unknowns before your quite authoritative presentation of your derived 18800 commercial to 6600 private demand ratio? It's an interesting reversal. 

Thanks,
jbomb


----------



## elkhaven

It seems to me that the way the system currently operates I have a greater chance of getting on a "peak" season grand trip as I do a "peak" MF trip... . I know the definitions of "peak" for either of those vary by person as well, but I know that I have had more opportunities to float the grand in early fall than I have to float the MF in early to mid July (the particular times I'd like to float either, given a choice). It's very likely I won't draw either, but I've been invited on both, with a frequency of 3 to 1 Grand v MF.

I applaud efforts to make the permit system lean more towards private boaters but I think that is a very slippery slope. I personally believe it's about as good as it's likely ever to be and I ask that you all try really hard not to fuck that up! Please set reasonable goals and make sure you don't make it harder!!!!!


----------



## Rick A

elkhaven said:


> It seems to me that the way the system currently operates I have a greater chance of getting on a "peak" season grand trip as I do a "peak" MF trip... . I know the definitions of "peak" for either of those vary by person as well, but I know that I have had more opportunities to float the grand in early fall than I have to float the MF in early to mid July (the particular times I'd like to float either, given a choice). It's very likely I won't draw either, but I've been invited on both, with a frequency of 3 to 1 Grand v MF.
> 
> I applaud efforts to make the permit system lean more towards private boaters but I think that is a very slippery slope. I personally believe it's about as good as it's likely ever to be and I ask that you all try really hard not to fuck that up! Please set reasonable goals and make sure you don't make it harder!!!!!


I agree 100%.


----------



## richp

Hi jbomb,

I sure did. I referenced this problem in earlier posts, without the numbers -- which are straight out of the Park's 2016 usage report. So I'm not assuming that ratio, it's what the 2016 river visitor load actually looked like. 

Of course, if a common pool required all categories of trip participants to win a lottery, then the commercial companies would be steering their potential passengers to "our" lottery in huge numbers. And that inescapably would reduce the chances of every private boater who entered the common pool lottery.

My short litany of unknowns was provided because the entry process can't be viewed in isolation. I wanted to illustrate just a few of the interlocking factors that the CRMP accounts for and balances. A change in the manner of trip assignments has to fit in with numerous other elements, all of which were laboriously worked out in the CRMP draft process.

I'll ask a simple question and sign off for tonight. 

In a common pool, all trip participants must win the lottery. OK, so how do you or anyone else in the private world reliably assemble a trip of even a few friends -- much less 15 others --when all of them have to be winners in the lottery for the same date? Because that's where common pool drives us.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## jbomb

Hi Rich, 

I didn't claim your usage numbers were incorrect. You are assuming the ratio of private to commercial river trip participants translates directly to lottery application ratio under a hypothetical unified system. Sorry to be blunt, but if you can't see the flaw in this logic I question how you can reasonably analyze anything in else relative to the topic at hand. Frankly I'm assuming it's just an argument tactic, since you choose to ignore the counterarguments and just change the topic. 

As to your question, obviously requiring every trip participant to win a permit would be ridiculous (another argument tactic?). Instead, every person who wins a permit gets to pick 15 of their buddies or 11 buddies and 4 guides or whatever and head off down the river. 

People have suggested that guides would advertise the hell out of the system and get a lot more people to enter the lottery. I think rather guides who invested in this would see their planned sales instead go to guides who spent their money advertising to the actual permit winners (and didn't have to pay for all the general lottery advertising). Also, a few years of trying to advertise lottery tickets with a 3% success rate would probably result in some negative yelp ads.


----------



## climbdenali

Hi jbomb,

First, I don't think that the existing Park usage numbers are perfect surrogates for a proposed common lottery applicant pool, but I do think that they are a starting place, based on actual numbers, for making some predictions about what the pool might look like. Perfect? No. But I'm not seeing other numbers that would be better predictors of pool demographics. Where's the flaw in the logic?

Second, if each user doesn't have to get a permit, and we're still looking at raffling off launches vs spots, don't you think we might end up with a bunch of "commercial" participants who don't fill their launch? Will we wind up with a bunch of 4 or 5 person trips? I guess I just don't see the average commercial passenger having 15 other friends who they can rely on to go on a Grand Canyon trip. Is the idea that we raise the bar or barriers to entry high enough that commercial types just don't want to deal with it? Just curious how you envision the mechanics of it really working. 

Third, your last point makes it sound like you think that the participants will be footing their own bill for the lottery entry fee. What makes you think that outfitters wouldn't eat a bunch of these fees to get clients to apply, and then work with them? "Book your 16 person launch with us, and we'll credit your group's lottery fees for 5 years." That would be something like an $80K trip getting $2000 bucks off (if all 16 applied for 5 years to get the launch). Thinking about this all, I just get the feeling that private boaters are the ones who will wind up getting screwed in this kind of system. If I know one thing about capitalism, it's that it will adapt and find a way. 

Cheers,
DC


----------



## jbomb

The flaw in the logic of using the current trip participant ratio as indicator for demand has already been presented at least two other times in this thread. I don't see much value in restating it here without any refutation of my earlier points. Granted, when trying to make a prediction we have to start somewhere, but I'm tired of seeing this particular number presented as a solid indicator of what would happen. 

My preferred starting point for predicting lottery demand falls back to the fact that I can book a summer 2020 trip today commercially, but I have about a 2 % chance of getting that trip if I spend $50 over the next two years. Now, I bump my odds up by applying with friends, but the affects of that are not great, relatively speaking.

Earlier I tried comparing the old 18 year private waitlist vs the 2 year commercial booking time and was corrected in that there about twice as many commercial launches now as during the waitlist years. Fine, that's still 9 to 2 private vs commercial. 

The issue of permit space utilization has already been discussed as well. I agree individuals do a worse job of 100% filling spots than companies, but don't see this as a barrier. 

Advertising will certainly happen - how great the effect is at increasing demand is unknown. By the way, your 80K / $2000 bucks off trip forgot to include the lottery. 12 people applying (4 guides wouldn't be applying) over 5 years for a primo date with 1% success rate would have something like a 37% chance of getting a permit during that period. So, your advertising plan ends up costing the company closer to 10% of their trip price. Unless you mean the company only pays the lottery fee if the client comes with them...

I hear what people are saying about how they've been getting on trips so they're happy with the current system. But with the private lottery pool growing at over 10% a year right now for the same amount of launches, I'd argue the system people have been happy with is already out the window. I also feel pretty strongly that under the current system private boaters do not have "a fair slice of the pie".


----------



## richp

Hi,

I'm not making arguments here -- I'm pointing out potential sticking points that any serious proposal for a common pool will have to deal with. I see here some smart, concerned folks hammering on a tough problem. So consider this as hopefully helpful sideline advice and commentary, from an old geezer who has rowed this river before.

And my posts actually are not a result of much original thinking on my part, nor is this the first time common pool has been hashed out. More than a decade ago -- as the CRMP was in the formative stage -- common pool was extensively discussed in internet and other venues. And IIRC, there were more than a few suggestions/comments to the Park documented in the appendices of the CRMP. 

So this is not new territory, nor is it an unexamined option.

Sure, my use of 2016 numbers is not a firm predictor of a final lottery commercial/private ratio. But it's a starting point. And even if it is off by a factor of two or three, it is folly to think we privates would not be competing against thousands of commercial applicants -- further reducing our chances of winning a trip. 

(Buck may have the capacity to model this -- plug in an additional 6,000 or 12,000 or 18,000 lottery entrants, adjust the number of lottery slots from 503 to 1,130 [1,229 combined launches in 2016], and see if our chances improve, decline, or stay about the same.) 

It's folly to think that the commercial outfitters will not adjust their business and marketing models to compensate for common pool. Do we want to take a chance and upset a stable private allocation for a huge unknown?

Another angle. A potential commercial passenger wins the common pool lottery, and only wants to take a spouse. No other river network or friends; just two folks who always have wanted to raft the Grand Canyon and got lucky. Does a full commercial trip go down the river with just two people? And if so, are we happy that we and our 15 friends have been in heavier competition (albeit in unknown proportion) for that trip.

(Sure, fewer people in the Canyon would have a lessened impact on the resource, and some folks think that's a trade-off that ought to be in the mix. But the effect is reduced, not greater access.)

Do a few variations on this scenario, and then think about the implications for: launch numbers and scheduling; practicality of commercial firms being willing to staff, equip, provision, and shuttle very small groups; user-day limits; and so forth. 

(Yes, I know that if the total launch allocation was spread year-round, things might look different. But that's a whole other, equally tough hill to climb.)

These are real problems that have to be considered, and for which workable answers have to be developed before any common pool proposal could be given more than a passing glance by anyone with the authority to make a change.

I don't wish in the least to seem disputatious; I'm trying to be helpful. Because if Buck and others are serious about eventual development of a common pool proposal, these and many other interrelated factors will have to be considered.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Rick A

What I don't understand is, you obviously have a guy who has been through the process already and people keep saying they disagree with the numbers he is using and the conclusion that he and many in the thread have come to. That private boaters will lose launches in a common pool, but not one person has offered any number that support the idea that private boaters will have any better chance of winning the lottery, let alone a significant increase in odds. Common sense tells me if you take a small group and make them compete with a far larger group, there is almost no chance at all that the smaller won't lose.

To me this whole arguement seems like splitting up a room, and giving the much smaller group half of a pizza and then complaining that the larger group got and extra pepperoni or two. Seems kind of silly.


----------



## jbomb

richp said:


> Hi,
> Sure, my use of 2016 numbers is not a firm predictor of a final lottery commercial/private ratio. But it's a starting point. And even if it is off by a factor of two or three, it is folly to think we privates would not be competing against thousands of commercial applicants -- further reducing our chances of winning a trip.
> 
> (Buck may have the capacity to model this -- plug in an additional 6,000 or 12,000 or 18,000 lottery entrants, adjust the number of lottery slots from 503 to 1,130 [1,229 combined launches in 2016], and see if our chances improve, decline, or stay about the same.)


Easy to model. If less than 7,700 or so individuals join the lottery due to unification, the odds for the current privates get better. The odds for summer get even better due to the current season allocation.



richp said:


> It's folly to think that the commercial outfitters will not adjust their business and marketing models to compensate for common pool. Do we want to take a chance and upset a stable private allocation for a huge unknown?
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> Sure they'll adjust. Can the compensate? IE take more than their current share? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> richp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another angle. A potential commercial passenger wins the common pool lottery, and only wants to take a spouse. No other river network or friends; just two folks who always have wanted to raft the Grand Canyon and got lucky. Does a full commercial trip go down the river with just two people? And if so, are we happy that we and our 15 friends have been in heavier competition (albeit in unknown proportion) for that trip.
> 
> 
> 
> This is no different competition-wise than if right now a private won a permit and took along 15 friends who didn't enter the lottery. Think this ever happens? Based on the 29% of 2016 main applicants who went on a trip that year, it seems fair to estimate that the average commercial trip would have to run with less than 4.6 passengers to increase competition in this manner.
Click to expand...


----------



## richp

Hi ,

Ah, the frustrating constraints involved in trying to communicate over the internet about complicated or nuanced subjects. I clearly am not up to the task.

Buck, you and the others who seek to install a new system have read my concerns, and heard about some of the potential sticking points I think you'll encounter. Take them for what they are worth.

Rich Phillips


----------



## B4otter

Been trying to stay outta' this... as someone who has been at it even longer than Rich (I was a plaintiff in one of the 1977 lawsuits that challenged the first CRMP) - haven't seen any argument in this thread so far that would improve private access. Yes, the idea of EVERYONE applying has been raised before.
Likelihood of success? Outfitters cleaned our clock back in the days of snail mail, when they sent mailers out to their customer base to maintain their allocations AND keep motors (I have a "Pro-choice: motor trips in the GC" sticker around somewhere).
The wilderness designation for the river corridor is dead and down. Those who don't believe in corporate hegemony would do well to think about 22 original outfitters back in 1972 when use was "frozen" (and then by the NPS' own numbers it was 92/8% commercial/private), now down to 14...
We - private boaters - have achieved unprecedented access, even if a lot of it is in the season when no outfitter can sell trips. Don't underestimate the effort and energy that went into this arrangement. 
Can you do better? I hope so, but the outfitter's lobby is 10X ours. 
Take a look at the third sentence of the Organic Act that established the National Park Service. And yes, that argument has been tried before...
The problem isn't access - it's there's too many folks who want it!


----------



## buckmanriver

B4otter and richp,

I think I understand better what it is that you're trying to say based on your experiences lobbying for the 2006 change.

Which is that common pool will = less access for private boaters. 

Granted there is no data to support this idea because commercial users have never entered a lottery. 

Yet this deep fear seems to persist that if we try and change the current system access for private boaters will decrease due to the overwhelming power of the commercial group.

What would it take to overcome this fear of change? 


**********************
How about this adaptive management scenario:

What if the park did a two-year trial where each group kept there 50% user day allotment. However, each group was still required to enter a lottery for permits. 

Then require the NPS to make all the new lottery data for commercial use public on their website. 

Then make the third year a negotiating period where both groups advocate for whether or not they would like to continue with a common pool based on the new data. During this interim time, the 2006 CMRP could be used. 

**************************



Thanks for posting. 

~ B


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

You are clearly an energetic and interesting thinker.

I have my own thoughts about your idea, but for the purposes of this thread, that's as good a plan as any.

So, what would your next step(s) be toward getting the Park to give it serious consideration? 

Rich Phillips


----------



## B4otter

Hey, Buckman:
Spent an hour crafting response to give you some history on the whole shit'aree, technopeasant skills wiped it when I tried to post...
Bottom line: outfitters carried 5-6 times (or more) as many folks down the ditch last year as participated in private trips. AND they're better organized with more money.
You really want to fight this again (been litigated previously)?
Pick your battles. Choose carefully. Love the passion, completely agree on the justice of the cause - BUT been burned and have learned. (I think...!)
Outfitters beat wilderness designation for the river corridor (w/motor phase-out) back in 1977. Their lobby is stronger and better organized today.
"Good as it gets" is difficult to accept when you get nada... I know. Keep trying, hone your skills, widen horizons/networks. Send me a PM and I'll try to re-constitute history. 
Best to you and yours!


----------



## Andy H.

Otter,

Bummed to hear that you lost a writeup you spent that much time on. We'd love to read it, and if you decide to rewrite it, please do so, and before posting, select the full text, copy, and paste it into an email or someplace you'll have a record of it. Better yet, compose it in a word processor, and when you paste it into the text box on MB, do the Ctrl-A to select the full text and then click on the little box up in the upper left corner with the "AA" symbol. That'll clear whacky formatting characters from your post that word processors insert and that get carried over.

Looking forward to a good read,

-Andy


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

I'll do that with the "notebook" application that comes with Windows. Its about as basic as you get with word processing. 

It might mean updating the Vbulletin software, but I know some of the forums I go to have an auto-save feature where it keeps saving things as you type. Might be a cool addition.


----------



## B4otter

Why are some of us old farts concerned about upsetting the applecart/challenging the current allocation of use between the private and commercial sectors? Speaking only for myself, it’s not a “fear of change” – it’s an experience-based “apprehension” that the hard-won gains of the last four decades could be erased by reviving the “us versus them” argument (private v. commercial) that dominated most of the debate in the 70’s and 80’s, when river management policy and user-day allocations were especially contentious.

A little history: back in 1973, the NPS “froze” allocation of user days based on 1972 levels. I’m running off the top of my head here, but that “use” was around 98,000 days (one person in the ditch for one day = one user day, there was a lot of argument about whether this captured the boatfolk who ran commercial trips at the time but it undoubtedly thoroughly documented privates). The split was 92/8 commercial/private, meaning 92% of user days were consumed by customers of the existing 21 outfitters, 8% used by private trips.
For the next three years the Park conducted dozens of public and not-so public meetings attended by literally thousands of shareholders. And solicited written comments – back in the day when that cost you a first class stamp, not an email, and you had to use pen and ink to express your sentiments. I know of meetings in Flagstaff and Salt Lake City, but there were more. The end result was the first “draft” CRMP, announced in May (?) 1976. (I’m sure it was ’76, not sure if it was May). The plan enshrined the split of 92/8 and required a bunch of other changes (carry out your human waste – the advent of the groover - among others) AND embraced wilderness designation for the river corridor. Motors were to be phased out over a four year period, and capital “W” protections for the corridor phased in.

The Sierra Club and others – virtually all private river runners – passionately supported “Wilderness” designation and the elimination of motors. The vast majority of the outfitters (not all – Martin Litton/ Grand Canyon Dories and Ron Smith/WeeWo were notable exceptions, but there were others to a greater or lesser extent) claimed eliminating motors would (1) put them out of business, and (2) eliminate the river experience for the vast majority of the public. [These arguments remain true to this day, IMHO.]

It’s difficult to describe how “invested” (passionate) both camps were. (I still have a “Pro-choice, Support Motors in the Grand Canyon” bumper sticker somewhere). I was there, I attended the meetings and I wrote letters. Yes, it was a different time – no internet, most importantly. But the lobbying that took place – on both sides - was intense. In the end, the “Sahara Clubbers” and the enviro/tree-hugging supporters prevailed – or so we thought. 
Instead Orrin Hatch – my senator to this day – attached a rider to the NPS appropriation (funding bill) for 1977 that de-funded the agency if they proceeded with banning motors in the Grand. YOU CAN LOOK IT UP (and anything else I claim). Wilderness designation for the river corridor died a slow and painful death: hard to mobilize support given that 92% of folks went down the Canyon with outfitters, the vast majority on motor trips. Back then, it was the “Rolodex factor” that made the difference: outfitters had a customer base about 20 to 30 times larger than any association of private boaters could galvanize. 

The ‘70’s were tumultuous everywhere (Viet Nam, Watergate, Eastern Europe…) and particularly for the Grand. It wasn’t just wilderness designation for the river corridor that was at stake but expansion of the Park boundaries (and the Havasupai/Hualapai “reservations” – which have repercussions today with claims to “mid-river” versus “high water” as benchmarks). The Park was actively engaged – to their credit – in developing a process to address concerns. Visitation to the rims had doubled, and that was a major focus. The river corridor was the center of controversy, and the folks who showed up or wrote letters or called and voiced their opinions were passionate – and had an impact.

But the outfitters had more. I’m trying to avoid saying “MONEY” but no one would dispute the clout of a lobby that could legitimately claim their livelihoods were at stake AND that they were serving the public by providing access that 90% (or 80%, or 70 % - who knows, but there’s sure a lot more people who want to take a trip than can run one on their own, or with friends/family/someone they know). That was the bullet-proof argument back then favoring outfitters; today it’s similar AND that most of them take their vacations a week at a time (i.e., a 6/7/10 day trip is within reach, but longer trips are not feasible). 

So motors/wilderness designation for the river is dead. It’s an issue inextricably linked to changing allocation. And the outfitters are more powerful BY FAR than they were 30 years ago. There are three players in any discussion today of use of the river: the Park, the outfitters, and privates. That’s a great stride forward compared to the ‘70’s, but don’t kid yourself: private users are the least influential, in no small part because we’re the hardest to monitor and “control.” Look at the check-out procedures.

When the 1976 CRMP was announced several groups filed lawsuits, among them the Wilderness Public Rights Fund - a short-lived outfit organized by Joe Munro and mostly Northern California boaters - and three of us in Arizona who had been involved in the process for decades. We argued that a credit card shouldn’t grant access (economic discrimination); we argued that all who wanted to go should have an equal chance (nice concept, no basis in law); and we argued that the third section of the Organic Act that established the Park Service should apply:
“SEC. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior… may also grant privileges, leases, and permits for the use of land for the accommodation of visitors in the various parks, monuments, or other reservations herein provided for, but for periods not exceeding thirty years; and no natural curiosities, wonders, or objects of interest shall be leased, rented, or granted to anyone on such terms as to interfere with free access to them by the public…”

And the courts held, essentially, that “the public” was not solely composed of those of us who had the boats and the skills and the knowledge to run our own trips. We lost. Every lawsuit that has ever been filed against a CRMP has lost. (Yes, GCPBA & others prevailed in efforts to re-start the CRMP process when it stalled in the 90’s – not the same as challenging CRMP provisions). “Equal access” is not and will never be a consideration.

Over time, the lawsuits and the passionate advocacy of lots of folks moved the allocation ratio from 92/8 to 70/30 (when the first CRMP was finalized, in ’79 or ’80) and then “50/50” in 2006. Yeah, a lot of our “use” is in the winter and shoulder seasons when outfitters can’t sell trips. And today the use is up to somewhere around 270,000 user days (the Park proving it behaves like any other bureaucracy by accommodating demand through adjusting capacity… ). But the essential point is that private users have achieved “parity” with the outfitters. 

Today there are 14 outfitters, and they are more influential, more organized, and more powerful than ever. And every year they take 5 or 6 times more folks down the river than go on private trips… they have a lobby (gcroa.org), they have money, and they have the ear of NPS – especially under the current Administration. What do private river runners have to gain by challenging a stacked deck?


----------



## richp

B4,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to reconstruct things for folks who aren't familiar with the history of this issue.

Still waiting for our buddy to outline the concrete steps he thinks will change the status quo without risking those hard fought gains.

Rich Phillips


----------



## dsrtrat

B4 otter,

Thanks for the post. I might add that the outfitters were given extra user days to compensate for the phase out of motors, user days that they kept when Hatch forced through the amendment to the funding bill and they kept the motors. This is why they have to current numbers of 115,000 user days up from when they were frozen in 1973. Lot's of machinations back them.

My opinion is that the lottery system for the most part is working as well as can be expected, at least it is an improvement over the wait list. 

If anyone wants to get deep into the details I suggest they read Hijacking a River, by Jeffery Ingram. It will give insight into the clout the outfitters had back then and as you said they are much more organized today. Jeff continues to address Grand Canyon issues today though a blog, just Google his name to get to the page.


----------



## B4otter

Jeff was there all the way through, whether representing the Sahara Club or not.
Hijacking a River is a hard read, writing just not his strong point. But it chronicles EVERYTHING.

I was lucky enough to engage with Fred and Maggie Eiseman when they still had the passion and energy to TRY and MAKE A DIFFERENCE on Grand Canyon issues, and that inspired me - to this day.

They were running private trips down there in the late 60's/early 70's that went on for 30-45 days. Regardless of water. Hard core.
And I continue to respect - even share - the compulsion to make change. 

The Grand changed me forever the first time I ran it - and continues to do so every time since. I'm grateful for the opportunity, and don't want to see anyone wade into this issue uninformed. Tread carefully. At risk is more than many of once imagined...


----------



## Tom Martin

Hi Michael, great to see you posting! Hope all is well. 

The history is one that reflects lack of agency understanding of how to manage river runners in the 1940s and 1950s, followed by political strong arm tactics from the concessionaires in the 1970s. 

Today, the do-it-yourself river runners have been split in two, a divide and conquer strategy that the river concessions trade association applied in the early 2000's and it worked quite well for them. 

The agency has been pressed by DIY river runners about running an unbalanced river access plan since the 1950's. The NPS only answered when forced to do so by litigation. That answer has been to add more DIY use in the off season, never to reallocate by decreasing commercial use.

The issues of inequitable river access and the lack of wilderness management are still here today. Hence people like Buck and others seek solutions. I am thrilled that they are asking the hard questions. 

As Buck and others point out, there are other options to help this totally lopsided river access system begin to right itself. It will take a new Colorado River Management Plan and real willingness to work for change. The time to start that planning process is now, and not wait till 2027. 

Cordially yours, Tom


----------



## buckmanriver

B4otter said:


> Jeff was there all the way through, whether representing the Sahara Club or not.
> Hijacking a River is a hard read, writing just not his strong point. But it chronicles EVERYTHING.
> 
> I'm grateful for the opportunity, and don't want to see anyone wade into this issue uninformed. Tread carefully. At risk is more than many of once imagined...



B4otter, 

I plan to read Hijacking a river.

I see this discussion driving back into the area of:

1. The system is good enough for private boaters
2. Any attempts to change this system will result in loss of user days for private boaters
3. The commercial group is too powerful to negotiate with 

My question about the river allocation history then is: 

Are there any instances in the past where negotiations for a change in allocation hurt private boaters? 


If so what specifically could be done to avoid such dangers when pursuing future change? 

Thanks for posting.

~ Buck


----------



## Andy H.

Tom Martin said:


> Today, the do-it-yourself river runners have been split in two, a divide and conquer strategy that the river concessions trade association applied in the early 2000's and it worked quite well for them.


Tom,

Could you please elaborate - What/who are the two groups of DIY river runners that you're speaking of?

Thanks,

-AH


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

I can't speak for Tom, but my guess is GCPBA vs. RRFW or more specifically those who are ok with motorized travel and those who are not. RRFW is a wilderness designation focused, but also has a fairly anti-concessions feel to it. GCPBA is said, mostly by their critics, to have a much more accepting view of the concessions and motorized travel down there.

I honestly see both sides and I think that is probably true for most private river runners. Lots of hard stances and unyielding opinions between the two groups.

The only real thing that matters is that if we, as private boaters, want anything to change, its gonna take equaling the level of effort and unification that the concessions companies put into it. Not sure its possible, definitely not how it is at the moment.


----------



## buckmanriver

Richp,

I hear you on your point about a full-fledged proposal. You have made it in six different times in this single thread (*****See Below*****). 

What would it take for you to consider joining the effort to put together a proposal for change so that the barriers to access are equal for all river runners?


Thanks, 
~B


*******************************
Your first post in your first sentence on 11-29-2017 indicated this. You started with, “Nice presentation, but a bit thin on implementation detail. Indeed, for me, implementation was the real problem, not the legal stuff. “ 

****************
Then you make the same “full-fledged Proposal” point again on 11-29-2017. Post #12. “My point is that for the 15+ years I've been involved in this stuff, I've never seen a full-fledged proposal for a unified track system that covers all the resource protection, launch logistic, and other issues that the CRMP dealt with.”
*************
Then you make the same point again on 11-30-2017 post number #33.

“And today, if I saw a proposal for a practical way to transition from the current system to a new one, I would sure look hard at it.”
***************

Then you make the same point again 3 weeks agio post #58,
“how to put together a practical proposal”.....”I would consider rejoining it if someone could come up with a complete, practical scheme that could be inserted into the current CRMP architecture under its "adaptive management" “

*********************

Then you make point again in post #77. In two places I will quote one, “.....if Buck and others are serious about eventual development of a common pool proposal, these and many other interrelated factors will have to be considered.”

**********************

Then you make the same point again in post #88,
“Still waiting for our buddy to outline the concrete steps he thinks will change the status quo without risking those hard fought gains.”

***********************


----------



## buckmanriver

Electric-Mayhem said:


> The only real thing that matters is that if we, as private boaters, want anything to change, its gonna take equaling the level of effort and unification that the concessions companies put into it.


Electric-M

This is a good point. Remeber that the data indicates 7,500 people will lose the main lottery for 2019 grand canyon launch dates. 

I wonder how we could effectively mobilize this disenfranchised group in a way that helps us meet the end goal of equal access for both the commercial and private sectors? 

Thanks for posting. 

~ B


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

buckmanriver said:


> Electric-M
> 
> This is a good point. Remeber that the data indicates 7,500 people will lose the main lottery for 2019 grand canyon launch dates.
> 
> I wonder how we could effectively mobilize this disenfranchised group in a way that helps us meet the end goal of equal access for both the commercial and private sectors?
> 
> Thanks for posting.
> 
> ~ B


Honestly...I see a fair bit of animosity between the two organizations I listed at the beginning. I think its mostly the people at the top and it is a long standing disagreement about what their goals are and how to go about it. When I see them interact (mostly on Facebook sites), it usually turns into the same ole bickering fight over and over again with no resolution.

A good start would be for everyone to loose their ego driven attitude towards the other group and just accept that while most private river runners will have differing ideas about how to go about it, that is only a small fraction and in reality they probably have more in common then what they disagree on.

Perhaps a start is a mediation between private boater groups, hopefully ending in an agreement to provide a unified voice for that represents Private boaters as a whole.

I'll be honest though...at least for GCBPA...they do seem to have certain parts of that organization that are better bedfellows with the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association then River Runners for Wilderness or other wilderness advocates... so there are no easy answers.

I'm relatively new to this whole thing in the last few years and only have a basic grasp of how everything works and is interlinked. I'd love to find a person who can moderate between everyone, but I just don't think that person is me. I lack the personal knowledge, speaking and moderation skills, and such to really feel like I would make a difference.


----------



## buckmanriver

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Honestly...I see a fair bit of animosity between the two organizations I listed at the beginning.


I agree with this point as well. 

Sure GCBA and RRFW may forever disagree on continuous issues such as motors in the canyon.

Perhaps some sort of reconciliation is possible when it comes to basic issues such as equal access between grand canyon river runners. 

Cheers' B


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

As I said in my first post in this thread, I have been largely retired from the GC fray for a while. 

I'm an old guy who has been only remotely involved in GC politics in recent years -- for a variety of good reasons. So I'm not inclined to do anything more in an organized fashion on this. 

My posts here are not intended to suggest a particular course of action, but rather to inform. And yes, my emphasis for those of you with fresh energy has been on the need for a practical approach that incorporates known and historically relevant realities.

However, I'd be glad to interact with you individually a bit, if you think that would help you shape a course of action. If that sounds useful, PM me with an email address and we can start that dialog. 

FWIW.

Rich


----------



## jbomb

Electric-Mayhem said:


> H
> I'll be honest though...at least for GCBPA...they do seem to have certain parts of that organization that are better bedfellows with the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association then River Runners for Wilderness or other wilderness advocates... so there are no easy answers.


No surprise there... our resident former GCBPA officer richp has done nothing but argue a pro outfitter position throughout this thread.


----------



## B4otter

Buck, and all:
To answer the specific question directed to me, yes, I’ve seen arguments advocated by private river runners result in hardening outfitter opposition and “eye rolls” by NPS representatives. (Maybe made one or two myself…) No, that’s never meant a decrease in the allocation to “privates” – mainly because we had so little to begin with…

The phrase “… equal access between grand canyon river runners…” is appealing but disingenuous. The vast majority of people you see on motor rigs are not “river runners” but just folks taking a vacation and enjoying the opportunity to view the canyon from a perspective unavailable to 95% of the rest of the public. Back when I guided (1977-’82) I used to ask everyone who stepped on my boat (1) if they had ever been on a river trip before, and (2) whether they had ever camped overnight. My sample size was small, probably around 1000 altogether, but the answers were (1) 80-90% “no” and (2) yes – around 60%. Almost anyone who had ever been down a river came from the East, and paddled a “daily.” 

The argument that sank the lawsuits was that outfitters provide access to “the public” who would otherwise be unable to go on a river trip. Never mind that “public” is almost entirely composed of folks who are in the upper 5% of income/wealth, have the means to take lengthy vacations, and are used to getting what they want, when they want. They are the outfitters’ livelihood.
Notice any similarities today? GCROA and every outfitters’ website promotes the “unique”GC experience and offers varying degrees of comfort to a clientele that is mostly uninterested in “participatory.” (The definition for private river trips.) A couple of weeks ago “tax reform” (aka “wealth redistribution”) became the law of our land, which included elimination of the inheritance tax. That tax affected only single estates up to $5M and marital (joint) estates to $10.8M. How do you think most outfitters’ permits are passed along?

I’m trying not to get into a socio-political discussion. But I can attest – worked for a few, back in the day, and have met many – that ALL outfitters will resist a lottery or waiting list or ANY “solution” that imposes any obstacle to their customers booking a trip. And there are a lot more of “them” than “us.”

You want to argue discrimination is unfair? Look at the check-out procedures on the ramp @ Lee’s. Privates enjoy an hour- long “orientation” regardless of how many “participants” have been down before, commercial trips conduct their own… On the other hand, do you want to put a thermometer in your cooler or carry a sat phone/radio telemetry (COR’s)?

Been at this a LONG time (since 1974). Think I’ve learned a little bit along the way, and my only advice remains to tread carefully. The framework now is the CRMP process – if you want to change things, there’s your forum. The three players remain (1) outfitters, 2) NPS, & (3) private river runners. 
What hasn’t changed is that NPS – like any other bureaucracy – would rather deal with a handful of commercial outfitters than a plethora of private trips. They have a black eye from the “old” river unit ops and are struggling within budget constraints to run a river unit & deal with “me, too” fallout. You want to challenge allocation on legal grounds? Send me a PM.


----------



## Andy H.

jbomb said:


> No surprise there... our resident former GCBPA officer richp has done nothing but argue a pro outfitter position throughout this thread.


Generally this has been a really good, civil discussion but I'll call bullshit on this post.

After seeing this statement I took waaay too much time out of my Sunday morning reviewing this thread to see what you're talking about. After re-reading his posts, I see nothing of the sort, but only his reflections on what the process of changing the system would require and what would be needed to viably present a proposal to the NPS, much less what's needed to get it through the rule change process. Along with pointing out that the concept was hashed out years ago between the various stakeholders. I also remember seeing it hashed out in the early 2000s on the email list and recall that after lots of discussion by sharp, passionate people it didn't seem any more a viable option then as it does now, and for many of the same reasons.

Like richp states in his first post, 


> Long ago in a faraway universe, before I got involved in GC river issues (from which I am largely retired), I was a "One Big List" guy. Then, as the draft CRMP was revealed, I briefly was a "One Big Lottery" guy.
> 
> But I could never find -- on my own or in anyone else's thinking -- a workable answer to one key question...If everyone going on a trip has to be a lottery winner, how can I, as a private trip organizer, be assured that the other 15 people I want on my trip will be able to win the same lottery as well?


Rich pointed out lots more and you can go back and see for yourself. But he's not arguing a pro outfitter position throughout this thread

I've also favored a variety of GC schemes over my 15+ year interest in the topic (oars only, one big lottery, "I cut, you choose" approach to allocation, etc.), but have come to accept the current system, imperfect as it is, as a great improvement over the previous system. And one under which we've got a pretty good chance of getting on the river under satisfactory terms if we want. Yeah, it could be better but from what I've seen, if you're an experienced private boater with a couple of close friends motivated to go, you and your friends can get on a private trip within a year or two of setting that goal even if you don't win your own permit. 

We've got to share the sandbox with others and reopening the system to change will take a lot of effort and may not go our way in the end. We want allocation, the outfitters want allocation, and the NPS wants something they can manage easily. And if we can't show that a new plan will be win-win-win between private boaters, the outfitters, and the NPS, there'll be stiff opposition to it.

richp pointed out what's needed to change the system, and pitfalls that could be encountered. This doesn't make him any more "pro-outfitter" than me telling you that your favorite route through the mountains is blocked by a rockfall makes me "anti-traveler / pro-rockfall." It's just giving you news that you don't like and don't want to hear.

-AH


----------



## buckmanriver

B4otter,

I just want to say thank you for your last post. I appreciate your perspective on the broader implications of current tax reform as well as your experience serving the commercial customer as a guide. 

Perhaps I am incorrect about ~ 8,000 - 2019 main lottery permit applications as being enough power to precipitate an "equal access" change.

However, private application demand has seen substantial increases year over year since the implementation of the 2006 CRMP. 

If the trend continues in 20 years there will be almost 16,000 applications for the 472 launches per year. I see that is passed a tipping point. 

Link to data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HWf9xXsjXOX4VIMkUJ8Ab70IRmK2sR35ihYkn75272Y/edit?zx=45q9xbmvc199#gid=126936643


Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## jbomb

Andy H. said:


> Generally this has been a really good, civil discussion but I'll call bullshit on this post.
> 
> After seeing this statement I took waaay too much time out of my Sunday morning reviewing this thread to see what you're talking about. After re-reading his posts, I see nothing of the sort, but only his reflections on what the process of changing the system would require and what would be needed to viably present a proposal to the NPS, much less what's needed to get it through the rule change process. Along with pointing out that the concept was hashed out years ago between the various stakeholders. I also remember seeing it hashed out in the early 2000s on the email list and recall that after lots of discussion by sharp, passionate people it didn't seem any more a viable option then as it does now, and for many of the same reasons.
> 
> Like richp states in his first post,
> 
> 
> Rich pointed out lots more and you can go back and see for yourself. But he's not arguing a pro outfitter position throughout this thread
> 
> I've also favored a variety of GC schemes over my 15+ year interest in the topic (oars only, one big lottery, "I cut, you choose" approach to allocation, etc.), but have come to accept the current system, imperfect as it is, as a great improvement over the previous system. And one under which we've got a pretty good chance of getting on the river under satisfactory terms if we want. Yeah, it could be better but from what I've seen, if you're an experienced private boater with a couple of close friends motivated to go, you and your friends can get on a private trip within a year or two of setting that goal even if you don't win your own permit.
> 
> We've got to share the sandbox with others and reopening the system to change will take a lot of effort and may not go our way in the end. We want allocation, the outfitters want allocation, and the NPS wants something they can manage easily. And if we can't show that a new plan will be win-win-win between private boaters, the outfitters, and the NPS, there'll be stiff opposition to it.
> 
> richp pointed out what's needed to change the system, and pitfalls that could be encountered. This doesn't make him any more "pro-outfitter" than me telling you that your favorite route through the mountains is blocked by a rockfall makes me "anti-traveler / pro-rockfall." It's just giving you news that you don't like and don't want to hear.
> 
> -AH


I guess I'm really basing my accusation about richp being on the outfitters side in how (almost) every post he has made has been an attempt to shutdown the discussion without really contributing anything else. See buckman's summary a few posts back. I agree that not every private boater wants a unified lottery and am much more interested in arguing why or why not than hearing for the 10th time that someone has been 'doing this for a long time and it's hard.'


----------



## jbomb

Rick A said:


> To me this whole arguement seems like splitting up a room, and giving the much smaller group half of a pizza and then complaining that the larger group got and extra pepperoni or two. Seems kind of silly.


100 people are in a room and all want one of 12 slices of the pie. The government splits the pizza in half and gives those 6 pieces to one person to auction off to the rest by the highest bidder. He'll put it on a plate. The other 6 slices are allocated by lottery. Lottery winners have to supply their own plate. 

This is my point of view of course, but explains why I have been rejecting any statements about fairness or parity or whatever, and also why I don't think the outfitters deserve to be one of the parties at the table when the new plan is formed. 

Why not allocate the whole pizza by lottery and allow people to rent a plate from that one guy or others like him?

People have said "Great, so what are you going to do about it?" This thread, and others like it, are the first step in enacting change. Getting people on board, trying to convince people things need to happen. There are many many lurkers who are not participating in this conversation whose opinions are being influenced here. Argue against an idea if you want, but don't say "it's not going to happen because it is hard to make it happen." 

This is a very different world politically than 20 years ago. Public opinion changes. Gay marriage is legal, marijuana is legal. Orrin is retiring. Unfortunately currently the pendulum is swinging back the other way but that's how it goes. The NPS will go along with the public (or their elected reps) if they want it enough. 

Thanks buckman and tom and others who continue to advocate for change and improvement to the system.


----------



## Charlie17

This is wally rist, a GCPBA board member since 2006. I have been on The River since 1968 (or 1958 if you count Glen Canyon) I got in on the tail end of the 2006 CRMP . I too was a one big pool guy when I got involved. However, the more I learned and the more I experienced I could not see a way it could work. It was gradual but I became a very avid supporter of the 2006 CRMP. I still am. I have read all the discussions here and can honestly say I have not seen anything I have not seen before. It was thoroughly hashed out in several years and at a cost of some 2 to 3 million dollars. Its all there to read. Yes things have changed over the years and what was pertinent in 2004 may not be now. HOWEVER, I can personally attest that the NPS staff has consistently examined the 2006 CRMP. GCPBA has been a big part of those discussions....every year at our Annual meeting and often other smaller meeting and numerous phone calls each and every year.(other groups too have provided input as well as numerous individuals) NO major changes have been made but numerous small ones have. Major changes would require another full blown ( and prohibitively expensive) CRMP process. .......................I echo a lot of what rich phillips has posted here and do not disagree with any of it. I would suggest that the wise man would examine whats right with his comments rather than argue with them.
A new CRMP would be even more complicated today than 15 years ago. I think we all would agree that demand has increased. Years ago we all concluded that there was not good way to measure demand. I still am convinced that is true now......If one is truly interested in trying to change or alter....I suggest all of Rich P ideas, but will go one further and seemingly simpler. DEFINE Equal Access. A new CRMP process cant start until there is at least a strong consensus definition here. ............................My personal opinion is that the 2006 CRMP has room for improvement but I do not know where it is because it is brilliant piece of work. 




B4otter said:


> Buck, and all:
> To answer the specific question directed to me, yes, I’ve seen arguments advocated by private river runners result in hardening outfitter opposition and “eye rolls” by NPS representatives. (Maybe made one or two myself…) No, that’s never meant a decrease in the allocation to “privates” – mainly because we had so little to begin with…
> 
> The phrase “… equal access between grand canyon river runners…” is appealing but disingenuous. The vast majority of people you see on motor rigs are not “river runners” but just folks taking a vacation and enjoying the opportunity to view the canyon from a perspective unavailable to 95% of the rest of the public. Back when I guided (1977-’82) I used to ask everyone who stepped on my boat (1) if they had ever been on a river trip before, and (2) whether they had ever camped overnight. My sample size was small, probably around 1000 altogether, but the answers were (1) 80-90% “no” and (2) yes – around 60%. Almost anyone who had ever been down a river came from the East, and paddled a “daily.”
> 
> The argument that sank the lawsuits was that outfitters provide access to “the public” who would otherwise be unable to go on a river trip. Never mind that “public” is almost entirely composed of folks who are in the upper 5% of income/wealth, have the means to take lengthy vacations, and are used to getting what they want, when they want. They are the outfitters’ livelihood.
> Notice any similarities today? GCROA and every outfitters’ website promotes the “unique”GC experience and offers varying degrees of comfort to a clientele that is mostly uninterested in “participatory.” (The definition for private river trips.) A couple of weeks ago “tax reform” (aka “wealth redistribution”) became the law of our land, which included elimination of the inheritance tax. That tax affected only single estates up to $5M and marital (joint) estates to $10.8M. How do you think most outfitters’ permits are passed along?
> 
> I’m trying not to get into a socio-political discussion. But I can attest – worked for a few, back in the day, and have met many – that ALL outfitters will resist a lottery or waiting list or ANY “solution” that imposes any obstacle to their customers booking a trip. And there are a lot more of “them” than “us.”
> 
> You want to argue discrimination is unfair? Look at the check-out procedures on the ramp @ Lee’s. Privates enjoy an hour- long “orientation” regardless of how many “participants” have been down before, commercial trips conduct their own… On the other hand, do you want to put a thermometer in your cooler or carry a sat phone/radio telemetry (COR’s)?
> 
> Been at this a LONG time (since 1974). Think I’ve learned a little bit along the way, and my only advice remains to tread carefully. The framework now is the CRMP process – if you want to change things, there’s your forum. The three players remain (1) outfitters, 2) NPS, & (3) private river runners.
> What hasn’t changed is that NPS – like any other bureaucracy – would rather deal with a handful of commercial outfitters than a plethora of private trips. They have a black eye from the “old” river unit ops and are struggling within budget constraints to run a river unit & deal with “me, too” fallout. You want to challenge allocation on legal grounds? Send me a PM.


----------



## Rick A

jbomb, I hear you. I'm sitting in garage tinkering with my setup and getting my gear packed to launch a week from tomorrow. 

I've had this discussion with Tom in a couple of Facebook groups (It was less civil than this discussion has been) and even though we may disagree, I can respect the fact that he is fighting for a cause he believes in. 

What I find most important is that private boaters get access to the river, to me it doesn't matter if you go on someone else's permit or that i get to go in January. What matters to me is that I get to go, that I get to with a group where more than half of the people have been at least once before. As Tom has stated before, to him "It is all about the permit" and I just can't get behind gambling guaranteed launches for any of the ideas mentioned in this thread. There are just too many people who want access, and you will have a hard time rallying enough people from the small group of private boaters interested in the matter together, to make real/positive change by splitting them into multiple "camps". If we can't find solid ground between private boaters, then we have no chance of finding it with any of the other parties involved. I also don't view outfitters as evil resource stealing entities. I view them as a way to allow folks who could never view such an amazing place without those services. It doesn't even hurt my feelings that most of their customers are wealthy. 

All I know is, if we were still dealing with a waitlist I wouldn't be launching next week. So for me, this system is far superior to the last one and less risky than anything I've seen proposed here.


----------



## john vrymoed

As a current GCPBA Board member, I want to thank RichP, a past Board member, for his responses in this thread. A valiant effort to inform now having been characterized as shilling for the commercials. As they say: “no good deed goes unpunished” 

This thread started out by asking if a common pool was viable and if the current system is ethical. Well, it is not viable and ethics have nothing to do with it - kinda like asking if the color of the current system is correct.

The common pool idea has been around for decades. I advocated for it in my letters to Congress starting in the mid 70’s, despite the fact that I could never figure out how to make it work. Heck, I was frustrated by the waitlist like so many others. All common pool ideas, as the one in this thread, are devoid of any serious analysis as evidenced by no mention of how the PAOT and TAOT criteria or clearing the old waitlist, Hualapai river trips, Whitmore exchanges, etc. are considered.

Folks like Buck, who started this thread, as one of his over 500 posts, will cherry pick the lottery stats to suit their own bias. Others in this thread have referred to the stats; I’ll briefly recap the pertinent NPS’ stats for 2016.

* 6635 individuals went on a private trip.
* 497 private launches (98.6% utilization of the CRMP allotment)
* There were 4911 applicants in the Main Lottery, 1425 of whom went on a trip that year or 29%.
* There were 203 cancellations (40% of CRMP allotment)
* There were 12 follow up lotteries to make the 203 cancellations available.
* 5210 who did not apply in the Main lottery went on a trip.

Given the foregoing, you could make the argument that your chances of doing a trip are best by not entering and/or losing in the lottery. Also, there were 1724 more people taking part in a trip than applied in the Main lottery. Buck’s flaw in interpreting the stats is that #apps = demand. It does not. A 40% cancel rate counters that supposition. Yeah, the #of apps has and will increase with time, it is more reflective of people using the system to their advantage by pooling resources/networking. It does not reflect demand. 

My take away on the stats, comments by others on this thread + my own personal experience is that those who really want go on a trip do so. How one fares in the lottery is not a governing factor. One’s availability and networking is. Mentioned previously is the demographic whereby the number of applicants are weighted by those who are likely to be retired and those with minimal job/family obligations. 

I’ll apply Buck’s “loser” label to my own experience: Prior to retirement, I averaged a trip every 5 - 6 years - busy with job and raising a family. Now being retired, I have been a “loser” in the Main lottery 9 years in a row and have done a trip each one of those years. For the current year, we had 10 people apply for 2 dates in one of the shoulder seasons and got both of them. So, there were 8 losers and 2 winners, a 80% failure rate. The same group picked up a cancellation in 2017. On that trip, we had 9 losers and 1 winner and 3 who didn’t enter the lottery. A 90% failure rate. Of the 13, 11 were retired, 2 were young, single with minimal job obligations, which mirrors the NPS’s demographic of applicants. 

Some of the comments are indicative of the fact that there are many who have taken numerous trips. I’ve found that this also applies to the most strident and vocal opponents of the CRMP. Through the adaptive management component of the CRMP, small changes have been made and continue to be made in order to improve it. But throwing it out and starting over ain’t gonna happen. The stats and individual usage don’t support it. Get real!

You can be the Don Quixote of river access and flail away in pursuit of one’s singular version of equity and fairness. While they do that, RichP, if you’re in Flagstaff during our Board Mtg in Oct, I’ll buy you a drink - you’re owed one!! A similar invitation to Buck - I know you labeled us, along with the NPS, as “ossified”, well, on the GCPBA Board are two engineers and a mathematics instructor. We’ll be glad to help with developing statistics/ curve fitting of data/future trend analysis/as well as percentiles. Bring your stuff and we’ll work thru it. 

Take note; the foregoing are my own personal comments and do not necessarily reflect GCPBA’s position.


----------



## mkashzg

It seems to me the people who are most upset with the current allocation process have little understanding or experience with the old situation. If you are flexible and creative there's no reason you can't do a trip every year.


----------



## john vrymoed

*PAOT & TAOT*

These acronyms stand for "people at one time" and "trips at one time"

Both are factors used in developing the carrying capacity of the river corridor, i.e. how many private and commercial trips and corresponding # of peeps can travel thru the corridor and still maintain a wilderness experience. These factors also speak to crowding at the popular tourist stops.


----------



## buckmanriver

Charlie17 said:


> HOWEVER, I can personally attest that the NPS staff has consistently examined the 2006 CRMP. GCPBA has been a big part of those discussions....every year at our Annual meeting and often other smaller meeting and numerous phone calls each and every year.


Charlie17,

Thanks for posting. Just curious if the meetings/phone calls are recorded? Or streamed lived? This can be done easily using the iPhone in your pocket.

It would be helpful to know exactly what is and has been discussed.

Currently, we do not have the ability to review the primary material. 



Thanks, 

~B


----------



## buckmanriver

Richp,

I just want to say thank you for being part of this conversation. 

Cheers ~B


----------



## Andy H.

jbomb said:


> I guess I'm really basing my accusation about richp being on the outfitters side in how (almost) every post he has made has been an attempt to shutdown the discussion without really contributing anything else. See buckman's summary a few posts back. I agree that not every private boater wants a unified lottery and am much more interested in arguing why or why not than hearing for the 10th time that someone has been 'doing this for a long time and it's hard.'


So I don't see any attempts to shut down the discussion, just a lot of pointing out what a roadmap to changing the system would entail. And I see a couple of statements that he was once in the "one big lottery camp" but after reflection, has changed his view because it's not practical. And I also see an offer to discuss things in greater with with Buck. But I'm still unsure how you can reasonably state that RichP is "on the outfitters side" when he's basically saying, "If you want to change the system, you've got to put together a winning plan that will get through a very complicated and onerous process with other stakeholders, and by the way, we may lose hard-won allocation in the end by opening up the planning process." 

By your reasoning, a scout that comes into camp and reports that the enemy has superior firepower must be allied with the enemy. 

If you can't listen to folks who have been at this stuff for a couple of decades telling you that what's involved is a mammoth task, then why don't you just forget about what Rich and anyone else that's associated with the GCPBA says, and just read what B4Otter says?

-AH


----------



## buckmanriver

john vrymoed said:


> This thread started out by asking if a common pool was viable and if the current system is ethical. Well, it is not viable and ethics have nothing to do with it - kinda like asking if the color of the current system is correct.




John, 

I am surprised by this contention. 
************
Ethics = 

1. moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.

2. the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
************
I like to explore where the history, current public data, and questions of ethic's intersect when formulating my own ideas on grand canyon advocacy. 

I started this discussion by asking folks if they thought that current system was ethical. In other worlds is the current system fair for all users? 


So I ask you directly, does the current system offer a pathway for access that is fair and equal for all users? 



Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## buckmanriver

john vrymoed said:


> As a current GCPBA Board member
> Folks like Buck, who started this thread, as one of his over 500 posts, will cherry pick the lottery stats to suit their own bias. Others in this thread have referred to the stats; I’ll briefly recap the pertinent NPS’ stats for 2016.
> * 6635 individuals went on a private trip.
> * 497 private launches (98.6% utilization of the CRMP allotment)
> * There were 4911 applicants in the Main Lottery, 1425 of whom went on a trip that year or 29%.
> * There were 203 cancellations (40% of CRMP allotment)
> * There were 12 follow up lotteries to make the 203 cancellations available.
> * 5210 who did not apply in the Main lottery went on a trip.
> Given the foregoing, you could make the argument that your chances of doing a trip are best by not entering and/or losing in the lottery. Also, there were 1724 more people taking part in a trip than applied in the Main lottery. Buck’s flaw in interpreting the stats is that #apps = demand. It does not. A 40% cancel rate counters that supposition. Yeah, the #of apps has and will increase with time, it is more reflective of people using the system to their advantage by pooling resources/networking. It does not reflect demand
> Take note; the foregoing are my own personal comments and do not necessarily reflect GCPBA’s position.


John, 

I post all my stat's publicly with links to the primary data. I also make screencast, where I talk through the formulas and graph's I create and post those publicly as well. 

1. Link to data page 5: https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/Calendar_Year_2016_River_Statistics.pdf

2. In 2016 - 16,257 applications were submitted for 497 permits what does that say about demand? 

2b. Do you think your choice it computes your own 40% cancel rate was done to fit your own bias? 

3. Can you give 3 specific examples of data I have cherry-picked to suit my own bises? I would appreciate your feedback as I hope to make the data as good as I can and as unbiased as possible. * It is ok if you want to use my #2 as one of your examples. 

Thanks, 

~B


----------



## jbomb

I apologize for ruffling any feathers and certainly don't wish to drive anyone out of the conversation. This thread has been made much richer thanks to the input of several individuals who have been doing this for a long time, especially richp. It's been great to see the many perspectives, even if most of them are counter to my own. I'll take some solace in the fact that this thread has appeared to strike a nerve and not merely garnered the eye rolls some would say it deserves. 

I do however like to talk about new things and not rehash issues from several pages back (probably earned some eye-rolls there in light of the overall topic), such as richp's finding of the one big lottery as not being practical. Andy, you've brought that argument up twice now while ignoring my counter to it (and concluded with an absolutely fabulous argumentum ad verecundiam). Old ground already.

I would be interested in hearing from john v how the TAOT and PAOT parameters might be more problematic under a one big lottery system than 
currently.


----------



## buckmanriver

buckmanriver said:


> 2. In 2016 - 16,257 applications were submitted for 497 permits what does that say about demand?
> 
> 
> 
> ~B


I made a mistake, the 16,257 applications were submitted for both the 472 dates in the main lottery plus the 203 permits that were canceled in that year. 

Perhaps a better ratio would then be to add 472+203=675 and divide that by the total amount of applications that applied for them. Which is 16,257.


----------



## ColoradoDave

Actual usage = permitted usage - Cancellations + ?


----------



## buckmanriver

Charlie17 said:


> This is wally rist, a GCPBA board member since 2006.
> 
> *Years ago we all concluded that there was not good way to measure demand. I still am convinced that is true now.....
> *



Wally,

With all due respect. 

We're talking about grade school level math here. 
Not postulating new techniques for quantum computing. 

The NPS provides the data for non-commercial use and it is easy to use that to quantify demand. 

If the data showed that there were fewer applicants than there were permits we would know that that was a larger supply than demand. 

Unfortunately, if you look any current GC lottery* the application numbers are multiples higher than the supply of permits. *

Take for example the current cancellation lottery for 2018 dates. There are almost 600 applications for less than 20 permits. That lottery has been open for less than 5 hours. 20/600= 0.03333 convert that to % and you get .034% win rate and an over 99% loss rate. 

The math does not lie.

The folks you're representing as a GCBA leader deserve to know that. 



Thanks, 

~B


----------



## Rick A

buckmanriver said:


> Wally,
> 
> With all due respect.
> 
> We're talking about grade school level math here.
> Not postulating new techniques for quantum computing.
> 
> The NPS provides the data for non-commercial use and it is easy to use that to quantify demand.
> 
> If the data showed that there were fewer applicants than there were permits we would know that that was a larger supply than demand.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you look any current GC lottery* the application numbers are multiples higher than the supply of permits. *
> 
> Take for example the current cancellation lottery for 2018 dates. There are almost 600 applications for less than 20 permits. That lottery has been open for less than 5 hours. 20/600= 0.03333 convert that to % and you get .034% win rate and an over 99% loss rate.
> 
> The math does not lie.
> 
> The folks you're representing as a GCBA leader deserve to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ~B


Buck,
As it was explained to you earlier the number of applications submitted does not correlate with the demand. If my 16 member permit party submit our 16 applications we do not want or need 16 permits we only need 1 for our group to win a launch. So even though we submitted the 16 applications only 1 permit is needed to for my group. That is common sense, but the math and data required to make an accurate calculation is far more sophisticated than you imply.

So my advice to you is to slow down a little and accept the help that was offered to you, because like it was also mentioned before, you are either cherry picking stats or don't have enough knowledge on the matter or all the data necessary to make accurate calculations.

Rick


----------



## Rick A

Buck,

Since you do not account for permit parties in your calculations for the purposes of this post I will assume all applications are submitted by parties. You take the 16,257 applications and divide that by the max group size of 16 and you get 1016 actual permits needed for each group to launch. That would change the percentage of success, to much closer to 50%. Rational minds know the true number is somewhere in the middle but not near as low as your calculations imply.

Rick


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

At the risk of appearing more contrarian and archaic than I evidently already do to some folks, this "demand" thing has been thrashed out before. 

Of course you can take today's stats and the apparent trends and come to a conclusion. But this is by no means a static situation. Bureaucratic, policy, and market conditions can and do change. The very fact lottery applications continue to increase demonstrates that. 

And yes, it's also a powerful argument for re-examining things. That's why every post I've made has been in the spirit of giving a heads-up for the task ahead, if you choose to engage in it. (Still waiting to hear from you on my offer of off-thread discussions.)

Actually, many folks over the years have wanted a way to do a survey to learn more about GC river trip demand. So let's say we found the means and money to do a national survey on general public interest in rafting the Grand Canyon. Not a small task, but let's brainstorm for a minute.

To get meaningful data, you have to postulate quite a few things for your survey participants. Things like length of trip, time of year, level of individual participation, ease of access to gaining the seat on the boat, and of course, cost. Many variables to cover the wide range of current options...

As in every survey ever taken, the choices you make in survey design, and the assumptions presented, impact your outcome.

And even if you choose to present a situation close to today's, that may not be where things are at a few years from now. 

But even if you didn't do a survey, there are other kinds of variables to consider. And some of what follows is a bit confounded by not knowing if future demand would be assessed under the current system, after a few unknown bureaucratic changes, or under some proposed future unified lottery structure. But let me take a few strokes in the current.

*****

What would demand look like if the Park figured out how to minimize the distorting influence of "permit party" entries? They surely inflate application figures and likely contribute to the rather significant number of cancellations.

What would happen to demand if abandoning a trip within the last 30 days -- or abandoning a permit in repeated years -- meant a (pick your length of time) GC river ban for the permitee? 

What would demand look like if the lottery entry fee were higher -- say $250?

What if the initial $400/$200 payment was immediately charged to your credit card if you won (something the Park originally tried, but could not do for technical reasons at the time)? 

What if the lottery entry fee was lower -- as in free?

What would lottery interest on the commercial side look like if an outfitter went "Georgie" and offered a no frills, bare bones trip for a hundred bucks a day?

What if the commercial sector found other unforeseeable ways to reduce the various frictions (cost being the most obvious) that inhabit either their current market environment, or a theoretical lottery-based system? (Think about massive virtual lottery "parties" organized by a commercial consortium, with winners choosing among the consortium members for their trip.)

None of these are suggestions. But they are possible unbalancing factors in any assessment of demand.

*****

So while you chide Wally for what you think is a simplistic post -- and he can respond if he cares to -- he's closer to the core of the matter than you probably think, and actually swerved the conversation in a useful direction. 

I revert, in closing, to a refrain I heard a lot in these discussions now lost in ancient history (a tip of the hat to LarryL) -- be careful what you ask for.

FWIW.

Richp


----------



## buckmanriver

Rick A said:


> Buck,
> 
> Since you do not account for permit parties in your calculations for the purposes of this post I will assume all applications are submitted by parties. You take the 16,257 applications and divide that by the max group size of 16 and you get 1016 actual permits needed for each group to launch. That would change the percentage of success, to much closer to 50%. Rational minds know the true number is somewhere in the middle but not near as low as your calculations imply.
> 
> Rick


Rick,

You make a good point, in my post I did not account for permit parties. However, you can make a copy of one of my spreadsheets (or make your own) and 

1. Divide the total chances from any given date in any GC lottery. * you get this number from the stats NPS posted following each lottery.

by 

2. 5*16 = 80 points. The max amount of points a permit party group could have for any give permit day in any given lottery. 

Then look at the odd across the days in the dataset. 

You will see a range much lower than 50%, especially in the follow-up lotteries.

For the February, April, and October follow up lottery's held in the 2017 year for 2018 permits the range has been between 7%-20%. 

Now assume each applicant is just a permit party of 8 - 5 point folks with 40 points each. Then the range would be 3.5% - 10%. 



Link to data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C83IHlGjSXYpWxK2i6Pm9JwANZisEHTFI6dLzF9-b5Q/edit#gid=1349151458


Hope that helps. 

Thanks, ~B


----------



## Andy H.

Buck,

If you'd like to use MB's private messaging (PM) function to take richp up on his offer of an offline conversation, you can just click on his name and you'll get a drop-down menu from which you can select "send a private message to..." 

-AH


----------



## jbomb

The best statistic available to gauge the influence of permit parties seems to be the % of main lottery applicants that go on a trip that year. Unfortunately I can only find numbers from 2015 and 2016, but they indicate that the number of main lottery applicants that did not go on a trip increased by 20% during that time (3468 up from from 2917), so you can't really say that permit parties are causing the increase in demand.


----------



## RichH

This has been a great conversation and I am encouraged by the passion and intelligence shown so far. I just became aware of this thread and thought I might be able to add something to it. 

I will, most likely, never be able to rebut the disparaging comments that GCPBA is somehow “strange bedfellows” with the outfitters, since proving a negative is somewhere near impossible, but I must ask why the organization would do that. What possible benefit could any individual board member, or the organization as a whole, hope to gain from that? If there is a reason why we would, as some put it, sell out, I would love to hear it. This idea seems more of an ad hominem attack designed to marginalize the organization/board members rather than debate its positions and ideals. It would be difficult for another organization that holds that belief to form any kind of alliance with GCPBA or any other organization that was so described. GCPBA has dialogs with all of the GC river community stakeholders because we feel that inclusion is better than exclusion. 

We will listen to anything any GC stakeholder has to say. That does not mean we will agree with, support or in any way form an alliance with that group, it means we are open minded and willing to discuss the issues. To project that as something nefarious is disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst. And for any individual or organization to claim some kind of holier than thou attitude regarding river politics is ridiculous since we are all concerned with access and protection of GC. And I do mean all groups. Our first priority however is access and we stand by that priority as an imperative. We remain committed to the private boater in the Grand Canyon as our first and only constituent. That doesn’t mean we have to show disdain for other stakeholders constituents or ideas. 

It was stated in an earlier post that the private outfitters seem to do well with no launch allocation but that ignores the fact that there are ~503 launches a year for private boaters that they depend on for their livelihood. So it could be interpreted that they do have an allocation, all be it an indirect one. 

There was a lawsuit that was filed shortly after the CRMP came into being. The suit challenged a number of aspects of the CRMP. What I always found amazing was that the plaintiff, yes it was RRFW, almost immediately bifurcated the suit so as not to disclose the requested remedies before the suit was won. I always wondered what the proposed remedies were and have asked many times what they wanted and never received an answer. This quote from Tom’s post #9 might give us some insight:


> “While the NPS had already realized there were too many visitors, the Park responded by increasing DIY use. The Park did this by adding yet more use on top of an already crowded house. This same thing happened again at GRCA in the late 1990s-early 2000s.”


I, for one, see no reason to scale back trips in the Canyon as evidenced by the Trips At One Time numbers showing enough camps for all the users each year. I have seen no overcrowding down there and I will guess that most of you feel the same. The other outcome of the lawsuit was that the NPS, because it was perceived to have used the latest science and data, was to be given the benefit of the doubt in all matters pertaining to management and that any challengers would be required to prove any of their claims using the same standards as NPS. This set an extremely high bar to overcome that was not in place before the suit. I believe that this is what Rich Phillips was referencing when he mentioned how hard it would be to replace the CRMP with an alternative plan. I believe that the CRMP cost somewhere near $3,000,000 to produce and I don’t see any way to raise even 10% of that amount to challenge their science and data collection. Not to mention getting the scientists and other professionals assembled to put the proposal together. It seems to me that reinventing the wheel is exactly what is being advocated, in some form, in this thread. If the current CRMP does not address/resolve the issues that are the points of contention a new CRMP seems like the next logical step. I encourage anyone who has a different agenda to pursue that agenda to its conclusion. If there is common ground I will give it my whole hearted support. I sincerely hope my comments will not be taken as attempting to shut down the discussion. This issue is an imperative to the river running community and deserves the complete attention of all interested parties. 

It has always been easier to demean the efforts of others than to create one’s own agenda. It is simple to say what the other person/organization is doing, or has done, is wrong. It is extremely difficult to compose an agenda to compete with what one doesn’t agree. Our mission is access first without harming the resource. We stand by that mission and will continue to do everything we can to move it forward.

Respectfully,
Rich Harter (RichH)
President
Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association


----------



## Rick A

The best statistic available to gauge the influence of permit parties seems to be the % of main lottery applicants that go on a trip that year. Unfortunately I can only find numbers from 2015 and 2016, but they indicate that the number of main lottery applicants that did not go on a trip increased by 20% during that time (3468 up from from 2917), so you can't really say that permit parties are causing the increase in demand.

I personally did not say they are the cause of increased demand but was stating they were not accounted for in Buck's calculations. Which make his assumptions far lower the the actual numbers. So I find his data misleading.

Rick


----------



## jbomb

Well, I do kind of regret going in this direction because it distracts further from the main argument, but . . .



RichH said:


> I will, most likely, never be able to rebut the disparaging comments that GCPBA is somehow “strange bedfellows” with the outfitters, since proving a negative is somewhere near impossible, but I must ask why the organization would do that. What possible benefit could any individual board member, or the organization as a whole, hope to gain from that?


Obviously the outfitters have a lot to gain by having people favorable to their position 'represent' private boaters.  To not understand this would be a surprising admission of naivete in the age of Orrin Hatch riders. Of course I don't think anyone posting here secretly owns a raft company, but there is a spectrum of positions between the radical privates such as yours truly who wants no outfitter allocation and outfitters who think its fair for them to have most of the summer to sell back to us. The GCPBA must have a challenging time deciding where on that spectrum they stand and best represent the majority of privates. 



RichH said:


> This idea seems more of an ad hominem attack designed to marginalize the organization/board members rather than debate its positions and ideals.


You're right, it is a cheap shot, but a natural response to the argument from authority position that has been prevalent. Sorry, two wrongs don't make a right, I agree that we should stick to more logical debate. 



RichH said:


> It was stated in an earlier post that the private outfitters seem to do well with no launch allocation but that ignores the fact that there are ~503 launches a year for private boaters that they depend on for their livelihood. So it could be interpreted that they do have an allocation, all be it an indirect one.


I don't follow?


----------



## jbomb

Rick A said:


> I personally did not say they are the cause of increased demand but was stating they were not accounted for in Buck's calculations. Which make his assumptions far lower the the actual numbers. So I find his data misleading.
> Rick


Yes, I believe the argument was made elsewhere. I remain in the camp where figuring relative demand is difficult with current information - and the numbers are being skewed in both directions to a degree. 

Hope you have a great trip!

Edit: An FWIW I would like to mention that thanks to this discussion I do admit there is more room in the debate about the virtues of the CRMP than I previously thought, especially with respect to the possibility that it does help self-outfitted trips get river slots. I would like to see more numbers though.


----------



## Charlie17

*It aint simple*

Buck, 
With all due respect (which is rapidly declining)
Both Rich A and Rich P have given a lot of thought to consider ,
I know Rich P quite well and have no idea who Rich A is.
However I would urge you to stop arguing with them and and try to learn from them. We all get it! you do not like the current system. Now solve the problem, dont just rephrase the questions (or complaints in your case). keep in mind several years and close to $3 million dollars

As to your post below. 
Its not just grade school level math. Depending on what you want to calculate it is a lot more complicated. And again I will remind you applications and applicants are not the same. Define your terms. And calculating a demand is way more complicated than you speculate. Rich P posted earlier today a very good essay on demand. If all trips were free what would "demand" be?


We all get it! you do not like the current system. Now solve the problem, dont just rephrase the questions (or complaints in your case). keep in mind several years and close to $3 million dollars. Data really doesn't tell you anything the reader of it draws his own conclusions.

Of course there are more applicants than premits!!~! Thats the reason there is a lottery in the first place. If you are implying that there should be about the same number of applicants as permits available, that is absurd.

Math does not lie. I agree. But your grade school math is not correct. 20/600 is .0333.. but its 3.3 % not .034 % ( did they not teach you decimals and how to round correctly) Hence your win rate is 3.33% and your lost rate is 96.67% not 99%. Perhaps your exuberance to prove your point influenced you calculations. 

And with two degrees in Mathematics I will tell you that math is not stand alone. Common Sense is a factor as well. 

I applaud you enthusiasm and energy. I wish you would apply it to much more pressing items (my opinion)like uranium, helicopters, boundary issues and further developments on the rim or in the Canyon(like the Escalade). Demand and access could be come moot. 


buckmanriver said:


> Wally,.
> With all due respect.
> 
> We're talking about grade school level math here.
> Not postulating new techniques for quantum computing.
> 
> The NPS provides the data for non-commercial use and it is easy to use that to quantify demand.
> 
> If the data showed that there were fewer applicants than there were permits we would know that that was a larger supply than demand.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you look any current GC lottery* the application numbers are multiples higher than the supply of permits. *
> 
> Take for example the current cancellation lottery for 2018 dates. There are almost 600 applications for less than 20 permits. That lottery has been open for less than 5 hours. 20/600= 0.03333 convert that to % and you get .034% win rate and an over 99% loss rate.
> 
> The math does not lie.
> 
> The folks you're representing as a GCBA leader deserve to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ~B


----------



## Charlie17

buckmanriver said:


> Charlie17,
> 
> Thanks for posting. Just curious if the meetings/phone calls are recorded? Or streamed lived? This can be done easily using the iPhone in your pocket.
> 
> It would be helpful to know exactly what is and has been discussed.
> 
> Currently, we do not have the ability to review the primary material.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ~B


yes you do as we report back to membership( et al) via Presidents letters, facebook, yahoo, web page, etc. Its all out there to read.


----------



## elkhaven

jbomb said:


> Obviously the outfitters have a lot to gain by having people favorable to their position 'represent' private boaters. To not understand this would be a surprising admission of naivete in the age of Orrin Hatch riders. Of course I don't think anyone posting here secretly owns a raft company, but there is a spectrum of positions between the radical privates such as yours truly who wants no outfitter allocation and outfitters who think its fair for them to have most of the summer to sell back to us. The GCPBA must have a challenging time deciding where on that spectrum they stand and best represent the majority of privates.


Yes and I'm very thankful the board does not share your opinion. Quite frankly, the simple idea of doing away with allocated outfitter launches is laughable... it's not going to happen, never....ever. The sad thing is, it's this kind of thinking that will end in a net reduction to private launches. If this is truly your stance you will never get anywhere because everything else you say, no matter how sensible and reasonable will either be ignored because your a loony or it won't be heard through the laughter. Goals are great and they should be lofty, but they need to be reasonable and greed has a tendency to bit one in his arse... 

We can thank the outfitters for what access we do have, because if it were left to the government, it will either be closed, sold, traded or contracted out to a concessionaire and we'd have no access at-all.


I'm thankful that the board appears to be working WITH the outfitters and not antagonizing them and but I really don't think they are working FOR them....


----------



## RichH

jbomb said:


> Well, I do kind of regret going in this direction because it distracts further from the main argument, but . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the outfitters have a lot to gain by having people favorable to their position 'represent' private boaters. To not understand this would be a surprising admission of naivete in the age of Orrin Hatch riders. Of course I don't think anyone posting here secretly owns a raft company, but there is a spectrum of positions between the radical privates such as yours truly who wants no outfitter allocation and outfitters who think its fair for them to have most of the summer to sell back to us. The GCPBA must have a challenging time deciding where on that spectrum they stand and best represent the majority of privates.
> They would have a great deal to gain by your inference. And not only do I understand, I completely agree. We are not challenged in the least bit, we know our mission and adhere to it with unflagging attention. We never expected to please every boater, but we do our best for the community. Unlike some, who would keep the general public out of the Canyon if they were not able to run it DIY, I feel the Canyon is owned by all American Citizens and one should have an opportunity to experience it no matter their skill level, or long term commitment to the sport. BTW, the Orrin Hatch amendment was somewhere around 30+ years ago, so this is hardly that age anymore and it seems counterproductive to live in the past. And again, what could possibly be gained for the organization/board members, by being lackeys for the outfitters? Do you really think we all have off shore accounts or get free trips?
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, it is a cheap shot, but a natural response to the argument from authority position that has been prevalent. Sorry, two wrongs don't make a right, I agree that we should stick to more logical debate.
> 
> Enough said, thanks
> 
> 
> I don't follow?


Even the private outfitters have to have a reasonable expectation of potential customers, read trips or user days, to justify investing in rental equipment and other business expenses.



RichH


----------



## jbomb

RichH said:


> Even the private outfitters have to have a reasonable expectation of potential customers, read trips or user days, to justify investing in rental equipment and other business expenses.
> RichH


Hi RichH,

It's arguments like this which bring on allegations of shilling. Already been stated several times that operations like PRO and Canyon REO and Moenkopi do just fine. 

Thanks,
jbomb

EDIT: PS, what do you think of our FCC chairman?


----------



## RichH

jbomb said:


> Hi RichH,
> 
> It's arguments like this which bring on allegations of shilling. Already been stated several times that operations like PRO and Canyon REO and Moenkopi do just fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> jbomb
> 
> EDIT: PS, what do you think of our FCC chairman?


Huh?

Those are the private outfitters I was referring to, as in private trip outfitters. And, here we go again with the inferences. If you want to accuse me of something unethical, just say it. 

Respecting the millions of people that pay taxes to support our Park System is not, in any way, shilling for or pandering to the commercial operators. They also deserve the opportunity to experience the Canyon.
RichH


----------



## jbomb

RichH said:


> Huh?
> 
> Those are the private outfitters I was referring to, as in private trip outfitters. And, here we go again with the inferences. If you want to accuse me of something unethical, just say it.
> 
> Respecting the millions of people that pay taxes to support our Park System is not, in any way, shilling for or pandering to the commercial operators. They also deserve the opportunity to experience the Canyon.
> RichH


Apologies, I was confused by the term 'private outfitter'. obviously I thought you were arguing that commercials deserve launch days because they need profit. That seems shill worthy. And the Ajit Pai thing is relevant just because as you pointed out Orrin did his dirty work 30 years ago. I'm still trying to figure out the point I asked about though - you view the lottery is an indirect allocation, so what?


----------



## RichH

jbomb said:


> Apologies, I was confused by the term 'private outfitter'. obviously I thought you were arguing that commercials deserve launch days because they need profit. That seems shill worthy. And the Ajit Pai thing is relevant just because as you pointed out Orrin did his dirty work 30 years ago. I'm still trying to figure out the point I asked about though - you view the lottery is an indirect allocation, so what?


Accepted.
RichH


----------



## Rick A

buckmanriver said:


> Rick,
> 
> You make a good point, in my post I did not account for permit parties. However, you can make a copy of one of my spreadsheets (or make your own) and
> 
> 1. Divide the total chances from any given date in any GC lottery. * you get this number from the stats NPS posted following each lottery.
> 
> by
> 
> 2. 5*16 = 80 points. The max amount of points a permit party group could have for any give permit day in any given lottery.
> 
> Then look at the odd across the days in the dataset.
> 
> You will see a range much lower than 50%, especially in the follow-up lotteries.
> 
> For the February, April, and October follow up lottery's held in the 2017 year for 2018 permits the range has been between 7%-20%.
> 
> Now assume each applicant is just a permit party of 8 - 5 point folks with 40 points each. Then the range would be 3.5% - 10%.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C83IHlGjSXYpWxK2i6Pm9JwANZisEHTFI6dLzF9-b5Q/edit#gid=1349151458
> 
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Thanks, ~B


Buck, 

Thank you for posting your link but I have no interest in trying to make calculations from your data or that of the NPS. I am happy with the system, as it is a definite improvement over the previous one.

I'm just not the type of person to stand by while you belittle someone and their understanding of "grade school math", while I see giant holes in your research, and understanding of the matter. Just because you say with all due respect it doesn't excuse being disrespectful and even passive aggressive. Your behavior is very similar to that of Mr. Martin which caused me and others to leave some groups he is a part of after I expressed the same opinion I have in this thread. If you want a pat on the back and a bunch of people on your bandwagon you should take this conversation to some of those groups.

If you really want to make a change, you should take some of the advice given to you here, clean up you data and calculations, to reflect more accurate numbers and find way to unite river runners behind you cause. Because what your doing now is not helping your cause.


Rick


----------



## Charlie17

a permit party doesn't have to be limited to trip size. Any number of applicants could be involved. The real caveat is that the winner has to go (or a PATL...entirely different discussion) The trip size is of course limited but that is the groups problem. 

Again, its not as simple as you would like to believe.


----------



## B4otter

Nothing is simple when it comes to Grand Canyon access...
Xanterra - with NPS support - has just instituted a lottery for Phantom Ranch cabins/dorms reservations (that's 13 months out!). [Campground is still run by NPS, different story.]
I'm going to close out participation here by agreeing with Mr. Rist, seen nothing proposed in this discussion that I haven't hear proposed/discussed - _ad nauseum_ - previously.
I wish there were no outfitters, do not agree that their services are "essential" for access by the public, and support wilderness designation for the river corridor. But the courts and the Park don't share my views on the first two points, and the last is no longer even a serious point for discussion.
I give the Park a lot of credit today for how privates are treated compared to back in the 70's/80's. In fact, I'll say that whenever I've called the River Unit the last 4-5 years I've been amazed at how friendly they've been.
I'll sign off reiterating previous post: the CRMP process is your forum to effect change. Get to know how it works and who the players are. LTEMP is now processed and being incorporated, I haven't seen or heard anything to make me think wilderness designation/elimination of motors is an option under serious consideration.
50 years ago (OMG! it's been that long...!) we used to argue "...not everyone can climb Everest" as justification for primacy of those who were capable and should run the Grand. But the law of the land is otherwise. And the fact is that it's no longer a wilderness experience requiring unique skills: just don't leave cigarette butts and try to keep your micro-trash to a minimum. 
I'm just grateful every time I get down there. 
It's still wonderful, but I call BS on the claim impacts haven't significantly altered the experience. Then again, I can't get in a hardshell (kayak) anymore (or more accurately, can't get out of one...)
Take care, make good choices. Any trip is a good trip if you make it so!


----------



## buckmanriver

Charlie17 said:


> Buck,
> 
> 
> Math does not lie. I agree. But your grade school math is not correct. 20/600 is .0333.. but its 3.3 % not .034 % ( did they not teach you decimals and how to round correctly) Hence your win rate is 3.33% and your lost rate is 96.67% not 99%. Perhaps your exuberance to prove your point influenced you calculations.
> 
> And with two degrees in Mathematics, I will tell you that math is not stand alone.


Charlie, 

Thanks for correcting my mistake.

Having a GCBA board member acknowledge an instance where the loss rate is 96.67% is a good step. 

Let's look at the current follow up the lottery. As of today, the number of applications is at 1472 for 19 permits. 



19/1472=0.0129

I will move the decimal to two places. 1.3% win rate *98.7% loss rate.* 

Now, use that same equation and go through the previous follow up lottery one by one for the 2018 year. Then 2017. What is the range of loss rates? 

PM me if you like and I can send you the spreadsheets to help automate the equations. 

No cherry picking of data, look at each lottery and follow up lottery. Then look at the range of loss rates across them.

My hope is that I could see data that indicates a 50% median loss rate for all lotteries in the last 5 years. Not just the main lottery from 2016. 



********

1472-19 = *1453 * people your constituents that will receive, "you did not win notices" via email this afternoon. 

Is it fair that they as private boaters haft to apply for a lottery they have little chance of winning and the commercial group does not? 

I am not trying to undermine your advocacy work or the 3 million dollars that were spent creating this system. Or your work to prevent mining, tribal boundary disputes or more helicopters in the canyon. 

Right now I just trying to refocus on the heart of the matter which is whether or not the 2006 access system is fair for all users. 

If possible let's try and work together on this. 

Thanks, 

~ Buck C.


----------



## buckmanriver

Charlie17 said:


> yes you do as we report back to membership( et al) via Presidents letters, facebook, yahoo, web page, etc. Its all out there to read.


Let me be more specific. Do you record audio or video of your meetings?

If not would you consider using the smartphone in your pocket to do so? 

Perhaps you could consider live streaming video and audio of the meetings to your members. Then hold a question/answers session after the meetings.

A bigger service to the public would be to do that for free. Make it available to everyone, not just members. 

Thanks, 

~B


----------



## buckmanriver

Andy H. said:


> Buck,
> 
> If you'd like to use MB's private messaging (PM) function to take richp up on his offer of an offline conversation, you can just click on his name and you'll get a drop-down menu from which you can select "send a private message to..."
> 
> -AH


Thanks for the support! I was able to exchange Private Messages with Richp and have a good conversation over the phone.


----------



## buckmanriver

john vrymoed said:


> As a current GCPBA Board member,
> 
> A similar invitation to Buck - I know you labeled us, along with the NPS, as “ossified”, well, on the GCPBA Board are two engineers and a mathematics instructor.
> 
> We’ll be glad to help with developing statistics/ curve fitting of data/future trend analysis/as well as percentiles. Bring your stuff and we’ll work thru it.


John, 

Thank you for the invitation. 

Assuming there is wifi, or a 3g or greater cell phone signal in the location of your meeting video conferencing would work. 

Would it be possible for me to participate in the meeting via video conference? 

I could buy a computer and 6 pack of beer and send it to you to use for the video conference for less than the cost of a plane ticket to AZ. 


When is the next grand canyon private boaters association meeting? 

Also, if your willing to help me improve the data we do not have to wait until the next meeting. 

All my data and some of the parks data is publicly available. 

I have filmed briefings of everything I have compiled with links to the primary material and posted it publicly on youtube. 

https://youtu.be/6B8V_SDGGKE

You can check the sources, formulas, and math. 
You can build on it or disagree with it or both. 

Thanks for reaching out.

~ B


----------



## GilaRobusta

Go figure, the private boaters club conducts private meetings... 
Random thoughts after reading this disaster. 

Three million to build the current system is a slap in the face to every tax payer, ever, hell even to kayakers. 

Three engineers, a math teacher...Hell all you're missing is a dozen lawyers. The old guard story is boring. 

Buckman you cannot improve the data, you can however improve the analysis of it.


----------



## 2tomcat2

Good for y'all in moving towards understanding and listening to each other. A united front
is not just about agreement, it is the force that drives change.


----------



## john vrymoed

Buck, 
The next Board mtg is the weekend of Oct 5-7, 2018. The portion of the meeting devoted to hearing from you and others is in the afternoon on Oct 7 (Sunday) Available for your use are a laptop and infocus projector. You can bring your laptop or just a thumb drive and review with us your analyses, charts, graphs, etc. You are very welcome to do so … and much encourage you to attend in person. Being able to shake hands and have an in person discussion is most desirable.

You can purchase a roundtrip ticket on Southwest (San Jose - Phoenix) for $200. SWA will have sales/promotions that could cut that cost in half. There is a low-cost shuttle service from Phoenix to Flagstaff. Or drive - why not make it a mini vacation and visit the South Rim - partner/family? Short hike to Indian Gardens - hard to beat hors d’oevres and a cocktail at the El Tovar.

The mtg place is the Double Tree Hotel located at 1175 Historic Rte 66, Flagstaff. The Board posts notices of the mtg on various forums. Lunch and drinks are on me.


----------



## Charlie17

buckmanriver said:


> Charlie,
> 
> Thanks for correcting my mistake.
> 
> Having a GCBA board member acknowledge an instance where the loss rate is 96.67% is a good step.
> 
> Let's look at the current follow up the lottery. As of today, the number of applications is at 1472 for 19 permits.
> 
> 
> 
> 19/1472=0.0129
> 
> I will move the decimal to two places. 1.3% win rate *98.7% loss rate.*
> 
> Now, use that same equation and go through the previous follow up lottery one by one for the 2018 year. Then 2017. What is the range of loss rates?
> 
> PM me if you like and I can send you the spreadsheets to help automate the equations.
> 
> No cherry picking of data, look at each lottery and follow up lottery. Then look at the range of loss rates across them.
> 
> My hope is that I could see data that indicates a 50% median loss rate for all lotteries in the last 5 years. Not just the main lottery from 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> ********
> 
> 1472-19 = *1453 * people your constituents that will receive, "you did not win notices" via email this afternoon.
> 
> Is it fair that they as private boaters haft to apply for a lottery they have little chance of winning and the commercial group does not?
> 
> I am not trying to undermine your advocacy work or the 3 million dollars that were spent creating this system. Or your work to prevent mining, tribal boundary disputes or more helicopters in the canyon.
> 
> Right now I just trying to refocus on the heart of the matter which is whether or not the 2006 access system is fair for all users.
> 
> If possible let's try and work together on this.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ~ Buck C.


It would very much depend on whose definition of "fair" you might choose. " All users" is subject to some interpretation. During the crmp process everyone struggled with these terms. The CRMP is the result.... read it ...all of it... and the ROD. 

I am pretty sure it would be very hard if not impossible to come to a different consensus definition. 

You dont seem to realize you have made your point. Its hard to get a permit. Everyone knows that. What is the purpose of repeating over and over when you dont seem to be getting any traction.

You have twisted my words . I never acknowledged "your loss rate" as my loss rate. I have conceded over and over again to you and others many times. It is hard to win a permit! I have never assigned a number to it.

The CRMP is not about winning a permit. Its about getting on the river. Lots of people go every year and do not win a permit. Many of them do not even apply for a permit.

Wally Rist


----------



## buckmanriver

Andy H. said:


> I've also favored a variety of GC schemes over my 15+ year interest in the topic (oars only, one big lottery, "I cut, you choose" approach to allocation, etc.), but have come to accept the current system, imperfect as it is, as a great improvement over the previous system.
> And one under which we've got a pretty good chance of getting on the river under satisfactory terms if we want.
> Yeah, it could be better but from what I've seen, if you're an experienced private boater with a couple of close friends motivated to go, you and your friends can get on a private trip within a year or two of setting that goal even if you don't win your own permit.
> We've got to share the sandbox with others and reopening the system to change will take a lot of effort and may not go our way in the end. We want allocation, the outfitters want allocation, and the NPS wants something they can manage easily. And if we can't show that a new plan will be win-win-win between private boaters, the outfitters, and the NPS, there'll be stiff opposition to it.
> -AH


Andy H, 

Thanks for posting, sorry for the delay in my response.

While we may disagree that the common man has a good chance of getting on the river using the non-commercial system compared to the commercial system, I think we may be able to agree on the following:

1. The current lottery with 50% allocation is better than a waitlist with a ~ 10% allocation for private boaters. Grand Canyon private boaters association (GCBA) may agree with this too. 

2. I agree that the sandbox is a public good that must be shared. I also agree that change is more difficult when a plan that is not a win-win for all stakeholders is presented. We seem to be discussing potential environmental policy proposals amidst a tragedy of the commons scenario. 

Just curious, from your perspective how were the outfitters convinced to give up some of there allocation in the last agreement leading to the CMRP? 

Thanks,

~ B


----------



## dsrtrat

Buckmanriver

As I stated in a prior post.

I would suggest you inform yourself by reading Hijacking a River by Jeff Ingran. All the information you seek is explained in detail in this book.
Factual information not internet hearsay. 

Case in point the commercial outfitters did not give up any total user days as you seem to think. 

People who were involved in the process have tried to help you understand what went on, it's up to you do your own research.


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

A massive environmental impact study and final statement were part of the process of developing the CRMP. The draft EIS was widely circulated, and received extensive comment before it was finalized. And the CRMP contains monitoring components for key environmental, as well as cultural and social factors relevant to the GC boating experience. 

In addition to complying with environmental regulations during its formation, the entire CRMP and it's EIS underpinnings were challenged in Federal court. Ultimately, the Appeals Court found the Park was within its authority in the way it developed the CRMP, and that the plan was legal. In fact, the ruling in that case would seem to make it particularly hard to achieve future change.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Andy H.

buckmanriver said:


> Just curious, from your perspective how were the outfitters convinced to give up some of there allocation in the last agreement leading to the CMRP?


Buckman,

It's my understanding that the commercial outfitters did not give up a lot of their allocation, but that after years of negotiations, the private boaters' allocation was greatly increased by NPS from 58,048 user days to 113,486, from about 225 launches to 503, and from an annual max. number of participants of 3,571 to 7,051.

Generally, the results of the 2006 CRMP includes the following other changes from the old management system, among other things:

Nearly doubling private boaters' user day allocation,
Private boaters practically own the Canyon during the desirable shoulder seasons,
Motors are now prohibited for much of the shoulder seasons and during winter,
Privates get an additional small group launch every other day in summer,
The total number of private boaters going down the Canyon annually increased from 3,571 to 7,051 (3,480 increase) while the number of commercial passengers decreased from 18,891 to 17,606 (1,285 decrease),
Commercial oar and motor trips have shorter trip lengths than before,
The total number of daily launches in summer decreased from 9 to 6 (spreading the usage out over the week),
Helicopter exchanges are limited to April through September instead of year round,
Commercial group sizes are decreased from 43 to a maximum of 32 (guides now included),
Commercial groups are off the river for 5 months out of the year

Bear in mind that the commercial trips take lots of passengers through on short trips, whereas private trips are all longer but with fewer people, hence the disparity in total number of participants compared to the numbers of user days (for example, 30 peeps on a 7 day commercial trip = 210 user days while 16 peeps on a 18 day private trip = 288 user days).

And for your reading pleasure, here's the CRMP:

Colorado River Management Plan Grand Canyon National Park

The ROD has some graphs in it that present the numbers pretty well.

Here's the EIS:
Final Environmental Impact Statement Colorado River Management Plan Volume One Grand Canyon National Park November 2005

The Executive Summary has the nuts and bolts, and the ES table, "SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES - LEES FERRY TO DIAMOND CREEK" and following graphs are very helpful to understand some of the ideas that got hashed out. Alternative "A" was the old system, Alternative "Modified H" is what we've got now.

One thing that is significant is that with the 2006 CRMP commercial guides are counted in their user day totals whereas they weren't counted under the old system. If you think about that, you can see it could also be a significant loss of allocation but I'm unsure it's quantified very well.

Sorry I've lost track of this but please remind me again, where would the allocation for additional private boaters come from? Would it come from the decreasing the outfitters allocation or would you add additional annual user days/trip participants/launches to the current yearly numbers? 

Thanks,

-AH


----------



## buckmanriver

jbomb said:


> 100 people are in a room and all want one of 12 slices of the pie. The government splits the pizza in half and gives those 6 pieces to one person to auction off to the rest by the highest bidder. He'll put it on a plate. The other 6 slices are allocated by lottery. Lottery winners have to supply their own plate.
> This is my point of view of course, but explains why I have been rejecting any statements about fairness or parity or whatever, and also why I don't think the outfitters deserve to be one of the parties at the table when the new plan is formed.
> Why not allocate the whole pizza by lottery and allow people to rent a plate from that one guy or others like him?


Jbomb, 
I appreciate your post. I think it is a good comparison to the current paths to entry the existing system provides. 
I also saw that grand canyon private boaters association (GCBA) board members seemed to be triggered following your post. 
Starting with post #106 by Wally Risk GCBA board member. Where he denounces any prospect of major change following discussions by the private boating community. 

Next Joh Vrymoed jumps in the discussion with post #108 also a GCBA board member. Also denouncing the ideas around fairness and equity regarding possible changes to the current plan. 

Both these guys seem to be defending Richard P. who is not longer on the board of GCBA but once a member. 

All three suggest the impossibility of change in the current system in their own way. 

Richard points out that there are three key players controlling change through regular meetings:

1. The Grand Canyon National Park
2. The commercial group 
3. The GCBA group - representing the non-commercial folks aka private boater

brings me to my question: 

Why is it that the grand canyon private boaters association, the one organization that meets regularly with the national park on behalf of the private boating community is so adamantly against any form of significant change to the existing system that would benefit their own members? 

And they go further by denying the fact that 1,000’s of would be non-commercial boaters are blocked from access to the resources as they lose the permit lottery after permit lottery. 

Lastly, they, go even further by blindly promoting the perfection they see in the system they worked to create in 2006. 


This ideal reminds me of a line in John F. Kennedy’s inauguration speech. “those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside”

Thanks, ~B


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

I think you have mischacterized my position, and that of Wally and John as well.

We have not "denounced" change. We, and others, have pointed out the major relevant elements of the CRMP (the governing document, which you concede you have not read), the reasons we see changing them would be difficult, and the areas we suggest you address if you want to pursue your quest to achieve a major CRMP change. 

GCPBA is a volunteer organization with limited resources. There are quite a few pressing areas -- areas that present clear and imminent threats to the GC boating community -- that GCPBA is choosing to address. Things like fighting the Confluence development, dealing with problematic tribal activities on the lower river, boundary issues in general, and tracking the impact of things like the aquatic species management plan, the packrafting provisions of the draft Backcountry Management Plan, the operating plan for Glen Canyon dam, and others.

As a non Board member, I understand why they choose to track and work on the tasks they do, rather than expend time, energy, and member funds re-fighting an issue that was settled years ago in a costly and bitter court battle.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## elkhaven

buckmanriver said:


> .....brings me to my question:
> 
> Why is it that the grand canyon private boaters association, the one organization that meets regularly with the national park on behalf of the private boating community is so adamantly against any form of significant change to the existing system that would benefit their own members?
> 
> And they go further by denying the fact that 1,000’s of would be non-commercial boaters are blocked from access to the resources as they lose the permit lottery after permit lottery.
> 
> Lastly, they, go even further by blindly promoting the perfection they see in the system they worked to create in 2006.
> 
> 
> This ideal reminds me of a line in John F. Kennedy’s inauguration speech. “those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside”
> 
> Thanks, ~B


I just want to address the preconceptions of your question, so I truncated the upper part of the discussion in an attempt to keep an already lengthy thread from growing needlessly longer...perhaps it would have been better to leave it, but alas it's only one post away.

It seems to me you have a disconnect in your understanding of the limiting factor to Grand Canyon Launches. The CRMP limits launches (user days) in an effort to minimize impacts on the resource... it is the limiting factor. True, outfitter launches outnumber private launches and I understand what you are hoping to accomplish, but you seem to look at the responses as mindlessly defending a system of their liking. When I look at it, I see people with decades of experience working to improve the system that are here attempting to outline the difficulties of swinging launch statistics to favor private vs. outfitted trips. It seems to me that they have identified the point of diminishing returns and realize that drastic changes from the current system are not going to happen. Many of the folks you identify in the upper portion of your thread have stated that they explored and some embraced for a short time, a central lottery for all users. They then went on to describe the inherent problems with that type of system. The most noteworthy (to me, anyways) is that we'd still be competing for the same number of launches (as defined by group size and user day limitation). Yes, it would be both commercial and private combined, so sure there would be more launches available to the general pool, but the number of applicants would also increase. The outfitters are not going to throw their hands in the air and give up, they are going organize MUCH larger permit parties and identify alternate approaches to fill their trips. The end result is of course difficult to predict with precision, but it will certainly result in lotteries with 10 of thousands of applications. Now using JBomb's, analogy you have 60 slices of pizza and 2000 people in the room... obviously that is a number pulled out of thin air but it seems like a reasonable ratio to illustrate the point. At any rate it results in a success rate of 3%, while 12 slices for 100 is 12% - i.e. a net reduction in private launches. What ever the ratio actually is, they have all come to the conclusion that it is more likely to reduce private user days than increase it. So give credit where credit is due, they are trying to illustrate that they've been down this road and it didn't head in a direction favorable to private boaters and they're trying, very diligently, to illustrate that concept to you. At several times in this thread, they've encouraged you to propose a solution to this problem, as it's the crux of the issue. If you can find a way to do that, then you'll gain popular support. BUT, they've also stated that over the past decades, no one has found such an avenue. From my perspective the other issue is the outfitters have calculators too, and they are going to resist any plan that will reduce their share of the pie. 

So to conclude, you're fighting an uphill battle that's been tried, numerous times before. You have yet to develop any new weapons and folks in this thread are trying to bring that to your attention before ammo gets wasted in a doomed fight. Take a step back and re-read some of the posts with an open mind. I do not believe anyone is defending the current position out of pride, they are trying to keep from loosing ground and they're experience indicates that's where you are heading.

Thanks for the discussion, it's been interesting.

Brian


----------



## jbomb

Hi Buckman,

I agree that the GCPBA contingent has taken a weird stance in this thread for an organization that represents private boaters. If there are good arguments against a common lottery - let's talk about them! But, we don't need to go slay strawmen (like when richp asks how all 16 people on a trip are supposed to separately win the lottery) or gatekeep (like when john v says the idea won't work because no one mentioned PAOT or TAOT) or change the topic (I don't like helicopters either, but this is still ok to talk about). If the common lottery idea is old and has already been dismissed, there should be better reasons than those.

The one real argument that keeps coming up is that commercial trip participants would outcompete DIYers. Valid argument, but why are the GCPBA only presenting one side of it? It's absurd to think that every single one of the 19000 people who went on a commercial trip would enter the lottery. I don't play powerball, but I would definitely go down to their office and trade $1 for one million in two years if there was a guarantee like commercials have right now. 

And if the outfitters would slay us in a common lottery, why are people arguing that the outfitters will never let a common lottery be enacted? Why is rich h seem to be arguing that the common lottery would limit canyon access to those who have the skills/wealth to DIY? Why play the "oh your math was off by 2.5% so your whole argument is bogus" game?

So, my answer to your question is I have no idea. Another strange thing that has occurred in this discussion is the combination of the current GCPBA leadership taking a lot of credit for the benefits of the CRMP while excoriating the old leadership of the GCPBA and really blurring the lines on who actually accomplished what.

Edit:name correction


----------



## Andy H.

jbomb said:


> I agree that the GCPBA contingent has taken a weird stance in this thread for an organization that represents private boaters. If there are good arguments against a common lottery - let's talk about them!


Plenty of good arguments have been talked about. You're not listening.



> The one real argument that keeps coming up is that commercial trip participants would outcompete DIYers. Valid argument, but why are the GCPBA only presenting one side of it?


Several have repeatedly said that they once supported a common pool but have abandoned that because it is unlikely to be a gain for private boaters. Why would they present the other side of an argument they have considered and concluded is a dead end?



> And if the outfitters would slay us in a common lottery, why are people arguing that the outfitters will never let a common lottery be enacted?


There could be lots of good reasons outfitters would oppose it, namely that it would require a complete retooling of their marketing model, how they fill trips, and also that it could introduce a high degree of uncertainty as to the number of customers they would expect from year to year. I expect that one major reason the outfitters would oppose to reopening the CRMP is that it will take a significant amount of effort and expense participating in the process which may not increase their business proportionally.



> Another strange thing that has occurred in this discussion is the combination of the current GCPBA leadership taking a lot of credit for the benefits of the CRMP while excoriating the old leadership of the GCPBA and really blurring the lines on who actually accomplished what.


There is no the basis for this statement. Please tell us where you saw this.

Also, why don't you look at some of the other participants in this discussion. There are plenty of others who are calling into question several things:

1) the wisdom of reopening the CRMP,
2) whether a "one big lottery" scheme could be implemented,
3) whether private boaters would gain opportunities to run the Canyon under a "one big lottery" scheme.

I don't see anyone calling the other people making these points "outfitter shills" or questioning their dedication to improving things for private boaters.

Buckman asked:


> Why is it that the grand canyon private boaters association, the one organization that meets regularly with the national park on behalf of the private boating community is so adamantly against any form of significant change to the existing system that would benefit their own members?


They aren't "adamantly against" improving the system, nor are they claiming the current system is perfect. I see them as pointing out the process and potential pitfalls, effort and expense of making a change, and saying that one should understand these things if you want to change the system. I also see them saying they are all ears if you've got an realistic idea on how to make the change. Read what Elkhaven or climbdenali or Shitouta or dsrtrat or trevko said, read what B4otter said, read what Rick A has been saying. 

Start thinking about the details of "One Big Lottery" and come tell us what they are if you are so confident it's just a matter of asking the NPS to change the system. 

There are lots of folks on this discussion who have tried to explain these things to you, but we obviously can't help you understand them.

When people who know the terrain you're going into tell you difficulties about the road ahead that doesn't make them your enemies. People come on the Buzz all the time asking about things and get responses from others with lots of experience. I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain there was a conspiracy against them when someone said a particular rapid was over their head or that running a certain line was folly. It's the same thing here.

-AH


----------



## buckmanriver

QUOTE=GilaRobusta;642786]Go figure, the private boaters club conducts private meetings... 
Random thoughts after reading this disaster. 
Three million to build the current system is a slap in the face to every tax payer, ever, hell even The old guard story is boring. 
Buckman you cannot improve the data, you can however improve the analysis of it.[/QUOTE]

GilaRobusta,

Thanks for posting! There is always room for improvement in my analysis. 
What do you mean by the “The old guard story”? I am not familiar with this reference? 

Does it have anything to do with the grand canyon private boaters association (GCBA) or NPS or the river outfitters?

Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## caverdan

One thing I'd like to see change is.......the one trip a year rule. At the minimum it should be two.... maybe three.


----------



## Pickle-D

*Speaking of strawman*



jbomb said:


> Hi Buckman,
> 
> I agree that the GCPBA contingent has taken a weird stance in this thread for an organization that represents private boaters. If there are good arguments against a common lottery - let's talk about them! But, we don't need to go slay strawmen (like when richp asks how all 16 people on a trip are supposed to separately win the lottery) or gatekeep (like when john v says the idea won't work because no one mentioned PAOT or TAOT) or change the topic (I don't like helicopters either, but this is still ok to talk about). If the common lottery idea is old and has already been dismissed, there should be better reasons than those.
> 
> The one real argument that keeps coming up is that commercial trip participants would outcompete DIYers. Valid argument, but why are the GCPBA only presenting one side of it? It's absurd to think that every single one of the 19000 people who went on a commercial trip would enter the lottery. I don't play powerball, but I would definitely go down to their office and trade $1 for one million in two years if there was a guarantee like commercials have right now.
> 
> And if the outfitters would slay us in a common lottery, why are people arguing that the outfitters will never let a common lottery be enacted? Why is rich h seem to be arguing that the common lottery would limit canyon access to those who have the skills/wealth to DIY? Why play the "oh your math was off by 2.5% so your whole argument is bogus" game?
> 
> So, my answer to your question is I have no idea. Another strange thing that has occurred in this discussion is the combination of the current GCPBA leadership taking a lot of credit for the benefits of the CRMP while excoriating the old leadership of the GCPBA and really blurring the lines on who actually accomplished what.
> 
> Edit:name correction


Speaking of strawmen that is quite a post.

The CRMP is a good read.

And it is far from absurd to think the outfitters would not create an entry for every single one of their 19000 potential customers. That is a simple bot to build onto a website and easily paid for with a little price increase. If I ran an outfitter each application would also send a letter to the customer's congressional reps demanding a more reasonable way of allotting trips, ie. pass a law that ends a purported regulatory mess.

Be careful what you wish for.
Be thankful for what you have.
Read the CRMP.
Now to send some $$$ to GCPBA.


----------



## GilaRobusta

The Old Guard is in reference to the "We know this better than..." "You don't know how hard it was..." "If you think you can do better..." " A MASSIVE EIS..." type response from the older men in the room, who think just because they worked real hard no one else can (or will). I deal with it constantly in my line of work, the old guard or old way of thinking got us where we are today, if we want to move forward (evolve, develop, grow, etc.) we need new thoughts, new blood, new guards. 

The lack of digitally public meetings in this day in age screams SHILL to me. "Just buy a ticket a come to the meeting we have a free lunch provided by the outfitters association" etc. etc. SHILLS. Hell no call in number, no go-to-meeting? Even the USFWS can set that up...

Who ever allowed this group to usurp private boaters voices should be banished to the Pumphouse run on the Cache La Poudre during the height of the intertube hatch for eternity. 

If they thought you are some quack with no room to stand why did almost every board member who knows how to use a computer step in and throw his hat in this basic chat room banter? The day some dude in Kansas has room or worst yet a title and platform to stand up and say how I feel about western river management I'll f my hat.


----------



## jbomb

Pickle-D said:


> And it is far from absurd to think the outfitters would not create an entry for every single one of their 19000 potential customers. That is a simple bot to build onto a website and easily paid for with a little price increase.


And then get promptly disqualified from the lottery for having more than one account / supplying false information.


----------



## johnryan

Right. The RRFW challenge to the 2006 CRMP was an ill conceived and poorly executed deal for one guy's vanity. Now we have a consequence the decision of that, as written below.

I want even more access during the prime spring & fall boating seasons (Let the commercials have the damn summer heat!), but am cautious of the commercials taking the gains we got if a lottery was open to their customers. 



richp said:


> Hi Buck,
> 
> A massive environmental impact study and final statement were part of the process of developing the CRMP. The draft EIS was widely circulated, and received extensive comment before it was finalized. And the CRMP contains monitoring components for key environmental, as well as cultural and social factors relevant to the GC boating experience.
> 
> In addition to complying with environmental regulations during its formation, the entire CRMP and it's EIS underpinnings were challenged in Federal court. Ultimately, the Appeals Court found the Park was within its authority in the way it developed the CRMP, and that the plan was legal. In fact, the ruling in that case would seem to make it particularly hard to achieve future change.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


----------



## buckmanriver

dsrtrat said:


> Buckmanriver
> 
> As I stated in a prior post.
> 
> I would suggest you inform yourself by reading Hijacking a River by Jeff Ingran. All the information you seek is explained in detail in this book.
> Factual information not internet hearsay.
> 
> Case in point the commercial outfitters did not give up any total user days as you seem to think.
> 
> People who were involved in the process have tried to help you understand what went on, it's up to you do your own research.


Dsrtrat,
I hear you, read Hijacking a River for all the answers. 

On another note, I found this court case from 2009. 

Where they document that the commercial group gave up, trip size, trip length and launch schedules in the 2006 CMRP. 

Apparently another non-profit ligated with the grand canyon private boaters association (GCBA), NPS and Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association over their disagreement on the presence of motors in the canyon. 

RIVER RUNNERS FOR WILDERNESS v. Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association;  Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees. | FindLaw



How do you think the political history of the Grand Canyon River corridor has changed in the last 15 years since the book Hijacking a river was published in 2003? 

How much do you see the grand canyon private boaters association (GCBA) role managing the canyon access currently? 

Thanks, 
~ B


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

You have done a real service to readers here by making the Ninth Circuit opinion so easily available for folks who are still following this thread. Lots of good material there about why the Court upheld the Park in the way it crafted the CRMP.

The piece of it that is perhaps most relevant to your unified lottery idea is in footnote #16.

"16. In support of their argument, Plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of Donald W. Walls. ? Dkt. #?71-2. Dr. Walls opines that an equal allocation between commercial and non-commercial boaters cannot be determined to be fair in the absence of a demand study, and that a lottery system that applies to all users would be more fair. As noted above, however, a panel of experts advised the Park Service in January of 2003 that a demand study was likely to cost $2 million and be of limited use. FEIS Vol. III at 177. Dr. Walls does not address this advice and therefore does not provide a basis for concluding that the Park Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided not to conduct such a study. Moreover, although Dr. Walls opines that a lottery system would be more fair than the Park Service's equal allocation of days between commercial and noncommercial users, he does not address whether such a system-which would render the yearly demand for commercial services less predictable-would permit the continued operation of commercial river runners that the Park Service has found to be necessary and appropriate. Nor does Dr. Walls address the fact that a coalition of river users, including commercial and private users, supported the equal allocation adopted by the Park Service, or explain why the Park Service's consideration of such representative support was unreasonable. Dr. Walls' opinion, although a legitimate point of view, does not persuade the Court that the CRMP is arbitrary and capricious."

This is a pretty good example of how steep the climb will be toward a unified lottery. Not to say it can't be done, but there it is -- mentioned in a controlling legal document, not some old guy's internet opinion.

And for those out there who categorize some others of us as nay-sayers and shills, I don't believe any of us have urged Buck to stop thinking about how to change the system. We have simply identified for him the obstacles we encountered as we tried.

This is a boating board, so I'll close with a boating analogy. Some of us have run a long, complicated rapid. We are simply giving some tips and advice -- about rocks, holes, strainers, and keepers -- to someone who is new to the river and thinking about running that stretch. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## B4otter

And I need to add one more unfortunate reality: courts (plural) have determined (held) that the commercial outfitters (concessionaires) provide access to the public. Private 
river runners are not the exclusive domain of "the public." That pretty much ends the debate, legal-wise, about "common lottery" and "equal access."
Still waiting for some new thinking.


----------



## mkashzg

jbomb said:


> And then get promptly disqualified from the lottery for having more than one account / supplying false information.



You sound like the kid who always took his toys and went home when things didn't go his way. Any suggestions on improvement?

Fwiw I have heard the park may be rethinking the one trip a year rule but it will have stipulations. As usual they have to deal with potential abuse of the system with people doing multiple trips and 'guiding' the DIYers who want to do a private but are not capable. Having worked down there before and after the new CRM you wouldn't believe the shit you see. The list of issues goes on and on............


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

mkashzg said:


> You sound like the kid who always took his toys and went home when things didn't go his way. Any suggestions on improvement?
> 
> Fwiw I have heard the park may be rethinking the one trip a year rule but it will have stipulations. As usual they have to deal with potential abuse of the system with people doing multiple trips and 'guiding' the DIYers who want to do a private but are not capable. Having worked down there before and after the new CRM you wouldn't believe the shit you see. The list of issues goes on and on............


I've heard the whole "non-commercial trip guided by a paid professional" as one of the reasons for the one time a year rule...but have never really heard how it was a problem. I've certainly seen accusations leveled at people for doing this, but as far as I know the most any individual has been down the canyon on a private permit in a year was three or four times and that was one dude. Perhaps there was a group of people that no one talks about that went down as many times as the commercial guides do...but I haven't seen much evidence.

I guess, to me, that seems like the least problem. I know I would appreciate having the once a year rule loosened up. I don't think it should be a free for all, but I know I've been invited on several trips that had no chance of filling up but couldn't go because I had already used my slot for the year. I think a system like Dinosaur National Monument does where you can ask for special permission and also get a second high use permit if you pick up the permit within a certain amount of time before the launch date (its two weeks for Dino...probably should be at least a month for GC) would be a good place to start.

I've seen a few trips just in the last few weeks that are having a hard time finding boatmen/boats to come a long. Seems like a perfect trip to allow a multiple tripper on. I do think that if they implement this, that you should be able to designate your primary trip and secondary trip. I say this since I have a trip I'm already signed on for in May, but would love to hit a spring trip too if people were looking for more boaters. I wouldn't want to loose my May trip by going on an earlier trip.

I guess that is all hypothetical though...I imagine it will be a while before this is implemented if it is at all.


----------



## jbomb

I would not say I am the take my toys and go home type because I am still here playing along with the conversation despite the opposition (unlike the GCPBA brigade except for RichP), but whatever . . . 

With respect to the once per year rule I agree both with the fundamental idea that it is fair in order to allow more people into the canyon but also really imposes negatively on people whose stars align and have good friends going on separate trips on a short timeline. I think something like a maximum 5 trips in 5 years would be a good compromise. Does the once per year rule apply to commercials?


----------



## richp

Hi jbomb 

Yes, the one trip a year applies to commercial passengers. It also applies to guides when they arrange to get on a private trip.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## mkashzg

jbomb said:


> I would not say I am the take my toys and go home type because I am still here playing along with the conversation despite the opposition (unlike the GCPBA brigade except for RichP), but whatever . . .



I stand corrected and apologize for my statement. I think everyone would like to see The multiple trip in a calendar year rule changed and agree that the person guiding DIYers is likely not on the large list of problems. I think a lot of it has to do with how much abuse there was of the system prior to the changes in so many ways. I heard more than one story of permits being issued in the name of a deceased birth certificate. Obviously the ability to track and monitor this activity is also much better today in the computerized age and the permit system has changed to keep that from happening today.


----------



## buckmanriver

Charlie17 said:


> This is wally rist, a GCPBA board member since 2006. I have been on The River since 1968 (or 1958 if you count Glen Canyon) I got in on the tail end of the 2006 CRMP .
> My personal opinion is that the 2006 CRMP has room for improvement but I do not know where it is because it is brilliant piece of work.


Wally, 

I understand that you are the former president of the grand canyon private boaters association (GCBA) and a current and longtime board member.
I just want to clarify the last line in your post. 

When you say, “that the 2006 CRMP has room for improvement but I do not know where it is because it is brilliant piece of work.”

It feels like your saying the system is fantastic and should not be changed. 
Would that be accurate? 

Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## Charlie17

no!


----------



## restrac2000

He said there is "room for improvement".


----------



## Pickle-D

The most significant problem that I see with the combined lottery idea is making it work in the real world. I can think of a handful of potential abuses right off the top, 1 is the system must be simple and secure… that’s a tall order and the outfitters will demand it. The outfitters would require a system where they can submit a lottery app for their potential customers thereby potentially swamping the system with their customers… “BS! how do you know that!?” That’s the way the world works. 

In short: A half cocked plan will yield an amazing array of unintended consequences. Bitching on Mountain Buzz is great, but reality bites your d!ck off. That is why the GCPBA folks stopped by and then left, so few people here are serious about anything more than complaining.

Instead of just a complaint I’ll throw my suggestion (probably already been thought of and shot down). 
More launches via working the numbers to find unused user days and shrinking some trips in order to add extra launches. Example: Winter sees a lot of kayak self support trips, 14 days with 10 people is 140 user days on trip with room for 16 and 24 days(??? could have bad numbers) 384 allotted user days. You can gain an extra launch by splitting a single standard winter trip in two trips limited to 12 people and 16 days, i.e. dedicated self support kayak. Or do the math and split 3 standard launches into 4 12 person trips… 
How many trips go out with significantly fewer than 16 people?
The obvious hurdle is the Environmental Impact of more campsites used more frequently. I don’t know how that plays out.

I’m presently against more than one trip per year precisely because we should be able to maximize the user days through more launches. The commercials do it with motor trips, 12 days and 32 people and they use every last user day they can get.

Read the CRMP. The current system is pretty good. Trashing it to start over would be a huge mistake. It’s a really great trip, enjoy your once a year or so adventure.


----------



## richp

Hi,

I stick around a thread like this because there is educational value to these conversations.

The court decision Buck linked to, and which I excerpted, gives interested readers a window into the real world issues that would have to be overcome to make quantum changes in the river management plan.

I also think it's useful to provide a counterbalance when some of the more inaccurate assertions are tossed out here. 

For instance, the claim that GCPBA is not interested in change -- something that is far from the truth.

I'm not going to research and post links for every last President's letter and other missives, posts, and messages over the last decade, which describe the meetings with the Park and other communication efforts to track, and at times request changes, in the private boater side of the GC. 

But let me instead provide one link, from the GCPBA web page.

http://gcpba.org/2014/08/15/gcpba-s...aptive-management-considerations-to-the-park/

This article describes a formal change initiative the organization engaged in just a few years ago. (RichH was the moving force behind it, IIRC.) It involved quite a bit of Board research, development of a written proposal submitted in advance, and a sit-down meeting with key Park officials.

The point here is not the core content of the proposals -- people may differ as to their merit. But it's rather that this is an example of how GCPBA has been going about considered change in a way that gets issues in front of the Park.

It was my experience that not everyone agreed with everything the Board did. And for good reason -- there is no one type of private GC boater. Rafters, kayakers, motor users, dedicated no-motor folks, people who want winter trips with no commercial trips around them, others who love the summer heat and don't mind the extra traffic, some who think more allocation would be OK, and others who think the Canyon is already over-allocated. That diversity makes it tough to develop balanced positions on some issues.

And I'd venture that the Buzz mirrors that varied cross-section. Which means not everyone here will agree with what GCPBA has done.

But my experience was that the Board was composed of people of good will -- volunteers -- trying to do a balancing act that resulted in general improvements for private GC boaters.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## restrac2000

We are a diverse group of stakeholders. Finding consensus is hard enough amongst private boaters nonetheless when you involve commercial ones.

I know my preferences don't align cleanly with many boaters here. I don't support changing the one trip a year rule though I could be satisfied with a compromise that doesn't radically alter my chances of getting a permit through a lottery application.

I don't support altering winter launch #s solely to increase user days. The most durable memory and quality of my winter trip was absolute solitude on the river for 20+ days. I'm just not comfortable prioritizing quantity over quality in that equation. 

But those are just examples of my preferences. At the end of the day I recognize we don't always get what we want and make the most of whats available. In that regard I support organizations that do their best to move the ball forward towards whatever ideals I may have. 

Best of luck to those trying to foster change. I have hope the system can be improved but I'm not holding my breath for significant changes in my boating career.


----------



## duct tape

richp said:


> Hi,
> 
> I stick around a thread like this because there is educational value to these conversations.
> 
> The court decision Buck linked to, and which I excerpted, gives interested readers a window into the real world issues that would have to be overcome to make quantum changes in the river management plan.
> 
> I also think it's useful to provide a counterbalance when some of the more inaccurate assertions are tossed out here.
> 
> For instance, the claim that GCPBA is not interested in change -- something that is far from the truth.
> 
> I'm not going to research and post links for every last President's letter and other missives, posts, and messages over the last decade, which describe the meetings with the Park and other communication efforts to track, and at times request changes, in the private boater side of the GC.
> 
> But let me instead provide one link, from the GCPBA web page.
> 
> GCPBA sends Colorado River Management Plan Adaptive Management Considerations to the Park | Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association
> 
> This article describes a formal change initiative the organization engaged in just a few years ago. (RichH was the moving force behind it, IIRC.) It involved quite a bit of Board research, development of a written proposal submitted in advance, and a sit-down meeting with key Park officials.
> 
> The point here is not the core content of the proposals -- people may differ as to their merit. But it's rather that this is an example of how GCPBA has been going about considered change in a way that gets issues in front of the Park.
> 
> It was my experience that not everyone agreed with everything the Board did. And for good reason -- there is no one type of private GC boater. Rafters, kayakers, motor users, dedicated no-motor folks, people who want winter trips with no commercial trips around them, others who love the summer heat and don't mind the extra traffic, some who think more allocation would be OK, and others who think the Canyon is already over-allocated. That diversity makes it tough to develop balanced positions on some issues.
> 
> And I'd venture that the Buzz mirrors that varied cross-section. Which means not everyone here will agree with what GCPBA has done.
> 
> But my experience was that the Board was composed of people of good will -- volunteers -- trying to do a balancing act that resulted in general improvements for private GC boaters.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


Rich,

I’ve followed your posts often here. Whether or not I always agree with you, your arguments are alway reasonable and well stated. 

Thanks for being there for us with the GCPBA.

Jon


----------



## richp

Hi Jon,

Thanks for those good words.

To clarify a bit, I have not been on the GCPBA Board for several years. While my posts here and elsewhere are informed by my time on the Board, they reflect my personal views.

Have a good one.

Richp


----------



## duct tape

Understood. Thanks also to the other members who have posted here who are currently still active.


----------



## buckmanriver

Richard P,

I like how you pointed out the section 16, From the RIVER RUNNERS FOR WILDERNESS v. Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association;  Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, case.


“_16. In support of their argument, Plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of Donald W. Walls. ? Dkt. #?71-2. Dr. Walls opines that an equal allocation between commercial and non-commercial boaters cannot be determined to be fair in the absence of a demand study, and that a lottery system that applies to all users would be more fair. As noted above, however, a panel of experts advised the Park Service in January of 2003 that a demand study was likely to cost $2 million and be of limited use. FEIS Vol. III at 177. Dr. Walls does not address this advice and therefore does not provide a basis for concluding that the Park Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided not to conduct such a study_.”

Note that the key point of evidence of demand here was from 2003. At that point in history there were significantly less folks on the waiting list than you see applying in the main lottery in current years. Less than 4,000 anyway. So I can see why at that time the experts came to the conclusion that data on demand would cost to much. At the time of the suit (2009) CMRP was so new that there was a very small sample size of data. 

Lots of things were different , for example,example carbon levels in the atmosphere were ~360 parts per million. 

In 2003 we did not know that come 2018 that these co2 levels would top ~400 parts per million despite some global efforts to slow them. 


Now look at that the non commercial lottery data. Consider each data point from moving backward in time from the last follow up lotteries and main lotteries back to 2007 when the current system started. 



You will see a few things;
1. That application volume is on the rise
2. The rise itself (velocity) have been getting faster (acceleration)
3. There is no evidence that this will change moving forward. 

****************

2007 - Total application levels for private permits was 4,565

https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/Calendar_Year_2007_River_Statistics.pdf

Ten years later

2017 - Total applications levels for private permits rises to 15,226 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HWf9xXsjXOX4VIMkUJ8Ab70IRmK2sR35ihYkn75272Y/edit#gid=6471265
********************

The key issue in the court case above was about wilderness designation in the canyon. 

If non-commercial advocates/boaters were to litigate with the park again, citing unequal access between non-commercial and commercial users groups, the new evidence available to present current demand would be the application volume vs. permit supply data from the last 10 years. 

Not the same data used in the last case regarding wilderness designation which came from the FEIS 

Suffice to say, the court's arguments from 2009 built on evidence from the 2003 FEIS Vol. III at 177 would not equal a future court’s arguments based on current data from the last 10 year of the CRMP or a new FEIS. 

Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

It's hard to say this without sounding sarcastic, but I'm really not.

If it's actually that simple, you shouldn't have any trouble getting a really good lawyer to take the case.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Andy H.

*I'll tee up the next lawsuit for you*



buckmanriver said:


> .....
> If non-commercial advocates/boaters were to litigate with the park again, citing unequal access between non-commercial and commercial users groups, the new evidence available to present current demand would be the application volume vs. permit supply data from the last 10 years.
> 
> Not the same data used in the last case regarding wilderness designation which came from the FEIS
> 
> Suffice to say, the court's arguments from 2009 built on evidence from the 2003 FEIS Vol. III at 177 would not equal a future court’s arguments based on current data from the last 10 year of the CRMP or a new FEIS.
> 
> ~ B


*Pardon me if I sound sarcastic but...*

Buck,

You should start by calling up the folks at RRFW, Rock The Earth, Wilderness Watch, &  Living Rivers. They've have had plenty of time to consider what they'd do differently the next lawsuit around and I'm sure those guys won't want to sit on the sidelines after the beatdown they got last time! They'll surely at the chance to take it all the way to the Supreme Court (since the 9th Circuit Court's decision will need to be overturned)! What's a few years of pro-bono work? Don't let little phrases like “Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Park Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it adopted the 2006 CRMP..." or "Plaintiffs tend to characterize the dispute as one between commercial companies and private citizens. This is not the true nature of the issue..." deter you while you're reviewing that decision to strategize and find all the gaping holes that will get it overturned. And don't worry about your lawsuit from getting laughed out of the appellate court, those are just words after all. You've got numbers to back you up, after all. Big numbers.

You probably don't want to work with GCPBA since a few of their board have put up long and convincing posts about things you'll need to do to succeed, and after all, what do they know? And they don't even think you've thought this through! However, there's a different group with experience in these things, though they've been inferred by at least one authority on GC issues to be sell-outs to the outfitters. Maybe AW would have some useful advice for you, or hey, I bet they're itching to join a lawsuit too! I'm sure you remember that they were involved in the successful lawsuit that got the 2006 CRMP process going and resulted in the current, highly flawed system. After all, AW has been at this stuff for over 60 years now and it should be a slam dunk for them. After wringing their hands and lots of remorse, they've likely put a lot of thought into everything they would've done differently and how the system could be improved to _actually help private boaters_ too, instead of a system that results in a private boater 98% loser ratio.

You'll probably want to bone up on the current CRMP history while planning your lawsuit. Even though it's written by a bunch of "old-guard outfitter shills" here's a great source for the history that I wish I'd known about out before richp posted the link to it Colorado River Management Plan / History / Legal.

Though a bit outdated, a great place to start would be this page: Will Another Lawsuit Help or Hinder? (this also has a great list of all the changes from the old system to the new, including what the outfitters gave up). And it should be easy to convince the NPS, with their overflowing pots of money, to spend about $5 million to draft a new EIS. And with your Youtube videos and spreadsheets, we've just got to write up the demand study now!

You'll do great! And remember that any naysayers are just "outfitter shills" who _don't really want to help private boaters_ to go down the Canyon! 

Be sure to keep us updated on how things are going. 

*Sarcasm aside now.*

So for the other folks following this discussion, it seems we've pretty well established the following:


It’s difficult to get a permit, many private boaters would like to change things about the CRMP to get more allocation,
There are two ways CRMP changes that can occur: 1) minor changes can be made through the “Adaptive Management” approach, which still must be thoroughly articulated and gain support of the commercial outfitters and NPS, or 2) major changes, like moving to a "Common Pool" lottery system, which would require reopening and revising the CRMP, 
More private boater allocation would require either: 1) more user days and trips down the Canyon (btw - some folks think the GC as at, or over, its max. capacity under the current plan), or 2) decreasing the Outfitters' allocation to increase the private boaters' allocation,
The CRMP, while not written in stone, would be very labor- and resource-intensive to revise, and the result may not be favorable to private boaters,
Reopening the CRMP is unlikely without a major court battle (see above) or a consensus agreement of the parties involved,
The litigation avenue to reopen the CRMP and change allocation to favor private boaters was pretty well nailed shut by the 9th Circuit Court decision (see above) against RRFW, et al., so,
You’ll need to get NPS and GCROA on board with any changes you want to make and be ready for what'll probably be a 5+ year long process of changing the CRMP,
Most private boaters, while not completely in agreement with all the points of the compromises in the FEIS/CRMP, consider it a huge improvement over the old system, access has been greatly increased, and more folks are getting on the river now than ever before,
Considering the obstacles to be overcome, outside of a small and vocal minority, there’s not been sufficient will expressed among the private boating community to attempt a CRMP change.
Thanks for reading,

-AH


----------



## jbomb

Fantastic summary points 1-9 by Andy after his sarcasm petered out. I would like to add point 10!

10. No one has managed to give a justification for why commercial users don't have to apply for a lottery (topic of thread) except to say that's the way it is and it would be hard to change. 



richp said:


> Hi Buck,
> This is a boating board, so I'll close with a boating analogy. Some of us have run a long, complicated rapid. We are simply giving some tips and advice -- about rocks, holes, strainers, and keepers -- to someone who is new to the river and thinking about running that stretch.


Sometimes however you take a look at that guy's dancer, farmer john wetsuit, and protec helmet and realize that things change. Might be a playboat run Buck!


----------



## restrac2000

Have you called the NPS, or BLM to question them about the laws or codes that govern the many lotteries that separate commercial from private boaters? I mean you are challenging an issue that is woven into the fabricate of most river management systems in the West. I think you would be more successful in garnering support for your ideas if you did this particular research yourself instead of berating users here for not answering the questions in the way you deem fit. 

As others have stated, if there is such a weak foundation for that distinction than I think any number of special interest groups will jump at the chance to litigate. I mean it has implications for almost every river lottery.


----------



## mattman

Been following this one as best I can, and it still seems like a bad idea. 
Know more now than I did about the issue before, and appreciate your desire to improve things, but please be careful, and don't inadvertently make things worse for private boaters. 
I could see this really turning around to fuck us, if we start competing in a lottery with outfitters, and it turns out you were wrong.

Best,
Matt


----------



## Andy H.

jbomb said:


> Fantastic summary points 1-9 by Andy after his sarcasm petered out. I would like to add point 10!
> 
> 10. No one has managed to give a justification for why commercial users don't have to apply for a lottery (topic of thread) except to say that's the way it is and it would be hard to change.


You greatly underestimate my capacity to be sarcastic - there was plenty more where that came from but what would've been the point? 

So there are probably plenty of reasons why the custys don't have to apply for a lottery, the main one being that outfitters' need for a set allocation so they can have predictability and thus a functional business providing the "public service of access to the resource." Go find the appendices of the EIS, talk to people that were there, whatever you have to do and come back with what the arguments are. You can do some homework for a change and tell us the arguments against it, and then you can come up with a convincing counter those arguments. But it still doesn't change the fact that the current system has been tested in a court all the way up to the 9th Circuit who established the precedent. So if you've got a way to get a case to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, then let's hear it. 

In the meantime, study this part from the RRFW 9th Circuit decision (emphasis mine):



> Throughout these proceedings [plaintiff] has persisted in viewing the dispute as one between the recreational users of the river and the commercial operators, whose use is for profit. *It asserts that by giving a firm allocation to the commercial operators to the disadvantage of those who wish to run the river on their own the Service is commercializing the park. [Plaintiff] ignores the fact that the commercial operators, as concessioners of the [Park] Service, undertake a public function to provide services that the [Park Service] deems desirable for those visiting the area.  * The basic face-off is not between the commercial operators and the non-commercial users, but between those who can make the run without professional assistance and those who cannot.


The language above is one of the problems that arose due to RRFW's ill-conceived lawsuit against the NPS. By gambling to change the access system and losing so soundly, the decision actually cemented in the system set up in the CRMP when RRFW's suit was decided.

So if y'all can get a legal team together to overturn the case all the way to the Supreme Court, great. Now you'll also need to come up with a manageable plan that addresses the issues that have been pointed out above. I think the only detail buck's given us of how a Common Pool system would work is the unsupported notion that it would supposedly give private boaters greater access to permits by cutting into the chances of commercial passengers applying for the same pool (maybe there's another detail but I don't have time to go through the posts above again). 

So assuming you were able to successfully litigate with the NPS and reopen the CRMP, what's the rest of the plan? How would it work? How would it really be more favorable to private boaters? How would you keep people from gaming the system? These things were brought up and hashed out in thousands of emails among hundreds (thousands?)of private boaters in the early 2000s, by people who were motivated by the prospect of getting access to the Canyon before they died of old age on the waitlist. Then assuming you can come up with better ideas than they could, how would your plan be implemented in such a way that the outfitters and the NPS would be willing to come to the table to even discuss Common Pool, or since that's pretty unlikely, how would you convince the Appellate Court, a Circuit Court, and then Supreme Court that the 9th Circuit decision should be overturned and a system implemented that's more favorable to private boaters? 

The Common Pool was determined to be insufficient benefit to the private boaters that it wasn't pursued in the meetings that finally created the compromise. You can snipe at the folks who didn't pursue it all you want and say they sold out private boaters but until you come up with something better than what we've got, that could get through the process of changing the CRMP, it's all just complaining about esoteric points that don't make any difference. 

Yeah, we can talk about how much we want more access until we're blue in the face but there's been absolutely nothing put forth by Buck (or any of the complainers) of the least bit of substance. Simply saying "it's hard to get a permit" "all you're saying is that changing the system is hard and we shouldn't try it" and "most permit applicants don't succeed" without even saying how you'd make Common Pool work doesn't really inspire me to donate to a legal fund, or write to AW, or call my congressional representatives or write the NPS, or whatever we would need to do to get the process started.

-AH


----------



## 2tomcat2

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just
as they are."

Zen verse from "The Earth Speaks"


----------



## buckmanriver

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/management/upload/CRMPIF_s.pdf

Hi Andy H., Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCBA) and other folks requesting that I read the current CRMP linked above. 

I followed your advice and I read it. 

My perspective of the publication is that of a person who is interested in evaluating and discussing whether or not the current system has equal barriers to entry for both commercial and non-commercial users groups. 

After all, Grand Canyon National Park is public good, not a privately held entity. In essence, it is owned by anyone everyone and managed by the department of the interior. 

This document is devoid of any information on how the commercial allocation system is implemented, maintained or oversite. 

With the exception of the limits of commercial and non-commercial allocation.

Why is there so little public data on how commercial system is managed by the GCNP in contrast to the non-commercial system?

Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

As I think I mentioned in our phone call, there is a separate subsidiary system for overseeing the commercial river activity. It's distinct from the non-commercial regulatory structure, but still under the CRMP's umbrella, so to speak. 

As you know, Steve Sullivan does include the commercial passenger, launch, and user day information in his reports. But if you need more, a bit of work with Google should get you to the commercial operating requirements for the river in GC. There you should be able to see the structure they operate under.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Andy H.

buckmanriver said:


> https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/management/upload/CRMPIF_s.pdf
> 
> Hi Andy H., Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCBA) and other folks requesting that I read the current CRMP linked above.
> 
> I followed your advice and I read it.
> 
> My perspective of the publication is that of a person who is interested in evaluating and discussing whether or not the current system has equal barriers to entry for both commercial and non-commercial users groups.
> 
> After all, Grand Canyon National Park is public good, not a privately held entity. In essence, it is owned by anyone everyone and managed by the department of the interior.
> 
> This document is devoid of any information on how the commercial allocation system is implemented, maintained or oversite.


Buck,

Let me be the first to spell it out for you that *there are unequal barriers of entry for private and commercial participants to go on a GC trip*. There's your big "gotcha" admission that you can use to hammer away and promote your thesis.

And I'll also tell you that it doesn't make a single bit of difference because in 9th Circuit Court opinion beatdown of RRFW's argument for a new access system, *the Court acknowledges this inequality and says they're perfectly OK with it.* You should actually read the opinion you found and posted a link to because it says (emphasis mine):



> *Plaintiffs argue that non-commercial users are required to wait for permits to run the river-sometimes for 10 or more years-while clients of commercial rafting companies usually can book a trip within one year.   They also assert that the current allocation favors the wealthy who can afford commercial trips, and they criticize the Park Service for not conducting a demand study that would have revealed the most equitable allocation. The Court cannot conclude on this basis, however, that the CRMP is arbitrary and capricious. *  The 2006 CRMP significantly revised the system for private boaters to obtain permits by establishing a lottery system that is weighted to favor those who have not received a permit in previous years.   ROD at 20 (AR 109610).   Moreover, surveys show that 61% of private boaters have floated the Colorado River Corridor before, while only 20% of commercial boaters were on repeat trips.   SAR 015505.   The existence of a waiting list therefore does not necessarily show that more private boaters than commercial customers are awaiting their first river trip.   Finally, experts advised the Park Service that a demand study would cost more than $2 million and likely would be of limited value.


So then they go on to list the ways that the new 2006 CRMP system is _a great improvement over the old system for private boaters_. And that a demand study, as others here have pointed out, "would likely would be of limited value." In addition to pointing out that "61% of private boaters have floated the Colorado River Corridor before, while only 20% of commercial boaters were on repeat trips." So what in the 9th Circuit opinion makes you think they would want to tilt access more toward private boaters other than the fact that you don't think we've got enough access?

So, what's your proposed system, & how would it work?

-AH


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

While there may or may not be merit to challenging and rewriting the CRMP, it seems like a good first step is to maximize usage of what allocation we already have available. I know this may or may not be agreeable to the more "wilderness experience" type people and that it does open up some criticism for the ecological impact argument. Those both have merit, but I think that is a different discussion than what the predominant direction this thread has taken.

I'll be honest and say I do not know whether the following things would require re-writing the CRMP or if the Park Service has the ability to change the system to suit. It doesn't necessarily require large changes about how the lottery works, but rather just some significant tweaks.

During a recent discussion on the Rafting Grand Canyon facebook page, I had cause to look up whether there is an actual user-day allocation for Non-commercial users, and I could not find one. The concessions companies, on the other hand, are restricted to a certain amount of user days rather then the number of trips. You can find how many user-days are used by non-commercial users, but there is no mention of what the actual maximum user-day allocation is (if there is one). 

Therefore, the logical assumption is that the NPS would have to accept it if every trip ran at full capacity. Currently, it is far from a reality since there are many standard trips that have between 1 and 15 people on them and the same for small trips (1 to 7). This is leaving many potential slots left open that people could be using on the current system.

All of my math is based on the 2016 River Use Stats found here... https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/River_Stats_2016_Update.pdf

Based on the table on page 14... by doing the math, one can calculate that there are 7,336 individual slots available for use each year (420 standard trips and 77 small trips... multiplied by 16 or 8 respectively) and by looking at page 17 we see that 6,635 people went down the river as non-commercial users. That is 701 potential slots that are available that went un-utilized. Rounded to the nearest whole number, that is 43 standard size trips worth of potential slots not used.

Finding out the user days that went un-utilized is more difficult, since not ever trip goes for the same number of days and there is no easy chart to look through. There is the launch calendar, but that would take a lot of parsing to figure out that I don't have time for. Suffice to say that even if we took the summer time max of 16 days to diamond and applied it to all 701 people, that is 11,216 user days that went unused.

The easiest way to maximize use would be to encourage people to fill their trips fully and go for the maximum days allowed. However, there will always be cases, and many reasons, where it is either not possible or not desired to have a full size trip or to use the full number of days available.

Therefore, I propose that we as private boaters propose to the Park Service that either 1) We increase the number of trip sizes (say Solo, 6, 12 and 16) to match the typical numbers we see on trips that aren't full or 2) Add more trips to make up for the lack of slot use as the year goes on.

I would also advocate that we propose to create a system where people who want to do a Solo (or maybe a duo/couple) trip be able to make a special application to do so rather then participate in the standard lottery. Just Solo trips alone caused 150 slots to go unused last year. Almost double that number if you include 2 person trips. 

I would especially encourage this for speed runs, which didn't seem as popular in 2017 as 2016...but it seems an awful shame to use a whole standard size trip for a person or group of people that never actually set foot on shore for more then a few minutes during the trip (baring emergencies).

I do realize that it is likely that the NPS and others who worked on the CRMP took into the fact that not every trip would be fully utilized in their ecological studies..but at the end of the day they came up with a number of trips per year and as I said in the beggining... presumably they would have to accept it if every trip they allocated used their maximum days and maximum trip participants.

While I am not a lawyer and will never be one, all of this feels like changes that are possible without having to challenge the CRMP and change it and that they could be implemented without having to sue the park and take it to the supreme court. Please let me know if I'm wrong (with citation and reason).

It just feels like if we are asking for "equal allocation" or "preferred allocation" and to increase the odds that we as DIY river runners have to get down there...that actually fully utilizing what is available NOW is a good first step. I do think it will require some changes to the lottery and how it works, which means cooperation with the Park Service (and probably the Concessions). To get it done, it will DEFINITELY require cooperation between private boaters.

p.s. I would be VERY supportive of loosening the one trip a year rule as well...perhaps to fill some of these unused slots or go do a Solo trip. Perhaps also be able to do a special use application to request to go a second time when it is clear that by you going you aren't restricting another from joining a trip.


----------



## richp

Hi E-Mayhem,

The maximum user day numbers are in the CRMP, and they are about 115,000 in each sector. 

The commercials have seemingly no problem filling about every seat every year because of the way their trips can be packaged to maximize seats filled on each launch. As you point out, privates are not optimized that way, so the theoretical user day limit is not achieved.

But from the Park's point of view, there actually is a different starting point for the analysis. The CRMP established a launch based allocation system -- not a user day based system. User days are still one of the metrics that are tracked. But overall management of the system is by scheduling launches.

As a starting point for fitting your ideas into this framework, look at the portions of the CRMP that deal with people and trips on the river at one time (POAT/TOAT). Those factors -- which are displayed in one of Steve Sullivan's graphics in his "annual report", IIRC -- were believed to be crucial in maintaining a balanced flow down the river that ensured trips were not crowding each other. Computer simulations were an important part of sorting this out as the Plan was developed. Maintaining the sense of the place is hard if too many trips are out there at the same time -- in sight of each other for prolonged periods of time, and particularly when you start thinking about crowding at attractions like Nankoweap, Deer Creek, Blacktail, Elves, Havasu, etc. Hence the concern about density of trips and people.

To return to the private launch allocation issue for a moment, only a handful of the 503 private launches are not going each year. And yes, some user days are lapsing. But that actually appeals to some out there who think the Canyon is already over-allocated. Can't please everybody...

I personally think there is merit to your thoughts about some modification of trip size/launch frequency in the winter season. But when I voice that, I hear that increasing the number of people and/or trips would take away from the more solitary uniqueness of that particular trip experience. So it cuts both ways.

Another thing to concentrate on would be the "adaptive management" references in the CRMP. That is the Park's stated method for making incremental changes that don't require anelaborate, costly new CRMP. That's the avenue that GCPBA pursued in the years I was involved -- sometimes with success, others not so.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

All good stuff and certainly gives some good places to start. I actually looked a little harder and found this document...

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/management/upload/CRMPIF_s.pdf

I don't mean to call you out or prove anything by this, but many of the tables in the "Allocation" section of the document make mention of estimates around what you are saying (you have to add up each season to get there) but on page 15 of the PDF (it says Page 9 on the document itself) it fairly clearly states that there are no limits to user-days in the canyon (the bottom of table 5). This rather firmly cements the idea that for non-commercial users it is more about trip counts and less about how many people go down the river for how many days.

I agree that restricting non-commercial users to trip size while allowing the commercial users to go by user-days has clearly, whether it was intended that way or not, restricted the number of non-commercial users below what was estimated and planned for.

Story short, in my mind the avenue of trying to increase the number of smaller trips, increasing the number of options for trip sizes, and making a system that allows very small trip sizes to apply outside of the main lottery is a great place to start and to my mind falls within the lines of the current CRMP.

It is good to hear, and was what I suspected, that the Park Service has some leeway to make changes to how things are done when it comes to this stuff. Getting them to actually consider it seems like it could be a pretty big task.

I'll be honest...while I fully support trying to make these changes... I'm not sure I'm the one to actually lead the push. I don't have the legal know how, public speaking ability and frankly proximity to the main people involved. Again, I don't mean anything by it other then to point it out, but there has been a general feeling of "you need to come to us...not us to you" mentality about a lot of this from current GCPBA members. RRFW may not be interested since it increases the number of people in the canyon.

Frankly, I don't live in Flagstaff and don't plan on it anytime soon. It feels to me like it would be hard to get much done when I live and work on the Front Range of Colorado and I frankly can't afford to travel to Flagstaff every time there is a meeting. The general feeling I get is that if you don't live there or somewhere in close proximity to the canyon that you already start on the back foot.

If anything I've been saying about these changes seems like something that either of the current major advocacy groups or an individual with the required knowledge and skills feels like pursuing I'd certainly support it fully. I'm not sure I can offer much more then ideas or support at this time though.


----------



## richp

Hi E-M,

A couple quick comments.

I've always found that note in Table 5 to be puzzling, because there clearly seems to be an upper limit -- one easily calculated by multiplying the number of authorized launches times the maximum trip length times the maximum group size, for each of the two trip size categories. Perhaps they realized what has been pointed out already -- that the theoretical max would never be achieved. But I simply don't know...

Regardless, it's clear privates use almost all available launches, but don't use all the possible user days. And I estimate that in a launch-based system, that meets their prime goal.

So the question remains, what would the impact be on the Canyon itself (voiced by the "the Canyon is already over allocated and it need time to 'rest' in the winter" crowd)? And alongside that, how would the individual trip experience change if there were more boating groups on the river? 

Upon such things hang the argument for the kind of changes both of us think worthy of consideration.

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips


----------



## restrac2000

I am in the solitude crowd, though I don't believe the canyon remotely qualifies under the law that governs wilderness (its most definitely trammeled). 

I am for evaluating the relationship of commercial to private launches. It seems skewed but I honestly am uncertain of that changing in our favor. More power to those who think they can do so without negative repurcusions to our stakeholder group.

That said, I would actively oppose a reallocation protocol as its roughly described here. I like that the current system is based on launches and I think that is a better reflection of the balancing act that VERP is trying maintain. I think increasing launches to maximize user days will ultimately harm some visitor experiences and undoubtedly increases resources impact. The summertime experience was already severely crowded in multiple locations enough so that I have yet to visit some of the classics. And campsite competition was unpleasant and stressful at many moments. 

I can understand why folks want that option but I think it will increase competition and tension within our diverse stakeholder group. Given we are already outnumbered and outgunned by the commercial industry I recommend heavily against such action that could undermine our tenuous unity. 

I will always support tweaks and assessment to such systems. They are inherently imperfect. But I also think we have to balance such actions with the recognition that the Grand is a limited resource with increasing demands placed on it by users. At some point in the equation I will start to see a need to protect my own desired experience at the expense of group unification. I don't know when that is but some of the hypothetical talk I am seeing is making me think it might be sooner than I thought.

Best of luck. Its been an educational thread and I hope people find some options that satisfy them in the long run.


----------



## Charlie17

RichP has done a good job in discussing moving some trips around and smaller trips perhaps.

For further Clarification, In the CRMP, Commercials are limited by userdays privates are not. Privates are limited by number of launches and trip size. The about 115 k user days referred to for the privates is a park estimate (based on history) of projected use by the privates. The estimate has been pretty darn good in that its been runnin 113k+ most every year..So, the number of user days for allocations is meaningless on the private side. The 503 launches that privates are bound by is determined by the daily schedule of launches which adds up to 503. That number is very specific in the plan. If one were to take the number of user days possible for each launch the number far exceeds the 115k estimate. So the CRMP factors in less than full trips for the privates. The last few years about 98% of the launches have taken place. That leaves 10 or 11 launches that don't go.They are spread out pretty evenly throughout the year and are the result of last minute cancellations and no shows. GCPBA and the Park discussed often about moving these trips to later in the season, but in order to do that very careful studies would have to be done to determine TOATS POAT (or some such acronyms) The idea is how many people on the river at any given time and trips on the river at any give time..The CRMP calls for different use levels for different seasons. (which were determined by a number of Park on and off river surveys and interviews. part of the costly 3 million CRMP) Also discussed was a system of what I call "overbooking". The Park with GCPBA blessing settled on that. Each year the Park includes in the next years lottery a few extra dates at times that the data shows have high probability of last minute cancellations. (based on history) 

Again very complicated but seemingly efficient.

User days are used for measuring use by the privates but do not figure in its allocation.

User days are used are used for measuring use and allocation for commercials.


----------



## richp

Hi,

Wally's explanation on user days is much better than mine. Guess I've been away from this stuff longer than I thought.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## wdb3960

Does anyone know if a lottery winner is penalized for not using their launch date (other than being out the $400 initial fee)?

I launched last year on Feb 26th and was able to rig early because the Feb 25th group did not show. If you miss a launch on the Salmon and don't show you can't apply for a permit for 3 years (unless you cancel ahead of time).

Anything similar on the Grand?

Ed Schmid


----------



## buckmanriver

Hi Andy H., 

Thanks for sharing the CRMP Volume one:

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/management/upload/CRMP-Volume-One.pdf

At 280 pages, I hope you can understand my delay in posting as it took me some time to read it through. 

One section that I want to discuss with everyone is below: 

“_Multiple sources indicate that demand exceeds supply for both commercial and noncommercial trips in the Grand Canyon. Concessioners report that they turn away prospective users because their trips are full, and some maintain informal waiting lists for those interested in future trips. Pricing also helps balance supply and demand for commercial permits, although concession contracts impose some constraints on trip prices (see Section 3.5 Socioeconomic Conditions for more information)_.”

No evidence is presented to support the demand claims made by the non-commercial group in the ESI.

Furthermore, the word “commercial permit” is never mentioned in the ESI.

It is as if a segregated system was baked into the design process of the current CMRP as a way to ensure the commercial companies ability to run their business in the public commons which is the river corridor of Grand Canyon National Park. 

What gives them the right to maintain superior access to a resource that belongs to everyone? 

Perhaps a better question for the folks vehemently supporting the commercial entities AKA (Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association).

How can this stakeholder group also claim to support the non-commercial/private boater without acknowledging unequal framework of the existing system? 


The evidence of inequity is overwhelming.

Last Thursday 7 people won Grand Canyon river permits in a follow-up lottery of 1028 applicants. It is illogical to content that the 1,021 loser's need to “network” their way onto a trip with one of the 7 lucky winners. 

For the 1,021 folks that lost the last lottery their only guaranteed option for timely access to the canyon is to book a commercial trip.

If a commercial company is overbooked in a single year they can simply raise their prices in the next year. As is such;

1. Under the current system as the demand for river access increases the fundamentals of economics suggest that

2. There will be a proportionally higher price commercial outfitters can charge for access 

3. As access for the non-commercial group decreases both the power and profits of the commercial group increases




Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## buckmanriver

Charlie17 said:


> * Each year the Park includes in the next years lottery a few extra dates at times that the data shows have high probability of last minute cancellations. (based on history) *


Wally, 

Thanks for posting! 

Do you know if the park provides the public with information on which *days* and *lottery's* that they include additional launch dates for? 

Thanks, 

~B


----------



## Charlie17

I do not know .


----------



## richp

Hi Buck,

The best I can come up with is announcement about the policy change, which was a result of a GCPBA adaptive management initiative.

*******

"Unused Grand Canyon Noncommercial Launch Dates Are Rescheduled, Not Lost

Posted on November 7, 2015 by david

The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association would like to extend our thanks to Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Dave Uberuaga for an important adaptive management change he made early this year to the Colorado River Management Plan. This change is very meaningful to noncommercial Grand Canyon river runners seeking a permit to launch a river trip.

GCPBA requested that unused noncommercial river trip launch dates during a year be rescheduled, rather than lost. We wrote to the Park:

"We would like to discuss and perhaps develop a method for rescheduling unused noncommercial trips. With the 2006 CRMP, noncommercial river runners achieved long awaited gains in the number of trips allowed to launch. They are very valuable to us and highly sought after, as every year’s river trip lottery application data shows. Unfortunately, sometimes for reasons beyond their control, permit holders must cancel their trips. Sometimes these trips cannot subsequently be awarded to anyone else to use on the original launch date. Unused noncommercial river trip launches, for any reason, perhaps could be placed back on the launch schedule, on dates later in the same year, chosen at the River Office’s discretion so that the Trips At One Time parameter is not exceeded."

Clearly Superintendent Uberuaga heard us and other members of the public, and he approved and implemented the following change early in 2015. The announcement from April 3, 2105, says:

"Up to 20 unused noncommercial launches (last minute cancellations) will be added to the subsequent year’s list of available dates and made available through lotteries to the public. Launches will be scheduled in the subsequent year near the date of the original planned launch. Noncommercial launches canceled more than 30 days in advance will continue to be distributed through a lottery system for the original launch date. This change will apply to last minute cancellations and no-shows."

Immediately upon approval unused five launch dates from March, 2014, onward were added to the 2015 launch calendar. Eleven unused 2015 dates have been added to the 2016 launch calendar. Launch dates that are canceled from now through the end of 2015 and remain unused will be released in a future lottery. All unused dates that were rescheduled to the next year were offered in secondary lotteries, including the one that ended October 15, 2015.

This is expected to go on indefinitely. Further details of the implementation of the plan to reschedule unused launch dates will be coming soon.

GCPBA greatly appreciates Superintendent Uberuaga, River Permits Program Manager Steve Sullivan, and other Park personnel for hearing our suggestions and implementing these changes. We look forward to continuing our relationship with the park and encouraging further improvements and opportunities for private boaters to enjoy "the trip of a lifetime" on the Colorado River through Grand Canyon."

********

The actual dates they are reinserted into the subsequent year's lottery very well might be fluid. It could depend on when they occurred, and how the extra people/launches impact the POAT/TOAT parameters.

Your best bet actually, would be to shout out to the River Office and let us know what you learn.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Andy H.

buckmanriver said:


> What gives them the right to maintain superior access to a resource that belongs to everyone?
> 
> Perhaps a better question for the folks vehemently supporting the commercial entities AKA (Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association).
> 
> How can this stakeholder group also claim to support the non-commercial/private boater without acknowledging unequal framework of the existing system?


As for your first question, you may want to re-read what b4otter said, and then check out the 9th Circuit decision. Then read up on what a circuit court decision conveys, then just re-check some of the things I and others have written. Basically even though it was pretty much the commercial's right to benefit from an unequal system beforehand, the 9th Circuit decision welds that right in place for the commercials.

As for your second question, I don't think they ever denied that there are unequal points of access. The system's pretty much in place except for being able to make small changes here and there. Just because they're not willing to die for what you want them to go to bat on doesn't mean they're "vehemently supporting the commercial entities." However, like the 9th Circuit decision lays out, some folks (the appellate court justices, for example) already think private boaters are getting a good enough deal as it is.

So instead of complaining about the system, and then sniping at the folks helping us get maximum access out of the system by saying they don't care about private boaters because they haven't delivered the moon and stars too, why don't you tell us:

*What's your plan to get more access for private boaters that'll sway the powers that be? How's it going to work?*

I've seen many statements that if you've got something better than what's been proposed before, folks are all ears. And I've asked you with almost every single post yet you haven't given one iota of information about how you'd do it differently.

-AH


----------



## john vrymoed

We were shooting for the camp just below Diamond Creek rapid when a commercial group was wanting to camp there. The TL’s agreed that the commercials would take the more desirable upper camp and they would help us land our boats on the cobble bar at the lower end.

We chatted with the group that evening and learned that they had chartered a trip to view the Canyon’s geologic features as evidence that the world is 2000 years old - per the Bible’s interpretation of creation. I was given pamphlets and brochures laying out all the supporting evidence. 

These folks had taken time and money to charter a trip to reinforce their belief of creation. Needles to say, they were vested in their belief/opinion. As it would have been foolish for me, as a geotechnical engineer, to have a discussion with them re the age of the earth, it would be similarly foolish to further discuss with Buck lottery statistics, river access, fairness, ethics, and failure rates. He has made YouTube videos and repeats his ideology over and over - the dude is vested. 

Well, let the earth be 2000 years old - you just stumble back to camp across the cobble bar shaking your head in disbelief - another Canyon episode.


----------



## elkhaven

john vrymoed said:


> We were shooting for the camp just below Diamond Creek rapid when a commercial group was wanting to camp there. The TL’s agreed that the commercials would take the more desirable upper camp and they would help us land our boats on the cobble bar at the lower end.
> 
> We chatted with the group that evening and learned that they had chartered a trip to view the Canyon’s geologic features as evidence that the world is 2000 years old - per the Bible’s interpretation of creation. I was given pamphlets and brochures laying out all the supporting evidence.
> 
> These folks had taken time and money to charter a trip to reinforce their belief of creation. Needles to say, they were vested in their belief/opinion. As it would have been foolish for me, as a geotechnical engineer, to have a discussion with them re the age of the earth, it would be similarly foolish to further discuss with Buck lottery statistics, river access, fairness, ethics, and failure rates. He has made YouTube videos and repeats his ideology over and over - the dude is vested.
> 
> Well, let the earth be 2000 years old - you just stumble back to camp across the cobble bar shaking your head in disbelief - another Canyon episode.


Amen...


----------



## buckmanriver

GilaRobusta said:


> _The Old Guard is in reference to the "We know this better than..." "You don't know how hard it was..." "If you think you can do better..." " A MASSIVE EIS..." type response from the older men in the room, who think just because they worked real hard no one else can (or will)
> 
> The lack of digitally public meetings in this day in age screams SHILL to me. "Just buy a ticket a come to the meeting we have a free lunch provided by the outfitters association" etc. etc. SHILLS. Hell no call in number, no go-to-meeting? Even the USFWS can set that up..._


GilaRobusta, 

Thanks for the further explanation. 

It is pretty clear at this point that the grand canyon private boaters association maintains their presence of power by

1. Withholding information discussed at private meetings from the public

2. This is done by strictly prohibiting video or voice conferencing, streaming or recording at any and all meetings 


We must fly to Arizona to kiss the ring of power. Or read a crafted narrative from the meeting on their HTTP site. 

~ Cheers B


----------



## buckmanriver

Rich P, 

Thanks for the additional information in your post #203!

Thank's

~ B


----------



## restrac2000

*Sarcasm You're the One/ That Makes Comments So Much Fun*

Thanks Buckmanriver, for the further clarity.

It is pretty clear at this point (in my opinion) that your approach is trying to gain and exert power by:

1) Demeaning others who express opinion different that yours

2) Caricaturing one organization to craft a narrative of shilling and malfeasance 

Its clear we must submit to your strategy or be deemed unworthy. Or abandon the element of decency and objective, informative appeals needed for coalition building.

Cheers,

A member of the community who values sharing opinion through satire

PS....There are plenty of us here wanting GCNP management to better reflect private boaters needs. But misrepresenting the actions and comments of GCPBA isn't going to remotely convince folks like me that you have a better plan. They have been imperfect at change but your strategy ignores context and nuance.

And to be honest, I'm pretty sure the One Ring to Rule Them All (TM) is stuck in the Pearce Ferry SCAT machine, ie "Mordor", after someone threw it into the groover after a bad night at Tequila Beach. I'm pretty sure I read that in the secret preceeding notes from the 2017 Grand Canyon Cabal's Annual Crazy Outfit Night. Clearly I don't have proof as I burned the papyrus, no easy task after soaking it in lemon juice to find the text. All will be made clear if you read Tolkien while listening to Taylor Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" played backwards while drinking multiple booty beers.


----------



## buckmanriver

Hi everyone, 

Just a light post for today.

I wanted to let you all know that I ordered the book, _A Political History of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon _ By Jeff Ingram on Amazon. 
It is not available online in .epub format so it took a while to get in via mail. 

At 479 pages and I am working my way through it gradually. Just as many of you recommended I do in order to better inform my own understanding of my original question of why it is the commercial user group does not have to enter a lottery for access. 

https://books.google.com/books/about/Hijacking_a_River.html?id=acMMAAAACAAJ&source=kp_cover

Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## buckmanriver

restrac2000 said:


> All will be made clear if you read Tolkien while listening to Taylor Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" played backwards while drinking multiple booty beers.


Restrac2000, 

This is a bit off the topic, however, I must say that your last sentence made me laugh. So many layers of imagination in there!

Perhaps we all need more Tolkien, pop music and beer served from river shoes.


Thanks for posting. 

~ B


----------



## B4otter

If you read it at the rate I did, we won't hear from you for another couple of years... Jeff's passionate and thorough, but the book is a slog. He's still above ground, in Tucson I think, so you should be able to track him down for further info. 
When all is said and done, the bottom line remains: the courts have held that outfitters provide access to members of the public who cannot get themselves down the river on their own. [As I said in previous posts, the argument that private users who can deserve priority was also rejected.] So how would you convince them they can have a sustainable business based on custie's who have to win a lottery?
The Park is swayed by political winds just as any other part of government. And while it's been 40-45 years since the BIG battles (for wilderness, for park expansion, etc. -
see Jeff's book), memories are long. The outfitters are more entrenched (and profitable, which means able to influence) than ever. And having been one since 1970, based in northern AZ and UT, I can state unequivocally that there is no single organization that represents private boaters nor anything that rivals GCROA. If you don't like GCPBA, start another - Tom Martin did...
In a perfect world, everyone would "have'ta" enter a lottery. World is far from perfect, and fixing that inequity in access to the Grand Canyon pretty far down the list of injustices that need attention...


----------



## buckmanriver

Hi everyone, 

Just processing the intro of A Political History of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon by Jeff Ingram. It is interesting as he suggests that the commercial group works with the park and political allies to support a rigid status quo system starting back in the 1970’s. This is when demand for access first started to compound. 

Here we are just about 50 years later discussing the ethics of the current system. While there are folks on many and all sides I am surprised at how rigid Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCBA) seems now. Are they affiliated with the commercial outfitters? Jeff Ingrams, glossary notes they were started by self-support river runners in the 1990’s?

Just looking at the reaction from the members when I present GGNP’s 1/25/2019 follow up lottery data. 1030 people apply for 7 permits and over 1000 people lose. 

1. John vrymoed, see’s this information as fake news. At least that is what I think he is saying with the religious vs. geotechnical engineer comparison. 

2. Wally suggests the system is working and the math is incorrect. 

3. And lot’s of other folks not mentioned supporting the status quo with arguments about how change is impossible. Their adjectives are impressive with sentences like. Change is impossible the 9th circuit court *cemented* the current CMRP in place for good. And many others that highlight the current power of the commercial group. 

Still reading, and learning. 
Thanks, 

~ B


----------



## flite

So i went down the river in 2017 and have not been on a trip in 2018 but entered the lottery and lost. i still only have 1 point in the lottery. Why don't i have 2 points?


----------



## buckmanriver

flite, 

I am not sure. Maybe call the river office at 928 - 638-7888 and ask. 
https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/whitewater-rafting.htm

I found that number on the page linked above. 

Best of luck in the 2019 main lottery. 

Thanks, 
~ B


----------



## Rich

buckmanriver said:


> ?
> 
> Just looking at the reaction from the members when I present GGNP’s 1/25/2019 follow up lottery data. 1030 people apply for 7 permits and over 1000 people lose.
> 
> Still reading, and learning.
> Thanks,
> 
> ~ B


 
So 112 private boaters won this follow-up lottery (7x16) and not a single 
commercial customer or outfitter won a spot. Sure hope the outfitters don't find out about this gross misjustice.

No denying it is tough to get your own permit, I've only gotten two in 30 years. But right now there are permit holders looking for boaters to join their trip on several different websites/facebook groups. Lots of people go 
almost every year, when I was trying hard, I went 5 times in 8 years.

If you want to get on the Grand, it is not as difficult as you are making it.


----------



## B4otter

flite: you have 1 point because you could still go down this year - hell, it's only a month old! Yes, you're entering the lottery for a trip in 2019, but 2018 is far from over. If you're invited on a trip this year and go, you'll only have one point for the 2020 lottery, etc. 

Buck: to echo Rich, I've been on every waiting list since the beginning and entered every lottery. I've had two permits, one in 1980 and again in 2014 (picked up a cancellation for the latter). But I've been on at least 20 privates...


----------



## Pickle-D

Flite - That's the way it works.

16*7=112
So there were as many as 112 winners in that follow up lottery.

Going back a little bit to an earlier premise...
I do not agree that commercial customers need to have a roadblock (lottery) placed in their path to participating in a GC river trip beyond the system already in place, that will do nothing to increase my chances of winning a launch permit, a permit that is far more valuable, and therefore in no way equal to a slot on a commercial trip.

Thanks for reading my run-on sentence,
I'm off to pay 25 bucks for my one chance!
See ya,
Dan


----------



## trevko

john vrymoed said:


> Well, let the earth be 2000 years old - you just stumble back to camp across the cobble bar shaking your head in disbelief - another Canyon episode.


This is how I feel reading this thread. I come back every couple of days and I'm amazed it is still active with no real new information coming out of it. 

As B4Otter said: "The outfitters are more entrenched (and profitable, which means able to influence) than ever." 

All administrations are influenced by "donors" - this one, and particularly this Secretary, seems to be way more than previous ones. That is your path to change the current allocation.


----------



## Will Amette

Not that it really matters, but I think the claim is that the Universe is about 6,000 years old, not 2,000. I shave with Occam's razor and am a big fan of logic, so neither of these claims makes sense.

This thread will probably continue until we all stop feeding it. I guess I'm now guilty, too. 

While I would like it to be easier for ME to get a permit, I don't want that to degrade the experience while down there. About the time I felt ready to put a trip together and wanted to get on the waiting list, it was too late. It had closed. The opportunity to even apply for a permit in a lottery was a huge improvement. I have never won a permit (yet), but have been three times. I have also turned down at least three invitations -- wrong group. You don't have that option on a commercial trip. You pay your money, and you get your crew.

This is also one of the problems with the question as posed. If I decide to go on a commercial trip, I get one seat. I don't get the whole trip. Without winning a single lottery or paying for a commercial trip, I have had the opportunity for six "seats." 

Let's play a thought experiment: Assume I had played in the lottery all of the last 20 years. It's not true. I didn't play the lottery in the years after I went on trips, but this inflates my lottery application statistic. I have had opportunity to go six times. Six trips in 20 applications is... 30% success rate for a SEAT on a trip. I have some friends who don't even bother to apply because they get multiple invitations every year. Do the math on that one. Their success rate is infinity. Hmmmm.....

Here's another thought experiment that I don't really want to dive into much farther, but it would be a big upheaval to the current system. It would NEVER fly. There are a limited number of private launches. They hold a lottery to assign them. There are a limited number of commercial launches. They have guaranteed permits. I don't have access to a commercial permit even if I have all the equipment and skill to run a commercial trip unless I buy those permits from a company who wants to get out of the business. Maybe I'm already an outfitter on another river? What would the world look like if I could compete for commercial launches? My number of chances in the lottery would be based on how many trips I can run at the same time (how many boats and guides available). Let's take it a step farther: what if I have the skills and insurance and I can rent all my gear from an outfitter and not even own my gear.

OK. Sorry. Maybe I'm feeding trolls. Time to go pick a few dates for the lottery and wait for the results from Four Rivers and Rogue.


----------



## Will Amette

One last thought.

The PH should NOT have to do all the legwork to put the trip together. There are lots of tasks that can be delegated to other group members. Assign a trip treasurer. Consider a team to put meal plans together. Put someone in charge of assuring all required gear is accounted for. If need be, find one or two folks with more experience to be on-water TL (or as GCNP calls it, QBO). 

Being the PH means you get to decide who to invite and to set the general tone of the trip. And please, if someone invites you but you don't like the general tone of the trip, don't go. You will make the experience less fantastic for everyone. 

Once the general guidelines are set and the group is assembled, being PH is generally a pain in the ass.


----------



## flite

So what if i contacted a commercial outfitter and bought all the seats on a specific date. Then I could invite whomever i wanted? Would we be able to row our own boats? Would they still provide guides to cook and set up my tent? maybe row the groover boat.....


----------



## mkashzg

flite said:


> So what if i contacted a commercial outfitter and bought all the seats on a specific date. Then I could invite whomever i wanted? Would we be able to row our own boats? Would they still provide guides to cook and set up my tent? maybe row the groover boat.....


Yes, I have done trips like this and the outfitter still provides all gear and crew but you can bring whoever you want if you paid for them. The guides might let you row some flat water...


----------

