# RRFW Riverwire – Grand Canyon Groups Stop Change to One Trip Rule



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

RRFW Riverwire – Grand Canyon Groups Stop Change to One Trip Rule
April 2, 2010

Grand Canyon National Park has reversed a decision to relax the one-trip-per-year rule during the winter to make unclaimed winter do-it-yourself river trips more attractive. 

The reversal came after three groups representing commercial river services objected to the change. 

The one-trip-per-year rule was adopted by the Park in 2006 as part of the revised Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP), and applies to both commercial passengers and self-guided river runners year round. 

In June 2009, River Runners for Wilderness (RRFW) encouraged the Park to consider an exception to the rule to help alleviate the large number of self-guided trip permits that go unclaimed in the winter months. 

The NPS responded positively in July of 2009. In a letter written to RRFW, the Park agreed that evaluations of the number of trips that either cancelled or went unclaimed despite follow-up lotteries, argued for a possible modification of the policy. 

The change was to take place in early November, in time for the 2009-2010 winter season.

Tom Martin, RRFW co-director, noted “It makes sense for winter self-guided river trip applications to operate under different rules than summertime applications.” 

However, in late October the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Trade Association, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, Grand Canyon River Guides, and the Grand Canyon River Runners Association submitted a joint response to the Park Service requesting a postponement of the rule change only days before the Park’s decision to ease the winter permit restrictions was to be announced.

Subsequently, the three commercial groups submitted letters in early December opposing the change. 

Grand Canyon River Runners (GCRR) Vice President Pamela Whitney wrote that “After discussing this proposal with our river community colleagues, GCROA, GCPBA & GCRG, we are in agreement that it is too soon to make a change of this sort to the CRMP.” Grand Canyon River Runners represents the interests of concessions motor boat passengers. 

But Jo Johnson, Co-Director of River Runners for Wilderness points out that the 2006 CRMP is at the half way point for the life of the plan. “The NPS was beginning to make needed changes, especially after acknowledging a consistent problem over five winters that can be easily corrected.”

Lynn Hamilton, Grand Canyon River Guides (GCRG) Executive Director, stated in her letter the belief that the implementation of the proposed change could jeopardize the level of cooperation between her group, the Trade Association, the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association and commercial river runners.

Johnson remains unconvinced. “It’s too bad these groups put their cooperation with each other ahead of seeing self-guided river runners get on the river in the winter.” 

Superintendent Steve Martin reversed the decision to relax the rule in a January 4, 2010 letter, “for the foreseeable future”. The Park offered no reason for the reversal.

According to Park officials in response to a RRFW Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association did not submit formal or informal comments about the proposed change. 

The correspondence RRFW received and cited in this Riverwire through that FOIA request may be seen at http://www.rrfw.org/documents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RIVERWIRE is a free service to the community of river lovers from River Runners for Wilderness. To join, send an e-mail address to [email protected] and we'll add it to the RRFW RIVERWIRE e-mail alerts list.

Join RRFW's listserver to stay abreast of and participate in the latest river issues. It's as easy as sending a blank e-mail to [email protected].

Check out RRFW's Rafting Grand Canyon Wiki for free information on Do-It-Yourself Grand Canyon rafting info http://www.rrfw.org/RaftingGrandCanyon/Main_Page.

Check out new items and donate at the RRFW Store! RRFW is a non-profit project of Living Rivers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## Doubledown (Sep 23, 2008)

My fingers were crossed.


----------



## CB Rob (Feb 13, 2010)

thats too bad....
Why would anyone have a problem with filling empty user days.


----------



## moetown (May 8, 2007)

*The Spin Doctor*

It's a great idea, born years before by Bob Marley among other folks. That the park is talking about the idea shows how truly progressive Steve Sullivan and the rest of the hardworking crew at the South Rim truly is. Other administrations might not even entertain the ideas because it only makes more work for them. Hats off to the frontline folks trying to continually improve the system. Time and testing should eventually produce this idea to fruition as it's more difficult than just saying "go". Monitoring this system will be complex,take time, manpower, etc.. Unfortunately, Tom's manipulative riverwires are meant to stir things up and cause controversy I think the rrfw wiki is well done but the manipulative riverwires give me the creeps 

Brady


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Brady shoots at messenger*

Hi Brady, 

Taking shots at messengers is easy for anyone to do...so let's stick to the facts we have available...

If you did your homework, you'd see the NPS was only days away from making the change...until the GCPBA, GCRR, GCROA and GCRG intervened. 

The NPS did not cite any reason for the reversal, like trouble in retooling the on-line lottery to remove winter travel from the one-trip-per-year rule. 

If, as you surmise, making trips easier to get in the winter is too complex for a system already famous for its complexity ( and please cite NPS correspondence that allowing winter trips would be too hard to do) one could argue it would behoove the NPS to start attempting the change sooner than later.

all the best, Tom


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Tom Martin said:


> If you did your homework, you'd see the NPS was only days away from making the change...until the GCPBA, GCRR, GCROA and GCRG intervened.


Tom,

In the post above, and in the 8th paragraph of the original Riverwire you started the thread with, you state that GCPBA actively worked to prevent repeal of the one-trip-per-year rule. However, at the end of the Riverwire, you correctly state that GCPBA did not formally or informally submit comments on the issue. In future posts, please stick with the correct version of the events: _*that GCPBA** did not actively work to prevent repeal of the one-trip-per-year rule*_.

For others who may be tempted to believe Tom's implications that GCPBA has sold out private boaters' interests and is doing the bidding of the motorized commercial outfitters, please bear in mind that, to paraphrase one former GCPBA Board member:



> GCPBA has consistently taken the position that we are not going to take issue with individual parts of the CRMP until appropriate. We believe the appropriate time is when the formal review for the next CRMP begins.


Thanks,

-AH


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Andy, please read the Riverwire again...*

Hi Andy, thanks for your post. 

The Riverwire clearly states the GCPBA, along with the three commercial groups, requested the NPS "postpone" the announcement. 

Once the announcement was postponed, the GCPBA stayed mum as the riverwire points out.

GCPBA board members have "not" refuted the GCPBA participation in asking for a postponement of the announcement with the other groups. 

That said, you have a great day, as we may have more in common then we know. Yours, Tom


----------



## alanbol (Jun 3, 2005)

*What gives with GCPBA?*

Brady and Andy,

You guys are on the wrong side with this one. 

I don't know what was decided between the outfitters and GCPBA or why, but it's clear that GCPBA decided to side with the outfitters here. That appears to be contrary to the interests of their members. This is especially true given that they typically frame their disagreement with RRFW as one of access versus preservation (suggesting that RRFW is over-zealous in their pursuit of preservation). 

So now that RRFW is advocating for more access, GCPBA says no. What gives? Can either of you think of a good reason? Is there a good reason, or is it just an opportunity to poke a stick in Tom Martin's eye? 

As for the outfitters, well, that's easy to see: fewer private launches means more potential commercial customers.


----------



## moetown (May 8, 2007)

Tom,
I don't like the conspiracy theories, and the sinister insinuations all the time Throw on the martyrdom and elitist stuff. It gets old.  We don't have to be victims to get things done. 

I'm for it. Sounds like RRFW is for it. It will happen without the finger pointing and sniveling. 

Why not start out with something like this? Hey everyone the park is thinking about relaxing the 1 year rule in the winter? What do you think about it? Good or bad I want it all, please write me Tom Martin and I will organize some feedback. 

Applaud you for your passion, 

Brady


----------



## GCPBA (Oct 22, 2009)

*We weren't involved*

I find myself doing what I said I would not do, and that's get involved in any more discussions with Tom, as you'll never win, he will twist the facts and rewrite history, twist, manipulate and cherry pick facts to prove his point. I will however, promise that this will be my only post on the matter. 

GCPBA has consistently taken the position that we are not going to take issue with individual parts of the CRMP until appropriate. We believe the appropriate time is when the formal review for the next CRMP begins.

That is our position, and has been our position. It will continue to be our position until the revision of the plan. We did not actively lobby for, or against this change that the NPS was considering. We submitted no comments, either formal or informal on the matter. 

2 years previous, we had asked the park service in our annual meeting if this was something they would consider relaxing, and they decisively replied that it was not an issue that was open for consideration. Period. We dropped the issue. 

When consulted, we replied that we knew nothing about it, were not consulted by the NPS about it, were not actively lobbying for any change to the plan, the next thing we heard about it was from the park service at the annual GCPBA membership meeting where they announced their decision. 

There's nothing more to it than that. Period. No smoky backroom deals, no collusion with anyone as is implied in the RRFW Haywire. 

We do work with other groups, in that we discuss issues that affect us and the boating community. Discussion of issues between stakeholders is a good way to get a wide perspective on how issues affect the various constituents and helps us and others determine how they might respond to an issue. The fact that we work with other groups certainly is not a secret and has, in the eyes of many, yielded positive results for the boating community.

Working in isolation like RRFW does seems not to have been a productive channel to row.

Tom points out that it's been 4 years into a 10 year plan, but what Tom neglects to point out is that in those 4 years, the lottery has been weighted by the waitlisters taking their pre assigned dates out of the lottery pool. It's my understanding that the park service realized this, and decided not to make the change simply as there was no evidence that the lottery, without the weighted dates of the waitlisters, was working or not. I'm sure the economy being in the shambles it is has an effect on the dates being used too. 

So, there you have it, Tom's repeated attempts to vilify GCPBA and imply that we're against access, in bed with the outfitters, and the epitome of an evil anti private boater organization are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to try to make RRFW a relevant force in the private boating world. He would like you to believe that cooperation and discussion is bad. 

Other groups won't invite RRFW to discuss things as Tom has the "my way or the highway mentality" and won't consider things like cooperation and doesn't realize that sometimes concessions are a way to get at least some of what you want, if there's simply no way that getting all you want will happen. 

His RRFW Haywires still continue to twist facts to suit his perception of how the world should run according to Tom Martin, and while interspersed with just enough fact to be believable, generally spend more time running down someone else to make Tom look like the knight in shining armor. 

While I laud his passion, I am disgusted at his methodology. It's been long held that you can't build yourself up, by running others down. Again, this holds true. 

Give it a rest Tom. 

Marshall Nichols
GCPBA Secretary


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*We weren't involved? Hellooo...*

Hi Brady and Marshall, 

The GCPBA joined others in asking for a postponement of the NPS decision to relax the one-trip-per-year rule.

Now, the GCPBA says they asked for the rule to be relaxed two years ago. Nothing in writing mind you, so when the actual change was happening last year, they turned away from a change they said they wanted. 

Marshall, both you and The GCPBA President Wally Wrist said yesterday 
"GCPBA has consistently taken the position that we are not going to take issue with individual parts of the plan until appropriate. The appropriate time is when the formal review for the next CRMP begins."

So, that is a shift since you say you asked for changes in the Plan two years ago.


And one would assume, you don't support the Park's changes this year to the CRMP that require Fire Blanket use and shortening the driftwood collection season. 


RRFW will continue to work for resource protection with equitable access, things the present CRMP is missing... and we'll continue to go-it-alone without the GCPBA and the river concessions groups support, though the rest of the boating community and environmental groups are with us. 



All the best, Tom


----------



## GCPBA (Oct 22, 2009)

*You are wrong*

And here I go again, I promised I wouldn't get dragged into your trap. :???:

We did not join anyone in recommending anything to do with the OTAY rule. Just because you state it, does not make it so. Your FOIA request produced nothing to support this statement and you can produce nothing to support your claim. Give it a #$%^&* rest. 

We never lobbied for the rule to be changed, what transpired in the meeting was, "Say, would the park service consider changing this rule ?" The park service replied, "Nope, and we don't want to discuss it further". That was it. So there was little point in putting anything in writing for you to FOIA. 

As to your insinuation that we don't support the rules about firepan blankets and protecting the diminishing firewood supply, as is stated in our goal:



 Ensure the ability for all to obtain, on an equal and timely basis, an opportunity to experience a float trip through the Grand Canyon while protecting the resource.
 Well, this protects the resource now doesn't it. How you managed to pull firepans and wood into a discussion about the OTAY rule is baffling

Sure, the whole world is on the RRFW bandwagon now isn't it. You keep on trumpeting that Tom, and perhaps someday, some way, it'll become reality, but for now, just because you say it, doesn't make it so. 

RRFW has accomplished absolutely zero for the private boater, past setting dangerous legal precedents, and continues to be a very vocal and irrelevant force in the boating world. Are your goals laudable, absolutely, attainable ? apparently not.

If you spent half the time and effort you spend trying to run down GCPBA and create hate and discontent on something that was actually attainable and would benefit boaters, you would find, that RRFW would become relevant and viewed in a positive light without you having to stand on your soapbox, angrily stomp your foot and declare to the world that you're the knight in shining armor, the best thing since pockets in T-shirts, peanut butter and sliced bread all rolled into one. 

Other people would be doing it for you. That's not happening now Tom, never has. Should tell you something, ya think ? 

Give it a rest, it's a dead issue.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Don't cloud the facts Marshall*

Hi Marshall,

Do you, as a representative of the GCPBA, deny this statement:

"However, in late October the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Trade Association, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, Grand Canyon River Guides, and the Grand Canyon River Runners Association submitted a joint response to the Park Service requesting a *postponement* of the rule change only days before the Park’s decision to ease the winter permit restrictions was to be announced."

The RRFW Haywire (That's a good one and we may use it in the future, Thanks!!) clearly says the GCPBA, after joining the others in asking for a postponement, did not comment on this issue.

GCPBA's silence on this issue is deafening. 

Marshall, the fire pan rule and driftwood season are, with the one-trip-per-year rule, in the NPS letter of January 4, 2010, which the GCPBA received a copy of. That letter is posted on both the RRFW and GCPBA web sites.

To be clear, the GCPBA states they will only look at changes to the plan at the end of the life of the present CRMP. 

And...be silent on other changes to the plan as they occure, even if they decrease access the CRMP allows to self guided river runners. 

All the best, Tom


----------



## GCPBA (Oct 22, 2009)

I am absolutely not going to post another post on this matter. Read the 2 previous posts. They answer your question clearly. There has been no silence, just you ignoring the facts, making wild assumptions and interjecting your BS assumptions as fact, which clearly it isn't. 

This is a dead issue. Let it rest in peace.


----------



## BarryDingle (Mar 13, 2008)

It seems all spokesman' for the environment,or private interest groups, have to be _a little_ nutty,right? I'm so confused as to who I should side with........F it,i'll just make assumptions.


----------



## Badazws6 (Mar 4, 2007)

BarryDingle said:


> It seems all spokesman' for the environment,or private interest groups, have to be _a little_ nutty,right? I'm so confused as to who I should side with........F it,i'll just make assumptions.


I hear you here. It sure seems like Tom has an ax to grind with GCPBA but maybe it is just the world in general. For me I think I'm going to go with the group that plays well with others.

Tom, thanks for the great guide but lets try to remember when it comes down to it we are all, yes, even the commercials, basically working towards the same goal. We would like the most people possible to enjoy the wilderness setting of the Grand Canyon and the world as a whole.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*The same goal?*

Hi Badaz, with all due respect, the goals of the many players here are not the same. 

The concessions look out first and foremost for their interests, as do the concessions motor passengers, (GCRR) and others, at the expense of the resource and river runners who do not use their services. 

If you have not already done so, you might find Hijacking A River by Ingram most illuminating on this issue. 

The GCPBA wants you to think RRFW doesn't play well with others, while the GCPBA blocks access to self-guided river runners. 

Nice quote: "We would like the most people possible to enjoy the wilderness setting of the Grand Canyon and the world as a whole." That's something I'd like to think we all want. The latest Riverwire shows not all GC River groups agree with you and I, like the GCPBA, GCRG, GCROA and GCRR.

All the best, Tom


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*here's the link*

Hi Marshall, no, this issue is not dead. It's another in a long line of issues the GCPBA has been doing...secrete agreements with the river concessions trade association, fighting against real change in the courts, and now this...

You are saying this direct quote from the Trade Association to the NPS is a lie?

"In response to a joint request from GCROA and our river community colleague groups, which include Grand Canyon River Guides, Grand Canyon River Runners Association and GCPBA, we were very appreciative when you agreed to postpone your decision on this issue pending the Park's receipt of additional feedback and a possible subsequent reconsideration of this proposal." 

http://www.rrfw.org/sites/default/f...se to GRCA CRMP Adaptive Management 12-09.pdf

Are you saying this is incorrect? Are you saying the GCPBA did not join the other listed groups in requesting a postponement of the announcement?

It could be the GCROA was using the GCPBA. It could be they have been doing this all along...

Yours, Tom


----------



## Badazws6 (Mar 4, 2007)

I guess I should elaborate on "We would like the most people possible to enjoy the wilderness setting of the Grand Canyon and the world as a whole." What I was trying to get at is that there is a community that wants to boat and within that community there are different strokes for different fokes. In my opinion you are taking a very xenophobic outlook on this and defining "your" community to narrowly. Not everyone in this community has the same skill sets or resources to do it the same way you want to do it. Some have limited time, some have limited money, some have limited skill sets, the list goes on and on, and so long as one subset of this community doesn't reasonably cross the line of allowing someone else to "enjoy the wilderness" no one should have a beef with it. I know you have a different definition of what is reasonable but over all it seems you are are an outlier on that bell shaped curve.

I do not think any one of the groups you have mentioned would have a problem agreeing with "We would like the most people possible to enjoy the wilderness setting of the Grand Canyon and the world as a whole" as a goal. Again it seems to go back to your xenophobic outlook on how people should be allowed to do it.

As for GCPBA trying to restrict/reduce/block allocation for private boats, that is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. I am not involved with they organization other then lurking their message board, but I applaud them for sticking to the spirit of an agreement they reached in good faith that greatly improved the situation of the private boating community.

Regardless if you are or not, you come off as a radical fringe group that doesn't play nice with others and is about 1 step away from fire-bombing a bunch of SUVs or maybe in this case motor-rigs.

Bottom line, we are all neighbors and should be friends, lets try to remember that and play nice with each other.

Ok, I said my piece, I'm going to try to exit the conversation and enjoy the rest of the show.


----------



## CB Rob (Feb 13, 2010)

I think Tom brings up some good points. There was nothing radical about pointing out that the GCPBA would rather leave the current system alone for the rest of its trial period.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Thanks for the "elaboration"*

Hi Bad, 

Just want to remind you that this is Grand Canyon National Park we are talking about. The river was identified for its wilderness character since 1977 in a recommendation that went to President Jimmy Carter.

The only groups who have used Congress to get their way over how the river should be controlled as opposed to the National Park Service have been the river concessions with the 1980 Hatch Act.

Clearly, no one but you is talking fire bombs here.Your shots at messengers are noted. 

All the best, Tom


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*A post for Andy as GCPBA admits they asked for a postponement*

Hi Andy, you might want to know that GCPBA Board Member Marshall Nickles notes the GCPBA did indeed join the others in asking for a postponement:

"The fact that we were never told of this by the NPS and learned about from a third party, as we are recognized constituent and stakeholder in this process (RRFW is not) makes asking for a delay so that we might consider a response totally reasonable. By the time we had started to look at generating an opinion which represented our membership's wishes, the NPS had already made up it's mind on the matter, so there was no reason for us to comment. It was a "we're going to do this now, oops, no wait, we changed our mind" sort of thing that GCPBA had no influence on one way or the other IIRC"


Just so you know that the Riverwire was correct in stating the GCPBA joined the GCROA, GCRG and GCRR in asking for a postponement. 

Also noted from the GCROA letter, 

" As you are aware, GCROA and the river concessionaires were informed during this years' annual NPS/ outfitter meeting of your decision to modify the one-trip-per-year rule so as to allow non-commercial boaters who undertake a trip during the spring, summer or fall to accompany a second trip launching on certain winter dates. Public announcement of this decision was at the time scheduled to occur five days later at a Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association meeting."

Yours in getting to the facts of the matter, Tom


----------



## EZ (Feb 10, 2004)

*Transparency*

Hi Tom,

You are an author or coauthor of several publications whose sales benefit from increased usage of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon by both private and commercial boaters (passengers). I suspect that the majority of your sales are from private boaters, but it is not unreasonable to think that a commercial passenger would buy a copy of your Day Hikes book.

Increased access in Grand Canyon is likely to benefit you monetarily.

Repeat boaters are less likely to buy more of your books after the first copy, although you are now in your 4th (?) edition of Day Hikes.

Please answer this question: How do you disentangle your commercial interests from your non-commercial interests, in the context of RRFW?

Also, you state in previous posts that RRFW is a plural entity, with the use of the pronoun "we". In the interest of transparency, who are these other people and how do they disentangle their similar commercial interests? I imagine that these people are enumerated on your website, but in order to better serve the boating community I would be interested to hear from you directly and publicly about this.

Please do not bring GCPBA into your reply, this has nothing to do with them or your conflict with them. This inquiry is solely in regards to RRFW and the issue of conflicts of interest.

Thanks for your time,
Erik


----------



## CanyonEJ (Jul 28, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> The river was identified for its wilderness character since 1977 in a recommendation that went to President Jimmy Carter.


Well, isn't the difference between a National Park and a Wilderness pretty clear. The Grand Canyon has a "wilderness character", as do parts of Yellowstone, Teton, Denali, Yosemite, Canyonlands, Zion, etc, etc. Each and every one of us here could go to any National Park and find "wilderness character." But they were chosen by the Department of the Interior to be managed as National Parks. In National Parks there is not necessarily any rule as to how they are to be managed. The superintendent(s), past and present, can choose to manage Parks as they see fit, and their choices set a precedent. Nowhere does it say that they have to be managed as if they were Wilderness areas with a capital W. Wilderness areas, as set aside by congress, are places where specific rules must be followed under the Wilderness Act. 

I just cannot get past how you think that the National Park Service is supposed to act according to this recommendation as if it is law. And if you worked with people instead of against everyone else, I think you'd find a better reception.


----------



## CanyonEJ (Jul 28, 2008)

EZ said:


> I suspect that the majority of your sales are from private boaters, but it is not unreasonable to think that a commercial passenger would buy a copy of your Day Hikes book.


Motor Guides also, I've had them on, and seen them on every motor trip I've done.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Erik, thanks for your note, in which you state: “Increased access in Grand Canyon is likely to benefit you monetarily.” 

In that case, you’d assume we want nothing but increased access, commercial, non-commercial, motor or oar, to sell more books. But that is not the case. We at RRFW support wilderness protection for Grand Canyon including the river. Vishnu Temple Press, a member of the Conservation Alliance, feels the same. 

Wilderness protection implies access restrictions to preserve the resource. Writing guides for the river and backcountry has helped to assist on-river communications between all river runners. These books help folks answer that “Hey, where are you camping tonight question.” 

These books have also helped empower river runners. Beta is a good thing, previously the majority of this info was held only by concessions crew. Now the playing field has been leveled on the river somewhat.

Riverwires like the one that started this thread do the same thing. Knowledge is a good thing in my book. 

You note “Repeat boaters are less likely to buy more of your books after the first copy, although you are now in your 4th (?) edition of Day Hikes.” 

Day Hikes Fourth edition is at the printer. The book business, Vishnu Temple Press with my sweetie of 20 years as the senior partner, prints small runs of the Day Hikes so we can afford to stay in printing at all, keep costs low and stay up on changes. We just completely retooled the Day Hikes river miles to match GCMRC mileage changes. The Grand Canyon Guide, with Co-Author Duwain Whitis, is very costly to print, and all “profit” is split 50-50. The print runs are also small, so we can afford to print the guide and to keep up on changes. 

Your next question: “Please answer this question: How do you disentangle your commercial interests from your non-commercial interests, in the context of RRFW?” 

LOL! What’s to “disentangle”. The book business, with 12 actual VTP titles, doesn’t pay me anything, and Hazel makes less than minimum wage with the “ENTIRE” book business. Maybe we are not good savvy business folks, or, as is the case, this is a labor of love. We have become much “richer” in that we have met the coolest folks and learned so much about the Grand Canyon region's history. That, my friend, is priceless! 

By the way, anyone who is interested, being a physical therapist is so much fun! That’s what pays the bills, and it’s a very wonderful profession. 

Your next question: “Also, you state in previous posts that RRFW is a plural entity, with the use of the pronoun "we". In the interest of transparency, who are these other people and how do they disentangle their similar commercial interests?” 

RRFW is a Project of the non-profit Living Rivers, and you are correct, the web site page “about us” at http://rrfw.org/aboutus has bios on the eight key folks that keep the RFWW wheels going. 

None of the folks listed, myself, Jo Johnson, Tom Robey, TinnaMarie Ekker, Kim Crumbo, Jeff Ingram, John Weisheit and Owen Lammars, has any “similar commercial interest” unless you want to include Crumbo and Ingram as authors. They would most likely laugh you out of the room if you asked them about how much they have gained commercially from their writings. There are other folks who help in many ways as well, as with all non-profit volunteer advocacy groups. They are listed throughout the RRFW web site where they participate. 

All the best, Tom


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

*Why would anyone oppose greater private GC access?*



alanbol said:


> I don't know what was decided between the outfitters and GCPBA or why, but it's clear that GCPBA decided to side with the outfitters here. That appears to be contrary to the interests of their members...
> 
> So now that RRFW is advocating for more access, GCPBA says no. What gives? Can either of you think of a good reason?


Alanbol,

Its easy to forget since its been a few years, but here's what was decided between the outfitters and GCPBA / AW. Private boater user day allocation was increased from about 58,000 to about 113,400 user days, and private launches increased from about 250 to about 500 trips yearly. The commercial outfitters' allocation remained about constant and strict limitations were set on when they can run motorized trips. As part of the negotiations, the parties agreed to support the current management plan (CRMP) until it comes up for review. 

This is what RRFW refers to when they talk about GCPBA "selling out" private boaters' interests. 

So now RRFW wants to change the one-trip-a-year (OTAY) rule in the middle of the CRMP evaluation period (remember the waitlist folks still haven't even been cleared out of the system yet) and is stating that since GCPBA isn't joining them, or is actively opposing a change to the agreement, GCPBA is "selling out" private boaters. 

Now lets put the shoe on the other foot. Say a splinter group of GC outfitter companies wants to run motor trips outside the motor season and lobbies the NPS to change the CRMP so they can do motor trips in February and March. The agreement to support the current CRMP means that the outfitters trade group (GCROA) will have to join the GCPBA in opposing a change proposed by their fellow outfitters that they would probably love to see. 

Or looking forward, lets hypothetically say that in the next CRMP review, things are opened up again and everything's on the table. GCPBA wants to repeal the OTAY rule. What if the outfitters want to extend the motor season a couple of weeks further into the shoulder seasons that are currently non-motorized. What would you do if the the outfitters were willing to drop this request if GCPBA dropped repeal of the OTAY rule? 

What would you be willing to give up so a few dozen boaters can go on two GC trips a year? 

So the rules are set and everyone defends and plays by them until the CRMP comes up for review. Abiding by the agreement that gave private boaters a huge increase in access is a pretty good reason for opposing a rule change that may result in a few dozen boaters getting to go down the Canyon twice a year. Standing by the agreement will also help maintain the Private Boaters' standing with other stakeholders when the CRMP comes up for review and further negotiations take place.

I expect that RRFW will soon follow this up stating that private boaters have been sold out by GCPBA /AW and should not be satisfied with the current negotiated agreement, and that if we would just file another lawsuit, soon the commercials with their motors would be gone from the Canyon, commercial boaters will never be able to take private boaters' campsites, we'll have the place to ourselves and everyone that wants to get a private trip would be able to go whenever we want and as many times a year as we want. Actually that's going a little bit overboard and I really don't know what RRFW is going to follow this up with, but there will be something. There always is.

I'm done posting to this thread; RRFW can have the last word if they want it. And aside from the parts about GCPBA "selling out private boaters" by not reaching a few pieces of the candy that got left up on the shelf so we could have half of the pie, its all going to sound really great to me too. 

-AH


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Andy, your post has a number of misleading statements, so to be clear:

While you note that user days increased, you might also point out the vast majority of increased access to private boaters happened in the off season. 

You can site 50-50 all you want, but it's not 50-50 by season. At all. Therein lies one major flaw in the present plan.

The current plan has a feature called Adaptive Management. Supporting the present plan supports Adaptive Management.

What surprised us was that the GCPBA hasn't done anything to make the present plan work, and when given a chance, refused to do so. Go figure. 

Meanwhile, RRFW has been asking the park for years to use Adaptive Management to make what we have work. 

We, along with a bunch of other groups, have been saying the plan is a mess since the NPS signed the Record of Decision.

What is the real scenario, is the GCPBA was notified of a good and simple change that RRFW had been working on. The change was to be announced at the GCPBA’s meeting. 

Not wanting anything productive to happen to the Plan through RRFW’s efforts, the GCPBA joined the river concessions to ask for a postponement. 

Your conjecturing about splinter concessions groups hypothetically doing this or that is just that, conjecture. 

Thank heavens, this all will be reviewed in the next CRMP, assuming the river concessions don’t attempt legislation to cement in what they have before then.

You are really misinformed if you think allowing river runners to access unclaimed winter trips is bad for the present plan. It’s bad for self guided river runners because they can not access what the NPS has allowed them to, but you don’t seem to care. Neither does the GCPBA.

This has nothing to do with another lawsuit. 

Also, you are the one implying RRFW wants to rid the Canyon of commercial services.

RRFW has consistently advocated for Necessary and Appropriate commercial services, pointing out that while some level of commercial services is necessary and appropriate, dominating summertime access with motorized tour boats is neither. 

Yours, tom


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Where is Marshall's Post?*

Hi Marshall, I can't seem to find your latest post. Here it is:

Andy's post doesn't have nearly as many misleading statements and departures from reality as yours Tom. 

Adaptive management has never really been described to my satisfaction. It seems to be totally to the whim of the NPS what falls into this category and what does not. Is making a change to the actual CRMP adaptive management, or is adaptive management more like the fire blanket requirement ? I can't seem to nail this down. We aren't opposed to the park changing things for the better thru adaptive management, but we, as a group, aren't going to support changes to the CRMP without actually having data, good solid reliable data, to base those requests on. That's simply being responsible, and in that vein, we decided that the appropriate time for suggestions for change, this time, would be during the revision of the plan in 2016.

GCPBA has made suggestions for minor tweaks such as the rule allowing motors to be carried in non motor season for use on the lake, but changing something as big as the OTAY rule, without knowing how the lottery would function if it stayed the same, well that's a horse of a different color, especially as I keep repeating, there isn't any data to support such a change so soon in the CRMP. Not to mention that 50% of our membership are for the OTAY rule, and 50% opposed to it making it very difficult for GCPBA to generate a recommendation one way or the other. 

Remember, unlike RRFW which acts on a whim, and doesn't answer to a membership OR Board of directors, GCPBA does not operate that way, instead taking it's direction from it's membership's wishes. 

The NPS's records indicate that only 5 people were continual repeaters, and admit that this relaxation you desire, would POSSIBLY benefit 2 or 3 boaters a year. 

As I got tired of retyping the above, it's cut from a reply on another list. 

Tom, GCPBA could care less that RRFW championed a change, as long as it was a good change. We're not nearly as vindictive as you make us out to be. We don't need to stand on soapboxes and take bows. You apparently thrive on that sort of attention, we don't. We just work for our membership, a lot more productively than RRFW is as evidenced by our accomplishments vs. yours. 

Tom, you want to rid GC of motors. To accomplish that feat, you would have to significantly reduce access, something you carefully hide. GCPBA spent weeks running every possible scenario using the GC Trip simulator, and past being able to walk down the river jumping from boat to boat, there was no way to eliminate motors, and keep the pre 2006 CRMP levels of access, let alone the increased access we gained with the 2006 CRMP. If this access was indeed reduced, where do you think it'd come from ? The commercial pool ? Not on your life, the privates would suffer huge losses, and there would be a 30 year wait. That's reality right there. 

There's more truth in Andy's post than in yours. Just because you have an axe to grind, doesn't mean that everyone is like you. GCPBA cares, we just take a measured and careful approach to our journey
***************


There may also be other replies, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

All the best,
Mountain Buzz


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

This reminds me of the old Farr Side cartoon, where the people are talking to the dogs, and the bubble over the people says "blah blah blah blah GINGER".


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Now, a reply to Marshall's Post*

Hi Marshall, you raise a good point I would like you to indeed consider, so let’s take off our flame suits for a minute and ponder this:

Adaptive Management is in the plan and allows the NPS to make changes to the CRMP, regardless of any of us being “satisfied” with it or not.

As an example, Adaptive management allowed the NPS to shorten the driftwood burning fire season starting next winter. 

That is a BIG change for winter river runners, who will now have to haul in their own wood in February. This change is bigger than a modification to the One-trip-a-year rule in the winter season as it will impact many more trips.

So the NPS wanting to make a change to the One-trip-a-year rule is allowed, and is a smaller deal then the change they just made.

Your point about not having good solid reliable data is a good one. If you go to the NPS web site at this page, 

Grand Canyon National Park - Helpful Links for Noncommercial River Trips (U.S. National Park Service)

you can see five years of lottery data, and you can see winter trips going unclaimed for five winters in a row. This has been going on irrespective of the economic downturn.

If you wouldn’t mind to review the data and see indeed that there are unclaimed winter dates every winter in a row for the 2006 through 2011 lotteries, and that making those trips more attractive to self guided river runners is a good idea, we at RRFW stand ever ready to join you in a joint letter to the NPS, as early as this spring, to ask the NPS to implement the change. 

You know, we could do it today! And, it wouldn’t impact the relationship GCPBA has with the Trade folks, as you all are still supporting the 2006 CRMP.

Ok, flame suits back on:

We don’t and certainly won’t agree on a lot of issues. The rest of your e-mail is pure nonsense and is ground we have covered in the past add nausea. You know an open allocation system has the potential for self guided river runners to increase their access, AND you know the answer to the summertime imbalance in use cannot be to simply increase use. 

We are looking at 12,000 unused concessions user days for last season. There must be a mechanism, when many dozens of self guided permit holders are being turned away every day when those concessions trips are not going, that the concessions use can be shifted to the self-guided sector. 

These big ticket issues are the ones we will all be working on for 2016.

Yours as always, tom


----------



## swiftwater15 (Feb 23, 2009)

Looking at the NPS web site, it looked like they had anticipated 120 private winter launches per year, and had 82 in 2006 and 95 each in 2008 and 2009. Have the numbers increased since then? I didn't have time to crunch the 2010 numbers. It seems that more and more private boaters are getting their minds and their gear in tune for a winter GC trip, and that's a reason not to throw out the OTAY rule yet.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

This just in...

RRFW Riverwire - Grand Canyon Going to Hell in a Handbasket - 4/1/2010

For countless millenia the pure beauty of the canyon existed in a delicate balance as the most important ditch in the universe. Humans arrived, shit all over the place, and its wilderness character was degraded to the level of a McDonald's drive thru. 

RRFW now proudly proposes its 2010 extreme wilderness management plan for the grand canyon. The plan is simple... blow up glen canyon and hoover dams, torch phantom ranch, obliterate all trails in the canyon, and completely destroy all roads to and from the river. River runners will have to hike rafts in from flagstaff, and must handpaddle the flat sections as squeeky ourlocks have been found to harm the ear canal of the sacred headbanging lizard.

The new permitting lottery will also be introduced. Commerical outfitters will get one launch per year... Feb 29. Years without Feb 29th on the calendar will be designated SOL years. The process for selection of the commerical lottery will be hand to hand combat of lead guides from each outfitter. 

Private boaters will have a separate lottery. RRFW have long advocated for a true 50/50 split and its finally here. Tom Martin will get 50% of the launches, and the other 50% will go to the people Tom Martin thinks should be allowed to go. 

Air traffic noise has long been an issue, and its also been solved. A surface to air missle battery will shoot down any plane attempting to fly even close to the canyon. The most advanced military missle balistics calculations have been used to ensure that plane wreckage falls directly on GCPBA headquarters.

It should also be noted that the GCPBA has been proved to fund international terrorist training camps, has been implicated in putting razors in children's candy, is solely responsible for the persistent drought in the western united states.

Note: Not an actual riverwire, all references to people, places, and things are fictional, similarities to real life individuals are intended and meaningless, all mudslinging at GCPBA has been independently verified by the non-partisan nit-picking, pissing, and moaning coalition. Persons taking this post seriously will be banned from the canyon for life, and persons taking life too seriously will be banned from living life for life.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

^^^ Love it!


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

deepsouthpaddler said:


> River runners
> 
> must handpaddle the flat sections as squeeky ourlocks have been found to harm the ear canal of the sacred headbanging lizard.


Absolutely, oarlocks and oars provide mechanical advantage, in direct conflict with Wilderness rules.

That was pretty cute, almost as good as Grif!


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Dang, where were you when we needed you on April First!


----------



## superpuma (Oct 24, 2003)

must make raft from drift wood found below the high-water line


----------



## GCPBA (Oct 22, 2009)

*Further pointless discussion*

Swiftwater, 

You bring up an interesting notion, that of people discovering that the shoulder and winter season trips are preferable to the summer. I launched once in June and will never make that mistake again. The GCPBA treasurer (who is on the river currently) stated to me before he left that he's been doing nothing but March and April trips, and finds them preferable to the summer trips he's done previously. Heck, even in Tom Martin's day hikes books, Tom states that some of his hikes are too hot to do in the summer. 120 degrees is too hot for me, that's for sure. 

Tom, nice to see you actually discuss something without slinging mud. Yes, I have seen the limited data available on the NPS site. Can you provide me with data that shows how the lottery will function once the dates currently unavailable due to being taken by those previously on the wait list are released into the pool ? Can you tell me how the lottery will be affected once the 11 million unemployed find jobs and can afford once again to take a GC trip ? 

Those are 2 valid points. I know of boaters that have been forced to sell their gear to keep their homes, that previously HAD GC launches planned for 09 and 10, permits in hand, that now cannot go. It used to be that it was viewed as a sin to let a GC trip launch without the full contingent of 16, and now, I see a LOT of posts on various lists for people trying to get as many as 5 together to go, and having problems doing even that. This is a very poor time to try and judge demand. To do so in mine, and many others opinions is irresponsible. 

You know we will never see eye to eye on many of the matters that concern GC. GCPBA has a different approach to things, and unlike RRFW, we have a constituency to answer to which is called our membership. What we can agree on is that the current CRMP isn't ideal. 

I doubt at this juncture that we'd join you in forcing an issue that's been decided. I can tell you, as a very experienced person in river management, not a GCPBA board member, that going after the outfitters allocation isn't going to gain you anything. It's been tried on other rivers, and has failed miserably. The outfitters are going to cite many of the reasons I cited above, and management is going to be sympathetic to those reasons, for a lot of reasons, not the least is the revenue that the comm ops provide them. Is it right ? Just ? and fair ? Perhaps that depends on the side of the fence you're sitting on. 

Had you come to us, and the outfitters, when you tried to make this change happen, there's a good chance that you would have had our, and their support, and the change could have happened. Not likely from what I saw that it would have happened once the NPS thought about it, but who knows. Operating in a bubble with an all or nothing attitude tends not to be a productive way to do things, but you don't play well with others, and find yourself disappointed at the fruits of your labors. 

Surprises as well don't tend to be well accepted, especially when they come at such a delicate time, when the spirit of cooperation has gained so many things for everyone concerned, and a fledgling plan is in it's infancy. The Bombshell that the park service dropped when they announced they were thinking of doing this with only 5 days for the stakeholders to discuss it, well it was met with immediate resistance from the comm ops, and rightly so. The years of negotiations and deliberations that went on within the stakeholder groups are viewed by many as sacred ground, and everyone should have been consulted before anything outside what some consider adaptive management and some don't, was attempted. 

You might find that if you spent as much time slinging mud at those stakeholder groups, and tried, yes I know, but at least gave it the old college try for once, that you might actually get something accomplished that you want. It's going to be hard to convince some that RRFW actually wants to play in the sandbox, and will agree to play nice, but if you could, and made an honest effort, you might be surprised at the results.

As an aside, when I first read the riverwire, I thought to myself, What ? RRFW is finally putting their cards on the table, and then I got to the disclaimer at the end. 

Ciao

Marshall


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Marshall, the offer still stands. 

We can't be held responsible for the NPS's handling of the timing of the release of the OTPY rule change, you know that. Sources within the NPS say the NPS was quite surprised when the GCPBA did not agree to the change, as the NPS assumed the GCPBA would want the change. 

You also know the NPS supported the change, then withdrew the change based on comments form the river concessions support groups. The Park knows where RRFW stands on this, and you at the GCPBA have said no changes till 2016. That's what you all have been saying for years, so we didn't think to ask you earlier. But we are asking now, and the offer still stands. 

All the best, Tom


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> Hi Marshall, the offer still stands.
> 
> We can't be held responsible for the NPS's handling of the timing of the release of the OTPY rule change, you know that. Sources within the NPS say the NPS was quite surprised when the GCPBA did not agree to the change, as the NPS assumed the GCPBA would want the change.
> 
> ...


Anytime some one (other than god or some other supreme being) claims to know what someone else knows, you gotta be leery. 

Scanning this thread, I hear alot of this Tom guy saying "you....". Own what you can own and quit trying to project your thoughts and feelings on others. While it makes for an amusing thread, it has definitley has turned me off to you and your group.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Try this Haywire...*

RRFW Haywire - Grand Canyon All Sewn Up - 4/1/2010
From Lee’s Ferry to Washington DC

For countless millennia the pure beauty of the Grand Canyon existed in a delicate balance as the most important ditch in the universe. Humans arrived, shit all over the place, and its wilderness character was degraded to the level of a McDonald's drive thru. 

Ted Hatchet, of Hatchet River Expeditions, now proudly proposes continuing the 1981 extreme lack of wilderness management plan for the Grand Canyon. The plan is simple... continue to allow a small oligopoly of government contractors with sweet rollover contracts to make millions by trashing a World Heritage Site while keeping self guided river runners out of the Canyon in the Summer.

“The new permitting lottery is Great!” notes Hatchet. “We, the commercial concessionaires, get all the summertime launches, and the do-it-yourselfers get all the winter launches. And you know what? They agree to call it 50-50! WAHOO!” (Hatchet jumps in the air and clicks his heels together).

Sherriff Dimes, a board member of the Grand Canyon Naked Boaters Association, is thrilled with the new plan. “We are so happy with half the user days, we don’t care that private boaters don’t want to boat naked in the winter, at least we got the launches on paper!” Dimes notes that the lottery application is so restrictive, that permits are going unclaimed. “We’ll do something about it in 2016” notes Dimes. 

Hatchet is happy that the GCNBA takes the winter. “We control who goes in the summer, and how they go. Wilderness and Grand Canyon be dammed….hey, mind that low flying helicopter, it’s going to land right where you are standing.”

Air traffic noise has long been an issue, and it has also been solved. “The more helicopters the better, notes Hatchet, who admits he uses the helicopter take-outs to market his otherwise unsellable trips. “Yes, we know 9 out of 10 folks who have done an oar and a motor trip want to take an oar trip over a motor trip, but we offer a helicopter at the end of the motor trip to get them off the trip pronto! Hey, it’s what the people want!”

It should also be noted that the GCNBA has been accepting funding from the river concessions groups, and telling their members what to think based on ongoing secret negotiations with the Grand Canyon Alliance of Motor Interests, known as GC All-Mine. According to Dimes, it’s what the GC Naked members want!

Note: Not an actual riverwire, all references to people, places, and things are fictional, similarities to real life individuals are intended and meaningless. Persons taking this post seriously will be banned from the canyon for life, and persons taking life too seriously will be banned from living life for life.


----------



## Kyle K (Dec 17, 2008)

I've been following this with a lot of interest. I have some history in the game, so perhaps I have something to add to the conversation. 

Full disclosure:
1. I grew up in a river rafting family who had a permit in the GC (perhaps the last permit issued in the original go round, back around 1970) amongst other places. 
2. I worked as a guide in the GC in the '70's. 
3. I worked as a guide and outfitter in the first half of the '80's. (Same company, I just took over for my parents.) 
4. We sold our company (that my parents created) in 1986. It was called Wilderness World, the new company is Canyon Explorations. (No roll-over from our family to CanX, just the equipment and the permit.)
5. I am an ardent private boater these days, mostly kayaks, but rafts and dories too. I paddle/row all over the place, not just the GC, but it will always be my favorite. 
6. I have done a number of privates in the GC, along with all the commercial trips.
7. I am a lifelong member of Grand Canyon River Guides (GCRG) and proud of it. 
8. I am also a member (for years) of American Whitewater and proud of it. 
9. I have no affiliation with GCPBA or RRFW that I know of. 
10. I did privates in 08 and 09 and am in the system for future privates. 
11. I'd like to row a couple of commercials a year, given the chance, as I'm recently "semi-retired" and want to get back to the things I love. 

Some observations from my experiences:

There are good outfitters and bad outfitters, just as there are good privateers and bad privateers. Nobody here has a clean slate. 

Some of the outfitters were actually pioneers in making the place cleaner by adopting the currently used toilet systems and fire pans before they were required. A lot (but not all) of the privateers bitched about having to carry out their waste back then. A lot of the outfitters bitched too. I think everyone agrees it's the only way to go now. 

The vast majority of the commercial guides love and protect that place more than anyone I know. Working in the Canyon is a privilege (you're absolutely right on that one Tom) and anyone who spends time there realizes it soon enough. With very few exceptions, I think the outfitters feel the same way. Yes, they are lucky to be there and the current system isn't always fair, but life isn't always fair and it never will be. 

I do have to laugh at the "millions" of dollars the outfitters are supposedly making. Having real world experience at that, and we were a successful medium small company, I can say that getting rich off river trips is pretty damned hard and not damned likely. Good living? Sure, some of them. Rich? Maybe a few, but not many. 

Economics 101: Grossing several million dollars a year does not mean profits in the millions. A 10% net after expenses, taxes and fees would be considered pretty friggin' good. 

Another thing: There is obviously a lot of demand for commercial trips down there as they typically fill up. The argument that most of those commercial passengers would do in on their own is BS. Many, many people want to go through the Canyon without having to do all the work. Most of them don't have the skill and are happy to pay to have someone do it for them.

And one more little tidbit: If you think that you'll see more of the Canyon on a private trip versus a good commercial trip, think again. While it's certainly possible to do that, given the extra days, many, many a private trip spends their time down there leaving camp late and getting to camp early. Personally I think it's a rare private that hikes more than a _good_ commercial trip. Of course, hiking isn't everything and there is something great to be said for how relaxing a private can be. Point being that you can get a lot out of either trip, it's up to you (and the guides on the commercial side).

All that said, the current situation for private boaters could certainly be improved and a private trip is an awesome way to experience the Canyon. I am all for allowing boaters more than one trip per year, given they do it on an unclaimed/cancelled launch date. Why waste the days? 

There are lots of "facts" being thrown around in these posts. I suggest everyone be cautious about believing everything they read just because someone says it's so. 

Here is what I believe:

The Grand Canyon is too special a place _not_ to regulate it from it's worst enemy: all of us. While the current system isn't perfect, it is certainly better than it was 10 years ago. That doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be improved though.

And while it's fine to keep working on and trying to improve the system, baited (and infantile - as entertaning as they are) posts from any side won't get it done. The ONLY way anything will change is if all parties come to the table and work together. Everyone has their own agenda but, in order to make any headway they are going to have to give a little to get a little. 

These ongoing posts remind me a lot of the current shitpile situation we have in our government: Two opposing sides and no one is willing to move to some common ground. Too bad for all of us.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Excellent Post Kyle!*

Hi Kyle, thanks for your well reasoned post. 

Yes, there are good and bad folks everywhere. The Grand Canyon, as you point out, is not exception. 

The toilet system was introduced and pushed by some do it yourself river runners in the 1960;s, and you are quite correct that both commercial and self guided folks complained. (Cite Ingram Hijacking a River)

Yes, concessions crew certainly love and protect the place, but so do a lot of self guided river runners. 

As to fairness and life, I heard a great quote the other day. While life isn’t fair, we do our best to make sure that sports and our government should be. The Colorado River in Grand Canyon, managed by the National Park Service, should be an example of how things like river running can be managed fairly.

As to concessions profits, after speaking with an ex accountant for one of the river concessionaires, a 50% net was more like what they were making. Your point about some doing well and others not is reflected in a 1970’s study (was it Parent?) that showed profitability was a result of good or poor company management. 

If you look at what the livery companies charge a day, with year round office staff and seasonal employees, and what the concessions charge a day, with a larger seasonal employee pool, the potential for a profit margin begins to emerge. But that’s a side issue. 

As to demand, we know now what the distribution of lottery applicants is. The NPS could have shared the distribution of Waiting List applicants was, but they didn’t share that. Now, seeing actual applications helps us look at one more component of demand. What is still missing is any similar data from concession services. 

According to the NPS, there were something like 10,000 unused concessions user days last year. That’s what, 4 or 5 times the size of Wilderness World’s user days. 

During the same time period, there were thousands of lottery applicants that went away losers. 

During the CRMP, an economist noted that the majority of folks who want to raft the river would most likely seek something between the completely self guided and total turn-key concessions trips. But that type of commercial service is not allowed. This is more missing data that makes management difficult.

What one see’s on a river trip is in the eye of the beholder. You have no doubt reached the take out on a self guided trip and noticed your feet were not touching the ground. Same could be said for concessions trips. This is a good thing, but not what makes an argument for any type of fixed allocation distribution.

Your point about easing up the tight controls on self guided folks applying for winter permits makes a lot of sense. Agreed, why waste the days. 

Remember the 1981 plan? It gave a lot of increased user days to the self guided river runners. But trip launches were limited in the off season such that the full use of the user days allowed could not be used as there were no trip launches available. In the 1989 CRMP, the NPS allowed more trips to launch in the off season, and actual use finally approached the total user days allowed. 

We now have Adaptive Management to make the needed changes. Let’s see if the NPS can agree to make this needed change for the 2010-2011 season. 

Good point about facts. Trust but verify!

Your point about baiting posts is excellent! Thanks for that! And, at one point we can only hope all groups interested in this issue would come together and seek a “bi-partisan” agreement, like has recently been attempted with the overflights issue. A few like minded groups can come up with a plan, but this is far from having a group of all interested parties work toward a common goal while not leaving any party out “because we don’t like how they think”.

Hopefully, the goal would be resource protection first, and on the shoulders of a healthy resource we then have equitable access.

Thanks again for your post Kyle! Yours, Tom


----------



## Kyle K (Dec 17, 2008)

Tom,

Thank you for the well thought out reply. I agree with almost everything you're saying with a couple of exceptions. 

One thing to remember is that when the original and secondary allocations were made, the demand for private trips was pretty small. Of course better gear, better skill sets and more knowledge (I love your guide book!) of what was once considered a dangerous and forbidding journey have upped that demand considerably. I know that many, many more folks are capable of doing the trip on their own now and, more importantly, _want_ to do it on their own. 

One idea I would like to see implemented is the ability for a private to hire a guide to help them if they don't feel completely capable on their own. I would consider this a great blend of private and commercial use. That comes with it's own set of repercussions but we'll save that for a later discussion if need be.

We would all love to see more equitable use for privates but I'm not sure how to do it without cutting into the current outfitters ability to make a living. It's pretty hard to take away somebody's income in the name of what one group thinks is the best way to manage a place, as special and deserving as it is. I can't speak for you but I would be surprised if Vishnu Press didn't get a little upset if the EPA suddenly decided that all books can now only be published in electronic form because paper is not the "best" way to use trees. 

My concern is that some previous posts paint all of the river concessionaires as money grubbing capitalists that only want to use the resource to fatten their wallets. I think the truth is that many of the companies, especially the smaller ones, don't make much money at all and they do it only because they love the Canyon and feel lucky indeed that they can scratch away at making a living doing what they (and I) consider the best possible work in the world. 

I can't speak for the current outfitters but a 50% net was absolutely laughable for us: by huge measures I might add. And even if a company made a 20% profit (unlikely for many, regardless of how well they are managed) you must take into consideration that they only have a 6 month season at best. If you parlay that net profit out over 12 months it becomes apparent that one has to make reasonable money _during_ the season to keep the lights on for the off months. The office, taxes, rent, etc. don't go away from October through April. 

Again, I can only speak from my experiences but I'm guessing a lot of the other outfitters weren't too different. Frankly I wasn't a great business mind or company manager, but most outfitters (at least back in my day) were river guides first and business people second. 

For example: In '83 we received increases from our original user day allotments from '71. WiWo went from 2900 to 3750 (if my memory is correct). That put us in a bit of a quandary: at 2900 days we could run one crew all season long (no overlapping trips) with 25 passengers per trip max. That meant I only needed one good set of gear, one really good crew and life was very simple. I think we did 10 trips back to back over the season. 

When we received the extra days I had to make some hard decisions. This "blessing" was actually a bit of a curse. After a lot of consideration, I elected to cut our max trip size to 20 passengers, and created two overlapping crews: one on a 10 trip schedule and one on a 7 trip schedule. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics will realize that the extra costs associated with this cut _way_ into our profits. It costs very close to the same to run a 5 boat trip as it does a 6 boat trip (all oar powered rigs in our case) but the cash inflow is decidedly less. 

Was this the best decision economically? Nope. But my family agreed that it was the best way to achieve a high quality experience for our clients and still make a living wage (barely). To this day, many of those clients tell me their GC trip with us was one of the highlights of their lives. That's a pretty nice legacy to have and I'm honored and humbled by it. 

But back to the economics: During the '80's I was the vice president and part owner Wilderness World and my salary was $12,000 per year. Even then that constituted pretty crappy wages. I didn't send my parents much money (if any) and we rolled most of it back into the company, constantly upgrading/maintaining gear, vehicles and such. 

So, you can tell, I have a very soft spot for many of the outfitters and guides down there and I think many of them are unfairly painted as having "money first, Canyon second" mindsets. 

That said, I am now mostly a privateer and would love nothing more than to launch a bunch of times a year. I am willing to take my lumps though, as we continue to work out the best way to manage this incredible resource. I applaud your efforts for more equitable launches as well as the efforts of all the folks that got us (private boaters) the much better system we have today than we had just a few short years ago. And I hope it continues to change and improve! 

Keep up the good fight and remember that we're all in this together, even if everyone doesn't agree with all potential outcomes or tactics. Thanks Tom, and_ all_ of you that strive to take care of our rivers and creeks: the lifeblood of our planet and our passion.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Kyle, thanks again for your thoughts. We are all in this together, attempting to preserve what is helpless to preserve itself.

Thank you for the points on demand in the late 70’s early 80’s. I may have this wrong, but from the implementation of the first permit system in the mid 1950’s, Grand Canyon National Park tried to dissuade self guided folks from doing the river on their own. This helped the river companies, and certainly served to slow the increased self guided demand for a while. 

You could be right that demand was small, but that was then, and now...looking at the applications for the lottery, one can assume self guided demand is very robust. 

Your point about hiring a guide (or a consultant) is a good one. We at RRFW have been saying this is a commercial service and should come from the concessions allocation in a fixed allocation world, and in an allocation-free system, with limits on the number of trip-starts a day, it wouldn’t matter what the winner of the permit wanted to do. Hire a consultant, do their own trip with friends, hire a full commercial turn-key trip… options options. 

Folks wrongly say RRFW wants to get into the “consultant” business, but they are misguided in thinking that. 

One very small way to increase self guided access is by a simple modification to the one-trip-per-year rule. That started this thread. Another option is to slowly transition the allocation depending on real demand. The NPS was going to try this in the CRMP. Maybe they will try it again?

Also, and we may disagree here, but it’s not the NPS’s role to provide outfitters with guaranteed jobs. In an allocation free model, outfitters have to survive just like the livery services (Canyon REO, Moenkopi, PRO) with no allocated set aside. They would have to compete, keep costs low and customer service up, just like the livery businesses do.

Vishnu Temple Press has to compete in an open market. No government agency contracts with us for 10 years of X-number of book sales, with an option for a contract extension at the end of the ten years. This example may be more closer to what is happening in Grand Canyon.

Your point is well taken that we should not make assumptions about others motives. There’s enough of that going around these days. Most folks in the Canyon feel lucky to be there. Concessions crew indeed scratch away at trying to live off tips and low pay as seasonal employees, while the concession owners (or stockholders in ARAMARK’s case) take the $. This is of course a side issue.

The company accountant we spoke with worked for one of the larger concessionaires, so that 50% may have factored into the size of the company as well. Remember, PRO, REO and others kept the lights on in the winter before winter use skyrocketed. They charge what $45-70 per person night, compared to concessions per day costs at $300-$450 per night.
Your point about being a river guide first, and maybe not having a business major background is a good one. While that was certainly how it was in the past, today it’s an industry.

Thanks so much for the example of how the increased user days changed your business model. One of the things that you had me thinking about is how the self guided folks really are engines in the economy. You pointed out that you only needed one good set of gear, while self guided folks all have their own life jacket, boat/kayak, and purchase food at retail vs wholesale, etc. I don’t think this has ever been factored into the regional economy mix, but I am getting off track. Sorry.


When you mentioned passengers talking about the Grand Canyon trip being the highlight of their lives, that is still happening today in the self guided world, and I can only assume it’s happening in the concessions world too...but I hear the cost of the concessions trips, being as high as it is, is not catering to Average Joe anymore, but to folks making well above what Joe will ever see. Does that make a difference in the trip? I don’t know...

And what did you charge in the 80’s? I just went to Western River Expedition’s web site and I can book a date certain 2010 prime time summer river trip today, 5 nights in the canyon, for $2,445.00. Cough. </SPAN>

Your point about concessions crew not being "money first, Canyon second" mindsets is spot on. Guide pay has not gone up that much in 20 years, and has certainly not kept pace with the yearly increase in trip costs the NPS allows concessions to charge. 

Kyle, thanks too for looking for solutions for the resource and all boaters, not just self serving what about me visions. I personally don’t want to launch a bunch of times a year. We boat and backpack in the Canyon, and do other things. One trip a year is enough for me. But this isn’t about what you or I want, and you pointing that out is greatly appreciated.

Like you, I too hope the River Management Plan continues to change and improve! Yes indeed, we're all in this together!

Thank you too Kyle, for your passion and stewardship of the Grandest of Canyons. 

Yours, tom


----------

