# Alternate Trip Leader Nonsense



## CU_Mateo (Jul 22, 2016)

The same rules apply for the grand. You either apply for your own permit or are a PATL on someone else’s. These have been the rules for a long time. It prohibits people from being a PATL on many people’s application who don’t actually intend on using the permit.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

The SJ is not the Grand Canyon. Is there a stipulation for the SJ that you can only go on one trip a year? If not, there is absolutely unwarranted.


----------



## CU_Mateo (Jul 22, 2016)

True, you can go down the SJ more than once per year but as far as the lottery goes, you still only get one ticket in the hat  you know as well as I that permits are becoming increasingly hard to get. Now, image that some people have 10 tries to your 1. Is that fair to everyone that is playing the game above board?


----------



## SherpaDave (Dec 28, 2017)

Andy H. said:


> The SJ is not the Grand Canyon. Is there a stipulation for the SJ that you can only go on one trip a year? If not, there is absolutely unwarranted.




The stipulation is not how many trips you can take per year but how many lottery dates any person can select (4).

I got an interesting email when a friend listed me as a PATL on another river. It simply said “click here to accept the PATL” (paraphrasing). This was even though I had already applied. The email didn’t mention you can only be on (1) lottery application. I can see potential frustration if someone was not paying attention and clicked it only to later get disqualified for being on 2. Since I didn’t try it maybe there would be a automated warning that says your lottery submission will be canceled.


----------



## Sharkness (Aug 5, 2009)

I can understand the frustration if you didn't realize the rules when you accepted the PATL role. 

That said, the whole point of a lottery is that it's relatively fair. If you could PATL on multiple applications and lottery under your own name, the door is open to unscrupulous boaters essentially buying higher odds than the rest of us get.


----------



## SherpaDave (Dec 28, 2017)

Sharkness said:


> That said, the whole point of a lottery is that it's relatively fair. If you could PATL on multiple applications and lottery under your own name, the door is open to unscrupulous boaters essentially buying higher odds than the rest of us get.



Really? There’s unscrupulous boaters out there? [emoji16]


----------



## davbaker (Aug 4, 2013)

I get the rationale for not allowing people to both apply for a permit and be listed as a PATL, especially on the GC. If you could do that I would be tempted to convince all of my non-boating friends and family to apply with the intention of them transferring the permit to me.

I am curious how common it is for folks to actually list a PATL? It just seems bizarre that someone would agree to be a PATL versus just submitting their own application. 

Dave


----------



## mkashzg (Aug 9, 2006)

Not sure about the limit on permits through recreation.gov but I currently have five different rivers in for next summer and they’re still excepting my dates and money. You might want to try again as I found nothing on the website to have any limitation on the amount of permits you can have.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

mkashzg said:


> Not sure about the limit on permits through recreation.gov but I currently have five different rivers in for next summer and they’re still excepting my dates and money. You might want to try again as I found nothing on the website to have any limitation on the amount of permits you can have.


Multiple permit dates for the San Juan (or other rivers with that restriction)...not multiple river permits in general.


----------



## gdaut (Jul 30, 2019)

davbaker said:


> I get the rationale for not allowing people to both apply for a permit and be listed as a PATL, especially on the GC. If you could do that I would be tempted to convince all of my non-boating friends and family to apply with the intention of them transferring the permit to me.
> 
> I am curious how common it is for folks to actually list a PATL? It just seems bizarre that someone would agree to be a PATL versus just submitting their own application.
> 
> Dave


Here is my guess as to why one would designate a PATL. If you and I want to do a trip, but we are unsure if we can both make it (erratic work schedules, prone to injury, whatever), one of us could apply for the permit and designate the other as a PATL. If one of us can't go, the trip still goes on. You can sort of achieve the same result by having us both apply - with double the chance of at least one permit - and if we both win a permit, by accepting both permits and then canceling one at the "last minute." But the last minute before a cancellation penalty is still a bit before launch date. And you need to win both permits.

But, for me the PATL seems like a bad deal, especially given the low success rate of permit applications.


----------



## David Snyder (Dec 9, 2010)

My two cents. Listing an alternate permit holder just helps your group as a whole having more assurance the trip still goes in case for some unforeseen reason you can't go on the trip. Obviously it's important to list someone that has intention to go on the trip.


----------



## DoStep (Jun 26, 2012)

Still seems to me one person applying with a PATL gives you lesser chances than both people applying individually. So you must weigh the two outcomes to decide which way to apply. I tell my alternate options to apply themselves so we have more chances to get the permit knowing the risk is if something unexpected arises the trip may not go.


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

It's a compromise/decision that depends on your goals.


The permits are so difficult to get, that having more people in your group apply increases odds that SOMEONE will get a permit. 



If the most important thing is to make sure any permits accepted will have a trip actually launch, give up the extra chance at winning one for the assurance that the group can still go even if the primary permit holder becomes ill or for any other reason can't go. Your group will have fewer entries in the lottery, but any awarded permit will have insurance.


I have a friend who hasn't been applying for GC permits. I would invite him on any trip I won, and he's fine being listed as PATL. I would HATE to have a group of eight or 12 people get really close to departure for a GC trip and have to cancel last minute. 



For GC, you can even list MULTIPLE PATLs listed. I have another friend who I asked if she wanted to be PATL on an application a couple years ago. She initially said sure, but she revised her decision NOT because she was applying that year, but rather that she wanted to apply the FOLLOWING year. If she was listed as PATL on my permit, and I won the lottery, her points would go back to one whether the trip went or not. She wanted to keep her five points! No, she didn't get the permit. Oh well. Good on her for actually reading the regulations before she clicked "YES." Not a bad plan.


For most of my OTHER applications, I don't list a PATL. I just hope for the best. We had a Rogue trip the year before last that had to get cancelled at the last minute. The permit holder got pneumonia. We strategized the best day to release the permits, and the few folks who still wanted to go all got busy calling in the next morning. We got enough of the released permits that we were still able to go. 



I encouraged a buddy to apply this year; I want to get him back on the river. I got an alert that he listed me as PATL. I told him I wasn't going to accept, and I told him why. Since it was Rec.gov, I don't know if he would have been able to go back and revise his application to list a different PATL. 



What gives me pause every year is that the permits are so difficult to win, I often put multiple river permit applications in for the same time or very close to the same time. If I were to win more than one permit, I'd have to release at least one. It's not that I don't intend to use the permit, it's just that with odds 150:1 against for prime season, odds are I'll never win one ever again. But I will always try.


----------



## davbaker (Aug 4, 2013)

I can see that it is definitely a compromise. However, it seems to me that if your goal is to obtain a permit and have the trip run it still makes way more sense to have everyone apply for a permit verus having a PATL. An example: you have 8 people who are determined to go on the GC and no one has ever run it. 8 people x 5 = 40 points. If instead, you have 7 folks apply and one agree to be PATL you have 35 points (reducing chances by 14%). Now let's say you do that and manage to win a permit, but the permit holder can't make it - well, you are only in luck if the permit holder happened to be the one to have listed the PATL (since the PATL can only be listed on one application). Otherwise, you are still out of luck. I suppose you could have half of the group apply for permits and the other half listed as PATLS but you are reducing your chances of winning a permit by half.

Maybe I am missing something here but I just can't see how, if I was committed to going on a GC trip, it would ever be to my advantage to be listed as a PATL versus just applying for a permit







Will Amette said:


> It's a compromise/decision that depends on your goals.
> 
> 
> The permits are so difficult to get, that having more people in your group apply increases odds that SOMEONE will get a permit.
> ...


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

I totally get why they don't want to let you apply and be a PATL... or at least I get their reasoning. I certainly don't agree with how they handle it...especially in the cases of tragedy happening to the PH without a PATL. I too encourage people not to put PATL and just apply seperately for similar reasons stated even though it feels wrong to risk it especially considered the fairly hard stance that the GCNP administration takes even when a fatal tragedy happens to a PH.

I think the most frustrating part for the Grand is that your points get dropped to the lowest number between you and the PATL. For those of us who go every year, it makes it so its no really all that viable to be a PATL for someone that hasn't been.

I think it would be fair to be able to submit a request to transfer a permit rather then have it cancel. It would require someone (or a group of people) to take on the duties of judging whether its worthy...but it seems like the fairest way to go. Submit an application to transfer permits with all the pertinent reasons why it needs to happen...and then allow a person or commitee to decide whether its warranted. Not sure how many applications would happen...but if it was alot maybe just do it once a month. If its not, just do it case by case.

At the end of the day... bitching about it on a forum is never gonna get anything done. While I'm not in a particularly good spot and also lack the charisma and charm that would maybe move this along...I'd certainly support a person or group who really wanted to work hard and get in the right peoples faces to make it happen.

It feels like we have this kind of thread every year around this time. Someone mentioned Privates vs. Concession earlier...and the big difference is even though they compete for business...the concessions act as one voice when it comes to politics and policy making via the Grand Canyon Outfitters Association. You certainly can't say that about the private boater organizations. The two major ones actively bicker and disagree, and seem to spend as much time doing that as they do actually advocating. Until that changes, and there is a more unified front that is willing to put as much time, effort, and money in as the GCROA...very little is going to get done.


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

davbaker said:


> I can see that it is definitely a compromise. However, it seems to me that if your goal is to obtain a permit and have the trip run it still makes way more sense to have everyone apply for a permit verus having a PATL. An example: you have 8 people who are determined to go on the GC and no one has ever run it. 8 people x 5 = 40 points. If instead, you have 7 folks apply and one agree to be PATL you have 35 points (reducing chances by 14%). Now let's say you do that and manage to win a permit, but the permit holder can't make it - well, you are only in luck if the permit holder happened to be the one to have listed the PATL (since the PATL can only be listed on one application). Otherwise, you are still out of luck. I suppose you could have half of the group apply for permits and the other half listed as PATLS but you are reducing your chances of winning a permit by half.
> 
> Maybe I am missing something here but I just can't see how, if I was committed to going on a GC trip, it would ever be to my advantage to be listed as a PATL versus just applying for a permit



The only way it would be to your advantage is if your friend drew a permit and you, or another member of your group, were listed as PATL or PATLs and the permit holder had something happen that kept. them from going. Without a PATL, your chances of going went from nearly 100% to 0% if there's no PATL. 



You increase your chances of someone in your group being successful in the lottery by increasing the entries in the lottery. Once there's a permit awarded, you increase your chances of the trip actually going by having more than one person who can hold the permit.


For something like a five-day Rogue trip, it's less of a deal, especially if travel is just a few hours to get there. You're not out THAT much, and you are likely going to be able to pick up the permits even if it's just from walk-up. For something that's harder to obtain, involves multiple days of driving, and requires a lot of pre-planning (and the expense that's already invested as the trip date approaches), it may be more important. 



I don't think any of my GC trips were on permits that had PATLs listed. There was one that almost didn't go due to illness. That would have been a big downer. I have had a Rogue trip cancelled because of permit holder illness. We were able to get most of the permits back by calling in, and we had a nice small group still able to go. That option can be available for GC, too, but if it's really short notice, they may not have time to run a follow-up lottery.


----------



## malmsmith (Mar 19, 2018)

one thing to mention on gc your spouse (maybe kids too) can take over your permit even if not listed as a patl. so my wife and i each go for a permit knowing if one gets hurt the other can still take the trip down.


----------



## kwagunt2001 (Jun 9, 2008)

*read the fine print about family members*

If I am reading the regs correctly you are able to transfer to a family member only if they did not apply for the same lottery. This is from page 3 of the Regs

"*Family Members as PATLs.* The only exception to the Normal PATL Requirements is for direct family members of
the original trip leader who have not been on the river in the same calendar year and are at least 18 years old at
launch. “Direct family members” is defined here as legal spouses, children, parents, and siblings as well as legal
spouses of these children, parents, and siblings. Permittees may request these direct family members be added as
PATLs by the River Permits Office after a trip has been won and at least one week prior to trip launching
provided:
a. The family member was not listed as a trip leader or confirmed PATL on any other application within the
same lottery.
b. The family member’s lottery points would have been equal to or greater than the main applicant and all
confirmed PATLs listed on the lottery application."


----------



## davbaker (Aug 4, 2013)

Okay, I honestly feel this thread has been helpful for me to better understand the PATL concept. When I posted my original reply questioning whether it ever makes sense to list a PATL I was not intending to bitch about the process. I just find myself every year being implored by the NPS to list a PATL ("highly recommended" to do so in their words). Every time, it confuses our group and we have to comb through the details to figure out what makes sense, and every time I wonder if I am making a mistake by not listing a PATL.

At this point, I feel odds are so low for scoring a non-Winter GC trip (underscored by the last five years our group has struck out) that having as many permit applications makes more sense than listing PATLs. I realize that if the permit holder has to cancel we will be SOL without a PATL, but having a PATL does nothing if you do not win a permit in the first place. That said, I recognize that there may be some rare situations on might choose to use the PATL option.

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies and useful info


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

Fake IDs for river permits are real.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

Friend of mine and I list the other's respective spouse as PATL on our own permits.

If I draw a permit and I can't go, odds are 100% my wife won't be going...and same for him. If I can't go and they can, his wife can be the TL (and he'd be the "de-facto" TL).


----------



## wshutt (Jun 20, 2013)

I was to be on a trip a few years ago that had to be cancelled due to illness and no PATL, this was before they changed the regs to allow for spouses to be added after the initial permit application. The group cancelled and was able to pick up a permit for about the same time the following year (with a PATL listed). The beauty was that we had another options and ended up launching the day before the original and was able to get friends places with the original group the following year. It was pure river karma. Not having a PATL makes me really nervous.


----------



## MikeG (Mar 6, 2004)

It seems that it would be fair for the NPS to let everyone be a TL on one application and a PATL on one other. It would not change anyone's overall chances of winning, would avoid people gaming the system, and every trip could have a PATL. Of course winning a permit would automatically void the PATL status on the other. Even if someone did game the system and had a ringer with high points, the lower points of the gamer would void them out.
For the SJ, there is a note on their page saying a PATL can be added after a permit is won by calling the office.


----------



## pilom (Dec 28, 2010)

"It seems that it would be fair for the NPS to let everyone be a TL on one application and a PATL on one other. It would not change anyone's overall chances of winning, would avoid people gaming the system, and every trip could have a PATL." 

Even easier, just allow the TL and PATL to combine points. Just treat it as one entry with 5+5 points (or 5+1 or 1+1 or whatever). That solves the issue of a 5 and a 1 trying to work together. Also solves all of this stupidity by not penalizing people for having a PATL.


----------

