# River Access Bill could shut down private boaters



## powrider686

Yea fuck Bob Bishop, he is the single biggest threat that our public lands face. He is bought by whoever pays the most. 

And f*?! that legislation. Pardon my French but this is seriously messed up. 

Time to act! Call your senator, call your representative, write in, comment, do everything and anything. Our lands are at stake!

Thanks for the heads up on this Don, good on you to catch this.


----------



## MontanaLaz

Someone check my read on this, but the basic gist is that the bills would give more of the limited number of available user days to commercials. Specifically, 75% commercial and 25% private.

Anyone know what the current break down is?


----------



## Riverwild

Yeah I'm not sure what to make of this line:
Two bills in the House would allow unlimited special use permits for outfitting, guiding, recreational and competitive events, including guided fishing and hunting, both motorized and nonmotorized, and include areas that are already allocated with previously established ceilings of use.


So if I'm an Outiftter on the MFS I could just launch whenever I want?


----------



## mikepart

Where is Tom?


I know that this site has it's drawbacks, but I just hate trying to have a real discussion about something on facebook.


So, I'm happy to read some dry, technical writing on an issue that I care about, but I just have a hard time reading a bill or law and understanding what is really being said. Currently, it seems like River Runners for Wilderness is, no pun intended, the lone voice in the wilderness in opposition to these bills. A host of maybe outfitter associated groups or groups I am not familiar with support them, but also American Whitewater and a few biking and climbing groups that seem legit have voiced strong support.


As of right now, I need to educate myself a little more and try to digest what is really in these bills before I make up my mind.


----------



## matt man

*God what a convoluted pile of shit.*

I don’t speak weasel word, but I have read through a few proposed bills over the years, wow. 
They out did even themselves.

Emailing Congress with my public opinion on this one, emailing friends, and harassing my rep.

Thanks for letting us know Don. 
It’s like a never ending battle with these creeps.


----------



## lmyers

There is a ton of really, really bad stuff in the process of currently being approved by our government. Hopefully this "proposed" legislation raises enough red flags that it doesn't go anywhere.... but you all need to be paying attention to management plans that are being approved and for the most part, flying under the radar. Grand-Staicase/Escalante is a big one right now, and for southern Colorado so is the Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan. The fed's draft of the Browns Canyon Management Plan is slated to be released October 11th.....


----------



## ColoradoDave

Loved to death.


The elephant in the living room is logarithmic population growth. That has gotten beyond control of any group of people. All solutions are just temporary.


It's funny that plans are always just based on today's needs. Never looking to the future. Just kicking the can down the road. Like buying cheap tires every year, then 10 years have gone by.


----------



## John_in_Loveland

Does anyone have a list of Senator and Congressmen's actual e-mail addresses, not the forms from their Congressional Websites?


----------



## Nubie Jon

https://www.contactingcongress.org/


This may be a format to try:

https://cqrcengage.com/fcnl/stafflookup


----------



## Andy H.

John_in_Loveland said:


> Does anyone have a list of Senator and Congressmen's actual e-mail addresses, not the forms from their Congressional Websites?


Here's the website Call My Congress. Find your congressional representative, put their number on speed dial, and call them. If you can get a bill number all the better, then you can just say, "Please support / oppose Bill SB- / HR-####." Typically you'll speak with an overworked junior staffer, unless you call Cory Gardner, in which case you'll get to leave a message. Be brief and concise, think of what you want to say before you call. They only need your name, town, and zip code. Please be polite and respectful and remember that it won't do any good (or win anyone to your cause) to vent your pent-up rage at the staffer, just ask them to pass on the message to your representative. 

-AH


----------



## sand

Do your homework...


https://www.outdooralliance.org/blog/2019/9/19/two-big-recreation-bills-get-hearings


https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr3400/BILLS-115hr3400rh.pdf



https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s1665/BILLS-116s1665is.pdf


----------



## John_in_Loveland

*Its always better to send something in writing, either by snail mail or e-mail. Below is the language I used. I sent an e-mail to the Sub-committe contact Tom posted, then forwarded this to both my Senators and my congressman. I used the staff contacts for "environmental affairs". *





Dear ________
It obvious to the private rafting community, of which I am a member, that access to federal lands and rivers is becoming a lot harder to obtain. Competition for scarce permits, that come with ever higher fees, is becoming more and more commonplace. Areas that require no permits are becoming more crowded. The commercial outfitting and guiding industry has noticed this also, and they are trying to get out ahead of the general do-it-yourself public with special interest legislation that guarantees their access.

Two bills in the House would allow unlimited special use permits for outfitting, guiding, recreational and competitive events, including guided fishing and hunting, both motorized and non-motorized, and include areas that are already allocated with previously established ceilings of use. I am writing to bring to Congressman Neguse’s attention my strong objection to these two bills and to request that he do all he can to defeat these or similar bills. I know the Congressman sits on the Natural Resources Committee and the National Parks, Forests, and Public lands Sub-committee. The Committee Ranking Member is a sponsor of H.R. 3458. The Chairwoman of the Sub-committee is a sponsor of H.R.3879. I hope the Congressman, along with Congresswoman DeGette, has opposed these bills in the hearings and both will do all they can to prevent passage.

I believe strongly in do-it-yourself recreation and fear that commercial recreation interests are trying to stack the deck in their favor and limit my access to Colorado lands and rivers.

Thank You for your time,

John Cravens
Loveland CO



*From:* John Cravens 
*Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2019 5:52 PM
*To:* '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Opposition to H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879

RE: *H.R. 3458* To promote innovative approaches to outdoor recreation on Federal land and to increase opportunities for collaboration with non-Federal partners, and for other purposes. _“Recreation Not Red Tape”_
*H.R. 3879* To modify the procedures for issuing special recreation permits for certain public land units, and for other purposes. _“Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation (SOAR) Act”_


Dear Congresswoman Haaland


I am writing to voice my strong objection to the above named bills. As a Westerner that regularly recreates on federal lands and uses our rivers, I am highly aware that permits for these activities are becoming harder and harder to obtain. These two bills would eliminate even the small chance I have of obtaining a permit, in favor of commercial recreation.


I believe that these bills give away my federal land access to for-profit companies. Any bill that is passed must be amended to include safeguards to protect do-it-yourself recreational access.


Furthermore, our public lands are being degraded with the protections we have in place. Outfitting and guiding on federal land should not have categorical exclusion protection from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These bills must require a NEPA Needs Assessment for every new Special Use Permit. By removing this tool, you are silencing my voice from the management of MY federal lands.


While giving access to underserved populations is a worthy goal, Special Use Permits must be for underserved populations and youth only.


Finally, these bills give away actual use (commercial) plus 25%. This is MY access that your bills give away.


Thank You


John Cravens
Loveland CO


----------



## mikepart

If folks understand this bill enough to oppose it, please explain it to me with references to the language in the bill or another source so I can educate myself.


As of now, I really don't understand the "special recreation permits." Are our river permits "special recreation permits?" I thought that special recreation permits already existed and are used for special events like weddings, movies, and competitions.


Why are we opposing this bill? There is nothing of substance in this thread beyond the fact that Tom Martin does not like it. I am sure that Tom is a smart guy and passionate about non commercial recreation, but I need a bit more.


----------



## DidNotWinLottery

I too am confused by the language. Part of the confusion is the vast majority of River Users want public lands locked up, so its hard to take many folks word for whether something proposed is good or not. One proposal is from a Pro-Acess Utah Rep, and one from an extreme Lock it up Democrat. So these 2 bills have to be vastly different. Sorry, realize that's not popular opinion around here. Its hard to be a Conservationist in a Preservationist era.


----------



## sarahkonamojo

https://www.npca.org/articles/2306-position-on-h-r-3458-h-r-3879


----------



## Andy H.

DidNotWinLottery said:


> I too am confused by the language. Part of the confusion is the vast majority of River Users want public lands locked up, so its hard to take many folks word for whether something proposed is good or not. One proposal is from a Pro-Acess Utah Rep, and one from an extreme Lock it up Democrat. So these 2 bills have to be vastly different. Sorry, realize that's not popular opinion around here. Its hard to be a Conservationist in a Preservationist era.


This is kind of confusing. What do you mean when you say, "the vast majority of River Users want public lands locked up?" If you mean that many or most river users want to be able to access to, and recreate on public lands, then I agree with you, however you make this sound like something else. If you mean that outdoor recreationists want public lands to be off-limits to recreation, then I think you've been listening to folks that are feeding you BS on this issue.

Please explain.

Thanks,

-AH


----------



## mikepart

sarahkonamojo said:


> https://www.npca.org/articles/2306-position-on-h-r-3458-h-r-3879


Why thanks, I found some substance here and it seems to confirm some of my interpretations of the language in the actual bills.

While the special recreation permit stuff sounds like a giveaway to outfitters and a way to undermine regulations against specific recreation groups (off road vehicles), I have not yet made a connection to the specific permits that we depend on for river trips and the like.


----------



## mikepart

DidNotWinLottery said:


> I too am confused by the language. Part of the confusion is the vast majority of River Users want public lands locked up, so its hard to take many folks word for whether something proposed is good or not. One proposal is from a Pro-Acess Utah Rep, and one from an extreme Lock it up Democrat. So these 2 bills have to be vastly different. Sorry, realize that's not popular opinion around here. Its hard to be a Conservationist in a Preservationist era.


No need for partisan hackery here. It is far less important who introduced these bills that it is important who actually wrote them. 

Democrats and Republicans both love money


----------



## jbomb

I would love to hear what the GCPBA thinks about these bills.


----------



## lmyers

I'm a bit surprised Tom hasn't chimed in here yet. I will cut and paste his latest social media post here. Warning, it's long........

"Do-it-yourself Access is about to get a whole lot worse if special interest legislation passes out of the House of Representatives. Introduced with bipartisan support by Bob Bishop of Utah and Debra Haaland,of New Mexico, two bills sponsored by America Outdoors, the private tour company trade association, would allow a whole new wave of Special Recreation Permits for private tour group companies (called outfitters and guides) across a huge swath of federal lands. Those lands include the National Park Service, US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and US Fish and Wildlife refuges.
Why is this important to you? If you are a do-it-yourself river runner, you already know how hard it is to get permits.
In August of 2019, Grand Canyon National Park held a lottery for 66 do-it-yourself river trips to raft through the Grand Canyon. There were 3,034 lottery applications for these permits. This spring, the US Forest Service held the annual Four Rivers lottery for do-it-yourself permits to raft the Selway, Hell’s Canyon, the Middle Fork and Main Salmon rivers. Over 13,000 lottery applications were submitted for under 400 applications.
As do-it-yourself river runners lose lotteries year after year, more and more non-profit organizations charter commercial river trips simply to get guaranteed timely access to their federal lands for fundraising activities with donors and board members. All these areas have private tour groups whose very existence is subsidized by prior takings of access from the do-it-yourself public’s access.
The activities covered by these two pieces of legislation adversely impact the entire spectrum of the do-it-yourself recreational public including families, scouts, church groups, veterans and friends who backpack, horse pack, fish, hunters, ATV ride, four-wheel drive ride, kayak, canoe, raft and bicycle on federal lands.
On Thursday, September 19, the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands held a hearing on the legislation. Speakers included the trade association, a guide training company, and two businesses leading private tour groups . No group or individual representing do-it-yourself access was allowed to speak.
One of the speakers was from the non-profit Bold and Gold and talked about how her organization takes inner city children onto federal lands for overnight activities. While most do-it-yourself recreationists support this type of activity, most private tour companies that will benefit from this legislation cater to the upper end of the public spectrum. The fact that disadvantaged and at-risk groups are underserved is not for lack of private tour companies operating on federal lands.
The language in the legislation is not explicitly aimed at disadvantaged and at-risk populations, nor is there any language in the proposed legislation specifically focused on that need.
The speakers at the hearing failed to mention the economic powerhouse do-it-yourself recreation brings to small rural communities. They also failed to point out that awarding additional recreation permits to private businesses takes access away from do-it-yourself recreational activities in areas with defined ceilings of recreational use, as well as areas where those ceilings have yet to be defined.
These bills require the federal land agencies to bypass the National Environmental Policy Act by incorporating categorical exclusions using “extraordinary circumstances procedures” and “revise relevant agency regulations and policy statements to implement those categorical exclusions.”
The bill removes the do-it-yourself public’s voice when it comes to reviewing the need for new commercial permits. Both bills state that “the Secretary concerned shall not conduct a needs assessment as a condition of issuing a special recreation permit for a public land unit under this Act.” In fact, the bills require that once an application is received, the permit will need to be issued within 60 days.
The NEPA exclusion also bypasses the agency need to define carrying capacities. Once access ceilings are reached by the outfitted groups, there will be no access remaining for the do-it-yourself public.
The bills both state “If additional use capacity is available, the Secretary may, at any time, assign the remaining use to 1 or more qualified recreation service providers.” The permits also include actual commercial use plus 25 percent. That 25 percent comes right out of the public do-it-yourself access.
Oh, and get this. Language in the bills frees the permitee and the Federal Government from litigation by clients and their families who experience serious bodily harm or death except in cases of gross negligence.
If you recreate on federal land with your friends and family without using commercial services, you need to speak up. For the full text of the bills and to see the hearing proceedings, click hear:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/hearings/npfpl-legislative-hearing4
Do-it-yourself visitors to our federal lands have a choice. You can give up your and your children’s do-it-yourself access to federal lands, or you can comment about this giveaway. You can also tell your friends and please share this Riverwire.

You only have ten days to comment on this legislation. That’s no later than Wednesday, October 2, 2019. Comments should be emailed directly to the H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879 Hearing Clerk:
[email protected]
What you might want to say:
Include that you recreate on federal lands and that you are aware getting Do-It-Yourself permits is becoming harder and harder.
Mention you are aware of H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879 and that you do not support these bills that give away your federal land access to for-profit companies.
Mention that H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879 must include safeguards to protect do-it-yourself recreational access.
Mention that outfitting and guiding on federal land should not have categorical exclusion protection from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Demand that these bills require a NEPA Carrying Capacity Needs Assessment for every new Special Use Permit. State that removing this tool removes your voice from the management of your federal lands.
Mention that language in H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879 must not give away actual use plus 25%. That is your access the bills give away.
Be polite but stand up for your access to your federal lands.
Special note: If you are so inclined, you should also email your Congressional Representative your concerns about this legislation.
You can find your representative here:
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
Please share this Riverwire far and wide and speak up!"


----------



## MNichols

lmyers said:


> I'm a bit surprised Tom hasn't chimed in here yet. I will cut and paste his latest social media post here. Warning, it's long........



Tom has never posted ANYTHING that's not long. Even his signature line is overly verbose LOL... But ya gotta hand it to him, he is on top of things, even if he's always on the doom and gloom side of the sport. 




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RIVERWIRE is a free service to the community of river lovers from River 
Runners for Wilderness. To sign-up for future Riverwires, send an e-mail 
address to [email protected] and we'll add it to the RRFW Riverwire 
e-mail alerts list.
Join RRFW's Facebook discussion group to stay abreast of and participate 
in the latest river issues. It's as easy as visiting 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/raftgc/
Join RRFW's Yahoogroup discussion group 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 
https://rrfw.org/RaftingGrandCanyon/Main_Page
Check out new items and donate at the RRFW Store! RRFW is a non-profit 
project of Living Rivers. https://rrfw.org/catalog/donations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## paulster

I noticed that AWA is one of the supporters of this bill. Having a mixed opinion of AWA environmental efforts in the past, I asked them about the bill and why they support it. I got this response:

_I am in DC and met with House Natural Resources staff yesterday. These bills have some good stuff for our community. Despite what Tom says, these bills do not allow unlimited access and do not supersede river-specific management plans. We need to do a better job of explaining the technical details but AW staff were directly consulted when they were drafted. I was invited to testify before the Senate earlier this year <https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/full-committee-hearing-to-examine-opportunities-to-improve-access-infrastructure-and-permitting-for-outdoor-recreation> and you can read my written testimony that covers some of the issues this legislation seeks to address. Nothing will move quickly and I would urge folks to take a couple weeks to learn the details. We will put something together in the coming weeks.

Paul—feel free to respond and say you reached out to AW. We believe Tom Martin’s assessment of the bills is inaccurate and misleading (I have been in direct email contact with him). We will prepare a detailed overview in the coming weeks and everyone can be assured that nothing will happen quickly. The House would like the Senate to hold a hearing too and that has not been scheduled. These bills will absolutely not take away user days for the general public on rivers with management plans that set allocations._


----------



## MNichols

paulster said:


> _We believe Tom Martin’s assessment of the bills is inaccurate and misleading (I have been in direct email contact with him). _



Another Hallmark of Tom and RRFW...


Really, thanks for sharing this Paul, makes me feel a lot better about what might be happening. I'm not nearly as involved with the nuts and bolts of stuff since I left the board of GCPBA, and while I don't always agree with AWA, they generally seem to have a handle on things to some extent. They sure do have Tom's number though....


----------



## AW-Evan

Standard Mbuzz... frenzied panic yet no one with complete knowledge  Some things never change  AW is involved and our colleagues at Outdoor Alliance wrote significant portions of these bills. Legislative language is confounding at best and there are many misinterpretations floating around right now. These bills will absolutely not supersede existing management plans and give commercial outfitters more allocation. They will not give outfitters, school groups, or outdoor programs more days on the Middle Fork or Grand Canyon. Instead, it will institute provisions for a local shop to more easily provide a creeking clinic at a place like the Poudre Narrows or other rivers on public lands. AW Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director Tom O'Keefe met with Committee staff yesterday and testified before the Senate earlier this year; the gist, we are directly engaged and looking out for the interests of our community and members. So please, DON'T PANIC and spread misinformation before gaining a complete understanding of the bills. It’s obvious we need to provide more information and we will shortly, with explanations for exact passages in the legislation. We encourage everyone to hold their fire and take time to get more informed. We will provide a technical overview of the legislation in the coming weeks and encourage everyone to contact us directly with questions. AW assisted in drafting Recreation Not Red Tape and it really does have some good stuff for our community. Also, note, these bills have bi-partisan backing and were not only introduced by Bishop (R-UT) but also by Rep. Deb Dingell (D-MI), Thanks for your patience!


----------



## Andy H.

Evan,

Thanks for helping set the record straight on the issue. Hopefully the pot-stirring and sensationalist mischaracterization of the bill haven't led too many folks to misfire to their elected reps. 

We're looking forward to hearing more from AW.

-AH


----------



## lmyers

I look forward to AW's in depth explanation of these bills and to going through the language myself with a fine tooth comb to see exactly why Rob Bishop is sponsoring it.... I guarantee there is a reason why, and it's not to benefit the average outdoor enthusiast. Thank you for taking the time to respond to the concerns of the Mountain Buzz community Evan.


----------



## Conundrum

lmyers said:


> You only have ten days to comment on this legislation. That’s no later than Wednesday, October 2, 2019. Comments should be emailed directly to the H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879 Hearing Clerk:
> [email protected]






AW-Evan said:


> Standard Mbuzz... frenzied panic yet no one with complete knowledge  Some things never change  AW is involved and our colleagues at Outdoor Alliance wrote significant portions of these bills. Legislative language is confounding at best and there are many misinterpretations floating around right now. These bills will absolutely not supersede existing management plans and give commercial outfitters more allocation. They will not give outfitters, school groups, or outdoor programs more days on the Middle Fork or Grand Canyon. Instead, it will institute provisions for a local shop to more easily provide a creeking clinic at a place like the Poudre Narrows or other rivers on public lands. AW Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director Tom O'Keefe met with Committee staff yesterday and testified before the Senate earlier this year; the gist, we are directly engaged and looking out for the interests of our community and members. So please, DON'T PANIC and spread misinformation before gaining a complete understanding of the bills. It’s obvious we need to provide more information and we will shortly, with explanations for exact passages in the legislation. We encourage everyone to hold their fire and take time to get more informed. We will provide a technical overview of the legislation in the coming weeks and encourage everyone to contact us directly with questions. AW assisted in drafting Recreation Not Red Tape and it really does have some good stuff for our community. Also, note, these bills have bi-partisan backing and were not only introduced by Bishop (R-UT) but also by Rep. Deb Dingell (D-MI), Thanks for your patience!


I appreciate both views but if we are supposed to comment by Oct 2 but you would like us to wait for your interpretations before commenting and you'll have those to us in a few weeks, what's a frenzied and panicked mountain buzzer to do?


----------



## Pickle-D

"see exactly why Rob Bishop is sponsoring it.... I guarantee there is a reason why, and it's not to benefit the average outdoor enthusiast."


That is my question as well.


And don't forget AW supported the Emery County Public Lands Bill when it was a give away to mining interests and the ORV crowd that torched huge tracts of wilderness study areas. AW supported this only because it gave status to the Deso-Gray river section; Ignore the mining effluent in that creek.


Be skeptical.


----------



## Tom Martin

Hi all, a number of groups support this legislation, including AW. I think AW does a lot of good things, but on this issue, we disagree. Personally, I won't spend time pointing that out. I also know in discussions with AW insiders in one-on-one discussions, they are concerned about this legislation. At the link to the legislation and hearing, anyone can read the legislation and listen to the hearing statements and draw their own conclusions. In doing so they will find this legislation takes access from the DIY community, be they paddlers, hikers, bikers, climbers, you name it. Bringing up specific examples where the legislation can help small businesses is fine and dandy, but hiding the downsides of the legislative language is devastating. Boil it down. These legislative initiatives promote more permits to private tour companies. Read the legislation from the standpoint of a Do-it-yourselfer who recreates on public lands. Speak up or stay home... Cordially yours, Tom Martin
https://naturalresources.house.gov/...pJMBt75bTwI0aeX6KCHp6kY0PvdrVhM6XpgVXjalM6DLY


----------



## Conundrum

I'm a supporter of AW but do disagree with them like Tom does. I've read both bills. I don't see in any way, shape or form, how private boaters gain anything. Outfitters certainly gain. I like the outfitting community and have a number of friends who own outfitting companies. I'm not willing to give up access for outfitters' profit though.

The bill also has some significant indemnification language without definition of negligence vs gross negligence which is alarming. 

Bishop is famous for talking about how poorly federal public lands are managed while voting to underfund public lands management. Anyone read the section of the bill authorizing more volunteers. Maybe I'm a skeptic but I can see Bishop saying that he's the good guy because he sponsored a bill to allow private citizens to maintain their own land so the feds shouldn't have to fund managers to maintain. One more step in the direction of his next state takeover bill.


----------



## sarahkonamojo

So much legislation, so little time to stay on top of it all. Thanks to those that can keep track and keep us informed.
I usually applaud AW, but on this one, not so much. It would certainly be nice if AW kept private river runners in the loop. If they are sponsoring the bill, could they not be more forthcoming? Member of AW, since AWA days. Have paid my dues for many, many years.


Sarah


----------



## Tom Martin

If you listen to the last few minutes of the hearing, you will hear mention that comments will be taken for ten business days. If you want your comments to count and carry weight, here is an open window that will soon close. A lot of groups supporting this legislation knew that window was open. They didn't tell you or me and I had to outreach to my congressional reps to learn about the comment period at all. The staffer I spoke with said the House will not have an open comment period again on this issue in this congressional session. I'm sorry, but DIY folks need to know what's going down. Right NOW. 

I agree with Evan that these bills will absolutely not supersede existing management plans. Where there are no management plans yet in place or where management plans are in progress and visitation is skyrocketing, the agencies won't have to conduct carrying capacity studies to authorize these new private tour group permits. The federal agencies will be able to give out short term commercial permits, and those permits will then become long term permits. 

Evan admits as much by showing how a private company will be able to provide a service on a place like the Poudre Narrows or other rivers on public lands. "If additional use capacity is available, the Secretary may, at any time, assign the remaining use to 1 or more qualified recreation service providers.” This impacts all types of DIY recreation on huge swaths of federal land. 

I use the Ark as an example. As DIY use grew beginning in the 1940s, commercial tour groups didn't really take off till the 1980's and the private business tour groups grew so much that recently, Ark planners are looking at limiting the tiny bit of DIY use. 

This legislation is about the future. Since the days of John Wesley Powell's first river trip 150 years ago, we have made no new Grand Canyons, no new Rocky Mountains, no new Dinosaur National Monuments or Sierra Nevadas, but our population has grown roughly by a factor of ten. It's to the point now that the Representatives at the Hearing stated they were alarmed by increased public use of federal lands. Giveaways of permits to private businesses catering to commercial tour groups without letting the DIY public have any say in the matter is wrong. Excluding the needed NEPA carrying capacity analysis is wrong. 

The good thing is the scouts and church groups and veterans that want to do a solo DIY journey on our federal lands are coming around to the same conclusion I have. This legislation initiative is a streamlined takings from DIY use. As I said above, I'm sorry, but DIY folks need to know what's going down right NOW and comment while that window is open. 

Most cordially yours, Tom


----------



## lmyers

Tom Martin said:


> I use the Ark as an example. As DIY use grew beginning in the 1940s, commercial tour groups didn't really take off till the 1980's and the private business tour groups grew so much that recently, Ark planners are looking at limiting the tiny bit of DIY use.[/FONT]



Where did you come up with this little tidbit of information? As you well know I have spent the last 4-5 years working on the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area management plan. While private boater carrying capacities were reduced in the Numbers because they were more than triple what has ever been seen, they were increased in other reaches of the river that see more use (Salida to Rincon).

The newly implemented management plan also reduces commercial outfitter permit numbers through attrition, eventually reducing the total number of outfitters by 1/3rd....


----------



## Tom Martin

Hi Logan, while the tiny amount of DIY use grew by three times, commercial growth had already exploded, and permit after permit was granted to private businesses running tour group after tour group through the Numbers. That was a taking of access from DIY's, who now get reduced as you point out. My point is that this legislation will do more of the same on other river and federal land areas, giving out unlimited numbers of Special Recreation Permits. When use ceilings are reached (if they aren't already), the DIY people will have watched the agencies give their access away, just like on the Ark.


----------



## ColoradoDave

A favorite ploy of the Bureaucrats is to get the public involved and thinking they can make a difference. Get them to supply tons of comments.

That's the way they get all the objections out of the way. Then they come up with solutions or snappy answers to all the objections. Solutions that are aimed at attaining their own goals. They may concede a few points here and there in those solutions temporarily to get agreement to the plan as a whole and to get ' champions ' on their side who think they have won, but anything gained will likely be lost later.

It's really just a matter of the river, and other usage of ' wild ' areas getting out of control for them. The easiest solution for them to keep it under control is by registration and enforcement. Permitting is a form of registration and guiding is a form of control by proxy. No one is going to take a dump in the river on a guided trip.


----------



## jbolson

Having read this thread but not the bills, I'm relying on what I have read. My guess is that there is a sell out going on here, otherwise why wouldn't AW encourage us to write in our support? My other guess is that it isn't going to impact private boaters (for some reason DIY doesn't resonate with me) or if it does it will be minimal. Benefit commercials for sure. Many of the examples given, Narrows and Numbers are non-permitted. If I encountered a special commercial trip, it would be like any other commercial, ignore them and move on down the river. I'll pass on this one.


----------



## Andy H.

Tom Martin said:


> Hi Logan, while the tiny amount of DIY use grew by three times, commercial growth had already exploded, and permit after permit was granted to private businesses running tour group after tour group through the Numbers. .... When use ceilings are reached (if they aren't already), the DIY people will have watched the agencies give their access away, just like on the Ark.


Tom,

I'm don't know what you're talking about. Logan didn't point out that private boaters had their access reduced, he pointed out that there was previously an unrealistically high allotment on the Numbers, which was "more than triple what has ever been seen" and that the number had been reduced to a more realistic level. This was done with the addition in the private boater allotment on the Salida to Rincon section. That section has seen growing use in the last decade or so, especially with an improved boatramp and facilities. Reducing unused allotment on one reach and increasing the allotment on another that's experienced increased pressure sounds like a river access "WIN" to me as it helps prevent implementation of a permit system. 

IIRC, the commercial use on the Numbers is still pretty insignificant, not "group after group" as you state (that's Brown's, not the Numbers). Also, I think that private boaters on Brown's had our numbers increased after a private boater exceedance occurred on Memorial Day in 2003. In order to prevent a private boater permit system from kicking in under the rules at the time, there was a subsequent effort by the private boating community to count boaters at FB & Ruby and, if the number of launches started to approach the limits, divert boaters to other stretches of the river with excess capacity. Logan knows this stuff inside and out, has represented private boaters for years on various groups such as the AHRA Citizen's Task Force collaborating on Ark access, and is highly involved in the issues down there, so he knows what he's talking about.

And frankly, I'll trust whatever AW is doing on the broader picture to be in the long-term best interest of private boaters. But now you've come in and cast doubt among boaters by smearing and undermining the national group that's made immense progress for recreational boating access over the last 65 years and that's gotten us a seat at the table and represented our community in dealings with the powers that be. There may be things afoot that we aren't aware of that are to the long-term benefit of the private boating community. And this particular piece just happens to alarm your hypersensitive anti-commercial use sensibilities. 

I'll look forward to seeing what Evan and the other folks with AW have to say. 

-AH


----------



## Tom Martin

Shooting the messenger is easy. My reply is not easy but I'll say it again. Read the bills. Listen to the hearing statements. You only have a few days to comment.


----------



## paulsanford

*Additional Information about the SOAR Act and RNRT Act*

My name is Paul Sanford. I am the National Director of Recreation Policy at the Wilderness Society in Washington, DC. I am also a boater in the DC area. 

As one of the lead advocates for the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act, or SOAR Act, and the Recreation Not Red Tape Act, or RNRT Act, I would like to offer the following clarifying information. 

*Background on the SOAR Act and the RNRT Act*

The SOAR Act focuses exclusively on outfitter-guide permitting. The RNRT Act is a broader bill. it contains the SOAR Act, but also contains other components. I will not comment on the other components here. Instead, I will focus on O-G permitting components of both bills. 

The SOAR Act, and the outfitter and guide permitting components of the RNRT Act, are supported by a diverse coalition of outdoor stewards and recreationists who share a set of values. We all value public lands. We all need those lands to remain public, and to be protected. To keep them public and maintain a level of protection, we need to have a strong constituency for these lands. To build that constituency, we need to provide people with access to public lands. We can’t expect other people to love the things we love and join us in standing up for special places if they haven't experienced them. 

People access public lands in different ways. Some people have the knowledge, skills and equipment to guide themselves, and that’s great. However, other people need some assistance or guidance to visit public lands, particularly if it is their first time or if they don’t have the right equipment to have a positive experience. For these people, it makes sense to engage the services of a guide or outfitter or other type of outdoor leader. 

The type of people who use the services of guides, outfitters or other outdoor leaders is broad and inclusive. It includes underserved kids who would have no realistic opportunity to visit public lands on their own. It includes people who join volunteer-based nonprofit clubs that offer volunteer-led climbing and hiking programs on public lands. It includes people who sign up for a backpacking trip with the local YMCA. Guided outings are led by a wide range of organizations, including youth serving organizations like Big City Mountaineers, outdoor education centers, and volunteer-based clubs like the Mountaineers in Washington state. It also includes professional guide services and traditional outfitters, many of whom cater to a wide range of customer types. 

All of these different types of outdoor leaders have something in common. They all need special recreation permits to take people out on public lands. Without permits, they can’t go. The problem is that permits are difficult to get these days because the permitting process is complex and cumbersome. It is so complex and cumbersome that the agencies often tell outdoor leaders that “we can’t give you a permit because we do not have the staff capacity to process your permit application.” Thus, people are being turned away because the process is complicated and labor-intensive, not because the landscape is full. The SOAR Act and the permitting components of the RNRT Act were written specifically to make the process less complicated and labor-intensive. 

The problems in the permitting system are not new. Many of the issues have existed for a long time. The agencies are aware of these problems, but they have been slow to fix them on their own. Legislation is needed to make this a priority. Otherwise, the agencies will continue to devote their energy to other priorities like logging, mining and grazing. 

We recognize there are places where the landscape is full. It is important to note that the SOAR Act and the permitting components of the RNRT Act would not require the agencies to issue permits or increase allocations in places where the landscape is at capacity. We will discuss this in more detail below. 

*Responses to Specific Concerns*

Unlimited Special Use Permitting

Concerns have been expressed that these bills would allow unlimited special use permitting. The bills do not change existing limits on special use permitting. In reading the bills, it is important to recognize that the amount of special use permitting on a particular land unit is governed by the unit's carrying capacity and its land use management plan. Nothing in the bills would change any unit’s carrying capacity determination or its land use management plan. Likewise, the bills would not change the allocations made between private self-guided users and guided users. Those allocations will still be governed by the land management plan and by decisions made at the discretion of local land management officials. 

Increases in Allocations Under Use Review

Concerns have been expressed about section 8(a)(2) of the SOAR Act, which reads in its entirety:

"if the special recreation permit holder receives a satisfactory performance review, allocate to the special recreation permit holder the highest level of actual annual use during the period under review plus 25 percent of that use, not to exceed the level allocated to the special recreation permit holder on the date on which the special recreation permit was issued."​
Section 8(a)(2) applies to a specific set of circumstances that occur when the Forest Service reviews a permit holder’s performance and the number of service days actually used under the permit. It directs the Forest Service to take the highest actual use level during the five-year review period and add 25%. However, it limits this adjustment to the amount allocated when the permit was originally issued. Consequently, there is no overall increase in the permittee's allocation, and no overall increase in the allocation of use to permit holders. It is worth noting that existing Forest Service policy directs the agency to make a similar adjustment. See USFS Handbook 2709.14 section 53.1n(2) and (3). 

Do-It-Yourself Users and Additional Capacity

Concerns have been expressed that the SOAR Act and the RNRT Act do not assure access for do-it-yourself users and that guiding activities will consume use that has been set aside for unguided users. As explained above, the amount of special use permitting on a particular land unit is governed by the unit's carrying capacity and its land use management plan. Neither bill gives the land management agencies any new authority to adjust the allocation of use between guided users and do-it-yourself users. The goal of the legislation is to streamline the special use permitting process to ensure that outfitters and guides are able to access existing capacity that has already been approved for outfitting and guiding use, but which has previously been inaccessible because of the agencies’ inability to process and manage permits. 

Much is made of the statement in section 8(b)(1) that “If additional use capacity is available, the Secretary may, at any time, assign the remaining use to 1 or more qualified recreation service providers.” However, this subsection only allows the Forest Serve to increase allocations when additional capacity is available. If a land use plan sets limits on guided recreational access and those limits have been reached, then no additional capacity is available and this section cannot be used to increase an allocation. Likewise, section 8(b)(1) would not authorize the assignment of additional capacity on western rivers that are fully allocated because these places have no additional capacity available. 

It’s important to remember that most, if not all, of the supporters of the bill are do-it-yourself users in their free time. None of the bill supporters have any interest in seeing do-it-yourself use eliminated. 

Services for Kids

Questions have been raised about the absence of any focus on disadvantaged or at-risk kids. This is for a very good reason. The legislation seeks to modernize the systems used by many user groups, and, therefore, it must be written to serve the needs of all user groups. It wouldn’t work for the bill to play favorites to one group or another. The inclusive nature of the bill is the reason why it has received support from a wide range of Democrats, Republicans, and outdoor recreation groups. 

At the House subcommittee hearing for the bills, two witnesses from youth programs testified that the reason there are not enough opportunities for youth to visit public lands is because youth serving organizations cannot get enough permits. The witnesses reported that they have the capacity to serve more kids, but they cannot get the permits they need to do so. The SOAR Act and RNRT Act will help these organizations bring more young people outdoors.

Use of Fees

The SOAR Act and the RNRT Act do not limit use of special recreation permit fees to permit processing and improvement of the operation of the permitting system. Instead, the bill would add these uses to an already long list of allowable uses as stated in current law. The effect of this section would be that permit fees could be used for the following purposes:


repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety;
interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs assessments, and signs; 
habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation that is limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or photography;
law enforcement related to public use and recreation;
direct operating or capital costs associated with the recreation fee program; and
a fee management agreement established under section 6805 (a) of [FLREA] or a visitor reservation service.
expenses associated with processing applications for special recreation permits; and
expenses incurred in the improvement of the operation of the special recreation permit system.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The bills do not require the agencies to bypass NEPA. Rather, the bills direct the agencies to consider whether additional NEPA categorical exclusions could be adopted to improve the permitting process without significantly affecting the environment, per NEPA requirements. Even if the agencies were to adopt and use additional categorical exclusions, they would be in full compliance with NEPA. Any new categorical exclusions established would be for activities that are shown to have no significant impacts on the environment. 

Additionally, the use of any new categorical exclusion would be expressly subject to the NEPA extraordinary circumstances rules, which trigger more detailed NEPA analysis when extraordinary circumstances exist. Thus, the bills do not bypass NEPA in any way. Instead, they direct the agencies to identify opportunities for increased efficiency within the NEPA process. This will make the system work better for everyone. 

Needs Assessments

Concern has been expressed that the elimination of needs assessments will eliminate the public’s ability to influence whether outfitter-guide permits will be issued. There are many ways in which the agencies solicit public input on outfitter-guide permitting. For example, the Forest Service must solicit public input through scoping on all agency actions related to outfitter and guide permitting. When the National Park Service proposes to issue new commercial use authorizations or concession contracts, they must post notification on the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment website. These are proactive forms of notification that occur through established channels. 

In contrast, needs assessments are lengthy, time-consuming studies that rarely get completed in a timely manner. The Forest Service’s inability to complete a needs assessment is often cited as the reason it cannot issue permits. This happens even when capacity for outfitting and guiding is available in the targeted area. 

Taking these considerations into account, the bills support the use of needs assessments in areas where they are required by statute (in wilderness) while ensuring needs assessments do not unnecessarily delay the permitting process in areas where they are not required (outside wilderness). 

Permit Timeline

The bills require the agencies to acknowledge receipt of a permit application within 60 days. This is meant to end the common practice of simply ignoring permit applications. The bills do not require the agencies to issue permits within 60 days. 

Release Forms and Litigation

The bills would require the agencies to allow permittees to use liability release forms where those forms are allowed under state law. However, the bills do not provide a blanket release from liability or litigation. 

There is nothing particularly revolutionary about liability release forms. They are commonly used across the outdoor recreation industry and they are recognized as valid and enforceable in many states. Furthermore, liability release forms are already allowed in many circumstances on public lands. For example, the BLM allows permittees to use them. Some National Forests do as well. However, other forests do not, and the National Park Service prohibits them. Accordingly, the bill seeks to establish consistency in the use of liability release forms across the federal land agencies by establishing the principle that State law rather than federal law governs the use of these forms. 

*Conclusion*

I hope that this information clarifies the intent and purpose of the SOAR Act and the RNRT Act. I appreciate the opportunity to provide additional information on the effects of these bills. If you have any additional questions, please contact me using the information below. 

Paul Sanford
The Wilderness Society
psanford at tws dot org


----------



## Tom Martin

*As simple reply to Paul Sanford*

Hi Mr. Sanford, 

I still recall when we spent about an hour on the phone earlier this month. While I enjoyed our wide-ranging and cordial conversation, I came away as concerned about this bill, if not more so, then before we spoke. I still am. Here's why.

This legislation sets a terrible precedent by commercializing access to federal lands and rivers while silently removing public do-it-yourself access now and for future generations. The following are my comments on your statements.

It is great to see that Mr. Sandford has provided his rational for the legislation. He notes that The SOAR Act and the permitting components of the RNRT Act were written specifically to make the permitting process for private tour companies less complicated and less labor-intensive. He states the private tour companies can’t get permits “because the process is complicated and labor-intensive, not because the landscape is full.” 

I would offer that streamlining permits for the private tour companies does not help crowded resources. This will fill up “the landscape” by allowing one use group greater ease of access that is otherwise available to the do-it-yourself recreating community. We have seen this in the past across our federal landscapes. 

Sanford notes “it is important to recognize that the amount of special use permitting on a particular land unit is governed by the unit's carrying capacity and its land use management plan.” He does not mention this legislation includes a categorical exclusion to exempt the agencies from conducting carrying capacity studies when issuing new private tour company permits. He doesn’t mention many areas of federal lands have not completed these studies but are already over capacity. 

Sanford points out the bill’s language allows “actual annual use during the period under review plus 25 percent of that use, not to exceed the level allocated to the special recreation permit holder on the date on which the special recreation permit was issued.” He does not point out actual use plus 25% is a takings of do-it-yourself access. 

Sanford then mischaracterizes do-it-yourself concerns. He states concerns “have been expressed that the SOAR Act and the RNRT Act do not assure access for do-it-yourself users and that guiding activities will consume use that has been set aside for unguided users.” He ignores the actual concerns raised that guiding activities will consume use that has *NOT YET* been set aside for any uses, unguided or otherwise. This is a give away of unallocated use to private tour companies. Read this paragraph again. It is a very important point. 

Sanford notes that “The SOAR Act and RNRT Act will help these organizations bring more young people outdoors.” No one should doubt that this legislation will increase private tour company use on federal lands. That is a simple taking out of the areas carrying capacity for commercial use. The do-it-yourselfers recreational public will find themselves left with access scraps. 

While Mr. Sanford lists a large number of areas where permit fees may be used, the legislation specifically states the fees will be used to pay for expenses associated with processing applications for special recreation permits; and expenses incurred in the improvement of the operation of the special recreation permit system. 

Mr. Sanford also states “new categorical exclusions established would be for activities that are shown to have no significant impacts on the environment” but he admits the new NEPA exclusions will bypass the very reviews set up to establish the need for increased commercial services. This bypass will allow increased private business conducting tours in areas already overcrowded. 

While Mr. Sanford notes the “bills require the agencies to acknowledge receipt of a permit application within 60 days” he does not mention the legislation language states the agencies only have 60 days to “issue a final decision with respect to the application; or (B) provide to the applicant notice of a projected date for a final decision on the application.”

Mr. Sanford mentions liability release forms, but does not mention the limitations in the legislation that “requires the client to indemnify and hold harmless the permittee and any agents, employees, and other persons affiliated with the permittee for any injury or damages the permittee may sustain as a result of any claim other than gross negligence.” 

You know, I don’t get paid for advocating for public do-it-yourself recreational access. I get up in the middle of the night to put replies like this together because I have a real job. There is no Trade Association looking out for do-it-yourself recreational access. Mr. Sanford would have me believe the business owners who seek these permits are like me and have public do-it-yourself recreational access users in mind. I don’t buy it. Not one little bit. Nothing in the legislation does anything for public do-it-yourself recreational access. Nothing. This bill specifically streamlines private business access to federal lands. It is simply a takings of unallocated access. 

That said, you can comment one way or another. The do-it-yourself public may not have paid staff representing us, but we do have a voice. I have pointed out how the do-it-yourself public, of which I am a member, can use ours at this time during an open comment period. Speak up or stay home.

I most cordially yours, Tom Martin


----------



## MontanaLaz

This has been a good debate, and I'm a bit torn as my wife worked for many years as a wilderness guide and my previous career was in the ski industry. Both of our livelihoods were directly dependent upon special use permits.

My first whitewater experience was as a paying customer on a guided trip. If it weren't for that experience, I might be spending my time chatting on a powerboat forum instead of a paddling one.

We are both selfish in the sense that we like empty landscapes. However, if we accept that the ultimate intent of the bills is to get more people into the outdoors, people that otherwise would not have the opportunity or ability to do so, and that these experiences will help to expand the constituency which fights for the preservation of public lands, then it would be hypocritical of us to oppose these bills.

I do like that the bills force the land managers to acknowledge permit applications instead of simply ignoring them until they die on the vine. I can see this working out in the real world to mean that a public lands unit staff would have to spend more time on recreation management and less on extractive industries management. "Sorry mister mining/logging company representative, but I don't have time for you today because I am required by law to devote part of my time to recreation permits. Make an appointment and get in line." Probably wishful thinking there...


----------



## PNWWildandScenic

I remember whitewater rafting Nantahala with the NOC as a child with the Girl Scouts. I LOVED IT and from that first, formative experience, I found ways to pursue getting out on rivers on my own as I got older. Now, with a child of my own, we’ve prioritized getting our preschooler out on Wild and Scenic Rivers in Eastern Oregon. I want my kid to have deep connections to these places so he will act to protect them when he’s older. 
We have SUCH privilege to be able to get out on our rivers as individuals: we’ve been able to learn the skills; to buy or borrow the gear; have the rigs to get to rivers and haul our gear; have the money to fill the gas tank. Many people don’t have this privilege. Whether cultural or financial, many folks don’t have the ability to get out on their own. 

So I support efforts that help others get out on our rivers through some sort of facilitated experience – whether through an organization like Outward Bound or NOLS, or through a guide or outfitter. 

We need people to experience these places so we have the next generation of people who will VOTE and FIGHT to protect rivers and public lands. That's why these bills matter and why we should all support them.


----------



## Andy H.

*Thanks to the Wilderness Society and AW!*

Paul Sanford,

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to what appear to be unfounded allegations that the two bills are a giveaway to the commercial outfitters. Many of us feel outfitters are a necessary part of exposing the general public to outside experiences, especially those who lack the skills or equipment to go on self-guided trips. For many, including myself, guided trips are often the first experience many of us had that began a passion for river running. For many more people, guided trips are the "gateway" experience that helps develop love for outdoor recreation and engenders development of a conservation ethic. 

Though unable to make time to read the bills, I will gladly take the word of two established national conservation groups (The Wilderness Society and American Whitewater) and call my representative to request he support this legislation. From my reading it seems the gist is that currently unused resource allocation, already set aside for special use, may be more easily accessible to groups like Girlscouts and others to get out in nature. Rather than a "taking," seeing these kind of groups on the river is always a delight for me and makes my recreation experience richer to know it's being shared with those who would not be there otherwise.

Thank you for your daily hard work on behalf of us who love and value wilderness and are rejuvenated by our outdoor experiences, 

-Andy H.


----------



## jbomb

paulsanford said:


> Much is made of the statement in section 8(b)(1) that “If additional use capacity is available, the Secretary may, at any time, assign the remaining use to 1 or more qualified recreation service providers.” However, this subsection only allows the Forest Serve to increase allocations when additional capacity is available. If a land use plan sets limits on guided recreational access and those limits have been reached, then no additional capacity is available and this section cannot be used to increase an allocation. Likewise, section 8(b)(1) would not authorize the assignment of additional capacity on western rivers that are fully allocated because these places have no additional capacity available.


Why should we cater to future demand by commercial interests and not account for future increase in DIY demand??? Under this bill, all the extra capacity will get reserved for commercial exploitation, even though it currently isn't being completely used. This is exactly how guide services stole the popular rivers from the public 50 years ago.

What defines fully allocated under this bill? What if some year only 500 DIY trips launch on the Grand Canyon instead of 504? Do 4 trips worth of use get given to commercials? 

The bill sponsor claims this bill is necessary under a 'use it or lose it' principle. Well, a bill aiming 'use it' can include DIY allocation easily enough along with unused commercial allocation. These bills are a blatant $$$$ grab by the monied industry to take more common resource away from the public.


----------



## ColoradoDave

If you want to save what you love. Quit slathering it all over the internet.


----------



## Tom Martin

JBomb, Well stated. You really nailed it! The supporters of these legislative efforts will talk about the individual that wants to conduct a swiftwater guide clinic, or the group that wants to do a YMCA guided hike, while the private tour companies get ready to benefit as well from this legislative give away of DIY access.

Andy Horn, you are posting across FaceBook looking for access to Westwater. Do you think this legislative effort will make your quest to get on rivers as a DIY participant any easier? If you don't want to actually read the bills or listen to the hearing testimony and you are going to give your access to America Outdoors, you can sure do that. 

I had to laugh at the posters who were happy to see the remaining staff in our gutted federal land agencies giving access permits to our lands to businesses interest. They say better that than have the staff give out mineral extraction permits. The USFS speaker in the hearing said that staff time is actually focusing on fighting fires. I suppose it's for resource protection that NEPA exclusions of carrying capacity studies are being legislated in. Too bad the legislation doesn't say anything about mineral extraction. That will keep on happening too, right along with commercial access extraction.

Our federal lands are being overrun. There are many different types of recreational users out there. To say these legislative initiatives are good to get kids into the lands misses the point that the only way those kids will be able to keep accessing the land will be through private commercial business. Your kids... your future... you decide. Good luck. 

Cordially yours, Tom


----------



## paulster

Regarding Paul Sanford's response: All of that makes sense, but there a couple of big holes in that argument. I spend a lot of time working and recreating in the Uinta Wasatch Cache Nat Forest and have observed that:
A Carrying Capacity Study sounds great but is quite complicated and expensive to conduct and generally leads to an outcome highly subjective and open to interpretation. There is very little appetite at least within the FS to conduct those studies. So effectively there is no Carrying Capacity to refer to.

Recent permit renewals that I have observed have been automatically switched to Categorical Exclusions in clear violation of the CE guidelines to evade the need for public comments. The FS hasn't responded to questions regarding the CE compliance - those are issued with a wink to the concessionaires.

So AW's and the Wilderness Society's support is beginning to bother me. If they are counting on those 2 key aspects, I believe they are being naive.


----------



## matt man

After reading that whole several pages of argument, I have to say, this bill still sketches me out.
Any left over capacity still goes to an outfitter, from what I see?

I went a step further than Andy, and actually read through the bill. Very vag and convoluted.
I have a bad feeling with this one despite who’s backing it, and there comforting words that it won’t screw us over....


----------



## matt man

Ask yourself, “how many times have I seen a proposed law, that was going to be this awesome, wonderful thing, “its for the children”, and it was just another sham that bit us in the ass”. 
When politicians start saying how it’s for the children, I get scared, maybe I pay to much attention to history...

Two days left, gave us a lousy ten days to comment, no body representing private boaters was allowed to attend, I smell bulshit, just saying....


----------



## landslide

AW has done a lot of great work in regard to river access and safety, two subjects where the interests of private and commercial river runners are completely aligned. When it comes to the allocation of permits between commercial groups and private groups, however, AW is silent... which might lead you to believe that they won't take sides on this issue. But IMO, AW is all too happy to go to bat for commercial groups at the expense of private boaters, and this legislation is a good example of how they do it. As someone already said, if this bill did ANYTHING to benefit private boaters, AW would be crowing about it from the rooftops. Instead, we're left in the dark with little time to comment. Hmmm.

I also pay a lot of attention to who sponsors a new bill in congress because congress critters only sponsor bills that support or payback their constituents. But "constituents" aren't just the voters in the their districts, they also include special interests and big donors. Rep. Bishop has a long, long record as an enemy of public lands. Hell, in 2011, he even wrote a budget amendment to *defund* Wild & Scenic Rivers! And now we're supposed to pretend he's sponsoring a bill that benefits private boaters? Give me a break.

And Deb Haaland is one of the first Native American women elected to congress. I have no idea if there is some "angle" to her legislation that benefits tribes, but I do know private boaters and Native Americans are often at odds over public lands. (Just think of the Hualapai tribe's claims on the Grand Canyon if you want an recent example.) So my suspicion is that Haaland's bill can be used to promote tribal outfitters. Just a wild guess on my part, of course, but that's the point: we're in the dark about what these congress critters are really attempting to accomplish.


----------



## Andy H.

Tom Martin said:


> If you don't want to actually read the bills or listen to the hearing testimony and you are going to give your access to America Outdoors, you can sure do that.


Tom,

I’ve looked at the ~125 pages of legalese comprising the bills and, like much legislation, find the language difficult to understand just like Mattman does. I’m not a policy expert and I don't know the language. And I don’t think that you, or anyone that's been a part of this discussion, can read these bills and say with absolute certainty what they do to private boater allocation. Before I sign a contract I have an attorney review it because I don’t understand it all. When it comes to legislation like this, I’ll take the word of The Wilderness Society, and trust American Whitewater, to know what they’re talking about. I'll also take the AW's word when they say, "Tom Martin’s assessment of the bills is inaccurate and misleading." AW and TWS policy wonks are a lot more savvy than you or I when it comes to these things.



Tom Martin said:


> Andy Horn, you are posting across FaceBook looking for access to Westwater. Do you think this legislative effort will make your quest to get on rivers as a DIY participant any easier?


It wouldn’t make a bit of difference. As has been pointed out, access by private ("DIY") boaters would not be affected in the least, so passage of the bills wouldn't make any difference. See the post by Paul Sanford of The Wilderness Society:



> Neither bill gives the land management agencies any new authority to adjust the allocation of use between guided users and do-it-yourself users. The goal of the legislation is to streamline the special use permitting process to ensure that outfitters and guides are able to access existing capacity that has already been approved for outfitting and guiding use, but which has previously been inaccessible because of the agencies’ inability to process and manage permits.


And regarding your statement:



Tom Martin said:


> To say these legislative initiatives are good to get kids into the lands misses the point that the only way those kids will be able to keep accessing the land will be through private commercial business.


Thanks for boiling down what this is all about for you. I get this point completely. The Wilderness Society, and American Whitewater, and most private boaters I’ve ever met, are OK with outfitters taking kids down rivers because we support getting people into the outdoors who, otherwise, would never have had the opportunity to experience nature. Many of us had our first river-running experience in outfitter-guided boats and our lives are more enriched for it. And we are all the more staunch advocates for wilderness and conservation ethics because of those experiences. 

It saddens me that in your single-minded opposition to commercial outfitters you’ve lost this broader perspective. Indeed, you're basically saying that you would rather see those Girlscouts, youth groups, or special needs organizations sit at home or go to an amusement park instead of experience the great outdoors because “the only way those kids will be able to keep accessing the land will be through private commercial business.” 

What I find particularly troubling about your crusading is that you use your platform as a guidebook author, and with RRFW, the group you created and solely control, to undermine and call AW and TWS lairs and to question these groups' motives and public policy competence. 

Whether you realize it or not, when you use your podium to sow doubt and question the motives and competence of groups like AW, when you imply they're selling out private boaters to the outfitters, you create a narrative that chips away at AW's credibility and stirs up paranoia and suspicion about the group that's been leading the charge for access and conservation for decades. Just like gossip, once it's been put out there, it can never be completely taken back and the hard-won reputation completely restored. And given the common notion that "the truth is somewhere in the middle," anyone who reads your words is more likely to question their support for the group at a time when we need them more than ever.


----------



## MNichols

Well put Andy...


----------



## Tom Martin

Hey Andy, thank you for your thoughts, thought they be quite misguided. 

Access to our federal lands is for small children, veterans, mom's, dad's, teachers, scouts, church groups and everyone else. Everyone. Legislation like this gives access to private business. That is not Everyone. It's a give-away to special interest. That is the heart of this legislation initiative.

Carrying capacities are important. Without them, our federal lands would be overrun more than they already are. This legislation bypasses carrying capacities. 

What AW or TWS or any other group does is their business. What you do is yours.

I and others stand for equitable access, not this give-away to America Outdoors and the private businesses they represent. 

Cordially yours, Tom


----------



## MNichols

Tom Martin said:


> Access to our federal lands is for small children, veterans, mom's, dad's, teachers, scouts, church groups and everyone else. Everyone. Legislation like this gives access to private business. That is not Everyone. It's a give-away to special interest. That is the heart of this legislation initiative.
> Cordially yours, Tom


So Tom, 

Respectfully, most of these folks you mention access is for, can only for myriad reasons well known to you, I and I'd hesitate to say most of the other folk in the world that wish to access their public lands, do it with the aid of a commercial outfitter. 

The private boating "do it yourself" community is relatively small in comparison to small children, veterans, mom's, dad's, teachers, scouts, church groups and everyone else, everyone else being the largest segment of the population. Everyone else doesn't have upwards of 10 grand to purchase the rudimentary gear, and the years long learning curve in order to be a competent boater. Many have time constraints as well which make hiring an outfitter necessary.

Without commercial outfitters, which I know you loathe despite having worked for them in the industry for years, these folks wouldn't be able to access the resources at all. You advocate this. I personally believe that they have every bit as much a right to visit the resource as anyone else, equal access for all so to speak, and if their preferred means of doing so supports the outfitters, so be it. 

Carrying capacities are already in place, and if these bills do what AW et al say they will, then carrying capacities shouldn't be an issue, things like resource protection trips, ranger patrol trips, archaeological trips which happen regularly on most if not all rivers on a regular basis are already exempt from said carrying capacities, and classified as administrative trips. Why not allow a couple more "special activity" permits to cater to groups that are having a special activity?

Yes, I know there is a faction that doesn't like the sponsors, and therefore feel they have an ulterior motive, and after reading the bill, I find it hard to comprehend without a legal interpretation, but after almost 20 years of knowing you, and dealing with you on various issues, I find it much easier to believe that you have cherry picked facts, and twisted the issue to suit your need to get up on a soapbox and stir the pot. 

I have submitted my comments. I urge everyone else to do so. For those who are concerned that Congress may modify the bill or worry that American Whitewater is not on top of this, you can reach out to your Member of Congress with something like this: 

“I understand that as drafted this bill does not adjust allocations between outfitters and the general public on Western Rivers with limited entry permit systems. I ask for your support in ensuring that no such language is added to shift allocation to outfitters or organizations at the expense of the general public. In cases where outfitters are not using their full capacity, I support making any unused allocation available to the general public.”

If however you inaccurately state that the bill does adjust allocations and takes away access from the general public, it’s more likely you will be perceived as uninformed on what the bill actually does. In other words, your concerns will be more credible if you do not include a host of inaccuracies for things the bill does not do.


----------



## MontanaLaz

I am going to speak up since no one else has pointed this out:

The title of the thread implies that there is an urgent need to act or else there will be no more access for DIY'ers, yet the gist of the argument from opponents of the bills is that DIY days will be reduced, at worst.

Seems like a bit of hyperbole...


----------



## AW-Evan

I'm going to jump back in here also to note that this is not an emergency action and this legislation will not have a chance to even pass the House for a while. It had a hearing, it may have several more but the idea that you only have ten days to comment is patently false. We put together a line by line response to the River Runners For Wilderness emails on Recreation Not Red Tape and SOAR Act that have everyone up in arms. We certainly understand the public's desire to protect our public use of public lands, something we fight tooth and nail to protect for our community every single day, and therefore we completely understand the response to RRWF's news of impending doom. However, these emails were so full of false and misleading statements we realized for certain forums where discussion was still heated (Mbuzz) we needed to put this info out there. It's dense and it's a bit of lesson in how bills are written and how to read them. Dive-in if you want to get answers and to see the gross mis-interpretations of the bill in the RRFW emails. Text in Red is from AW's Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director Thomas O'Keefe. 


Background: In 2014, Senator Wyden (D-OR) invited American Whitewater, and several other organizations to participate in a process to develop legislation to benefit outdoor recreation and require resource agencies to place more focus on their recreation mission. The resulting bill includes special recreation permit reforms sought by organizations we work with and small business owners who wish to test out new ideas for trips or instruction (e.g. a waterfall running or creeking clinic), gives service members greater ability to enjoy outdoor experiences for their health and well being, institutes new performance metrics for agency staff who take the initiative to do good work for the outdoor recreation community, integrates recreation into the mission of federal agencies that manage dams, establishes a new national recreation system and requires agencies to inventory land for its recreation value, and creates authority for greater coordination between non-profit organizations like American Whitewater for both on-the-ground projects and information sharing.

Recently River Runners for Wilderness published two pieces on the impact of the bill that are inaccurate. These are copied below with responses in italics. One of the important points to understand is these bills do not change allocations between commercial outfitters and the general public—they do not “take away” user days from general public and give them to outfitters, organizations, or clubs.

RRFW Riverwire 
Kiss Your Federal Land Access Goodby 
September 19, 2019

You may have noticed access to your federal lands is becoming a lot harder. Competition for scarce permits that come with ever higher fees are becoming more and more commonplace. Areas that require no permits are becoming more crowded. 

The commercial outfitting and guiding industry have noticed this too. And they are trying to get out ahead of the general do-it-yourself public with special interest legislation to guarantee their access. 

This statement is false. This legislation provides no guarantee for access for commercial outfitting.

Two bills in the House would allow unlimited special use permits for outfitting, guiding, recreational and competitive events, including guided fishing and hunting, both motorized and nonmotorized, and include areas that are already allocated with previously established ceilings of use.

This statement is false. This legislation would not allow unlimited special recreation permits. The implication is that managers of river systems with set allocations would allow outfitters to acquire additional user days. This is not the case.

Committee hearings on these bills will be held today, September 19, 2019, according to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. There is a ten day comment period on the September 19 hearing.

This legislation is unlikely to move further this year. Individuals have ample time to reach out to their Member of Congress.

The hearing will cover two very similar pieces of legislation. 

The first bill, H.R. 3458, introduced by Utah's Representative Rob Bishop, seeks to change how long-term special recreation permits are issued on National Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and National Wildlife Refuge lands. The Bishop bill is slyly called the Recreation not Red Tape Act and is geared to promote outdoor recreation businesses and tourism.

The bill was originally crafted by Senator Wyden (D-OR) and includes a number of bipartisan sponsors from both the House and Senate. The scope of the bill is much broader than special recreation permits that are only covered in Title I. Title III in particular includes several provisions that place greater emphasis on recreation at our federal land management agencies. I was personally engaged in drafting this sections and Senator Wyden and his staff reached out to American Whitewater for input; other members of Outdoor Alliance were also directly engaged.

The second bill, H.R. 3879, introduced by New Mexico Representative Debra Haaland, is called the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation (SOAR) Act.

Supporters of the legislation claim the bills are to help at-risk populations who require an outfitter or a guide to gain access to federal lands. The fact that disadvantaged and at-risk groups are underserved is not for lack of private tour companies operating on Federal lands. 

It’s not for lack of private tour companies operating on Federal lands; it’s due to the fact that organizations like the YMCA, who testified at the recent House hearing, have great difficulty securing permits to take kids out for programs on public lands. Their inability is not due to lack of available capacity but the inability of land management agencies to prioritize this need. Organizations like the YMCA are not seeking permits for river systems (or public lands) where capacity has been reached and this legislation would not provide them with a mechanism to acquire allocations from the general public.

That lack of at-risk access is because the private companies cater to the more lucrative high-end part of the business spectrum. There is no language in the legislation explicitly aimed at disadvantaged and at-risk populations, nor is there any language in the proposed legislation specifically focused on that need.

I have spent time with outfitters who put considerable effort into reaching diverse communities and those who typically do not have the financial means for multi-day trips on rivers or public lands. I know many in the outfitting and guiding community find these to be the most rewarding trips they do. The fact that there is no language exclusive to organizations serving disadvantaged or at-risk populations is by design. Those organizations are not seeking exclusivity. Small businesses who provide guiding or instructional services as well as club and organizations face the same issues.

Both bills do absolutely nothing to assure access for do-it-yourself recreational users. Once access ceilings are reached by the outfitted groups, there will be no access remaining for the do-it-yourself public. The bills both state "If additional use capacity is available, the Secretary may, at any time, assign the remaining use to 1 or more qualified recreation service providers."

Capacity and allocations are set in land management or river management plans. It’s true that this legislation does not address capacity and it remains critical to engage in proceedings where these are set. As I testified before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this year, too many rivers have outdated management plans that need to be updated. In my view, this legislation is not the vehicle to do this but I agree this is an important issue.

The bills dictate that the fees generated by commercial clients can only be used to process the permits and improvement of the operation of the special recreation permit system.

This statement is false. The fees generated by commercial activities can be used for a number of activities as listed in current law (See 16 USC §6807) that include “A) repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety; B) interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs assessments, and signs; C) habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation that is limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or photography; D) law enforcement related to public use and recreation; E) direct operating or capital costs associated with the recreation fee program; and F) a fee management agreement established under section 6805(a) of this title or a visitor reservation service.” The bill would add expenses “associated with processing applications for special recreation permits” to this list. It does not say that the fees can “only be used to process the permits.”

These bills both require the federal land agencies to bypass the National Environmental Policy Act by incorporating categorical exclusions using "extraordinary circumstances procedures" and "revise relevant agency regulations and policy statements to implement those categorical exclusions."

This statement is false. The bills do not require the federal agencies to bypass the National Environmental Policy Act. Section 103.c of Recreation Not Red Tape directs the agencies to consider whether additional Categorical Exclusions, under the National Environmental Policy Act, could be adopted to improve the permitting process “without significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” As noted in the text of the bill, any such categorical exclusions must be “in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act” and be implemented through a revision to regulations that will be subject to public input and comment. It’s also important to understand that a Categorical Exclusion, despite the term, is not bypassing the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act can involve three different levels of analysis: that include Categorical Exclusion determination (CATEX), Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The bill removes the do-it-yourself public's voice when it comes to reviewing the need for new commercial permits. Both bills state that "the Secretary concerned shall not conduct a needs assessment as a condition of issuing a special recreation permit for a public land unit under this Act." In fact, the bills require that once an application is received, the permit will need to be issued within 60 days.

The bill does not remove the public voice—in fact it creates more transparency by requiring the agencies to set up a public website and email listserv as outlined in Section 105.a. This level of visibility will help everyone and take the administrative process associated with special recreation permits out of the backrooms of agencies ensuring that everyone has knowledge of where the agency might be making opportunities for special recreation permits available. Subsection 105.b absolutely does not require a permit to be issued in 60 days. It requires that agencies respond to those seeking a permit within 60 days.

Both bills allow actual commercial use plus 25 percent. That 25 percent comes right out of the public do-it-yourself access.

This statement is false. This section is a little challenging to understand but it is consistent with current Forest Service policy as outlined in the Forest Service Handbook. Section 107(a)(2) of Recreation Not Red Tape specifically states, “if the special recreation permit holder receives a satisfactory performance review, allocate to the special recreation permit holder the highest level of actual annual use during the period under review plus 25 percent of that use, not to exceed the level allocated to the special recreation permit holder on the date on which the special recreation permit was issued” (emphasis added). This section directs the Forest Service to take the highest actual use level during the five-year review period and add 25%. However, it limits this adjustment to the amount allocated when the permit was originally issued. Consequently, there is no overall increase in the permittee’s allocation, and no overall increase in the allocation of use to permit holders that will be taken from the general public.

Oh, and get this. Language in the bills frees the permitee and the Federal Government from litigation by clients except in cases of gross negligence. 

This section is also a little challenging to understand, but the interpretation above is incorrect. This section authorizes a recreation permit holder to require a client of the permittee to sign a liability release form. There is nothing particularly revolutionary about liability release forms. They are commonly used across the outdoor recreation industry and they are recognized as valid and enforceable in many states. Furthermore, liability release forms are already allowed in many circumstances on public lands. For example, the Bureau of Land Management allows permittees to use them. Some National Forests do as well. However, other forests do not, and the National Park Service prohibits them. Accordingly, the bill seeks to establish consistency in the use of liability release forms across the federal land agencies by establishing the principle that State law rather than federal law governs the use of these forms.

You have a choice. You can give up your and your children's do-it-yourself access to federal lands, or you can comment about this giveaway. You can also tell your friends and please share this Riverwire.

Like many of my friends, I enjoy — and prefer — planning my own trips to go out and experience public lands and rivers. I also have two young kids and I want them to have this experience. This bill does not “give up their access to federal lands.” It is personally important to me that it does not.

But you only have ten days to comment. That's no later than Friday September 27, 2019. Comments should be emailed directly to the H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879 Hearing Clerk:

[email protected] 

You do not “only have ten days to comment.” The bill has had one hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee. The bill will still need to go through mark up and be passed out of Committee. It then goes to the floor. None of this is likely to happen for several months. In addition, the Senate still needs to schedule a hearing,

What you might want to say:

Include that you recreate on federal lands and that you are aware getting permits is harder and harder. 

Mention you are aware of H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879 and that you do not support these bills that give away your federal land access to for-profit companies.

Mention that H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879 must include safeguards to protect do-it-yourself recreational access.

Mention that outfitting and guiding on federal land should not have categorical exclusion protection from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Demand that these bills require a NEPA Needs Assessment for every new Special Use Permit. State that removing this tool removes your voice from the management of your federal lands.

Mention that language in the bills must state new Special Use Permits must be for underserved populations and youth only.

Mention that language in H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879 must not give away actual use plus 25%. That is your access the bills give away.

A few comments on this suggested text. These bills do not give away federal land access. A Categorical Exclusion is not an exemption from NEPA; it will however help those small business owners who want to teach an occasional class or clinic on public lands as well as non-profit organizations who lead trips. A needs assessment is unnecessary and is a barrier to providing activities like a kayaking clinic. Organizations who serve underserved populations directly participated in drafting the bill. They are not seeking exclusivity. The bill does not give away actual use plus 25%.

Be polite but stand up for your access to your federal lands.

Special note: If you are so inclined, you should also email your Congressional Representative your concerns about this legislation. You can find your representative here:

https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative 

Continued in next post.


----------



## AW-Evan

RRFW Riverwire 
Hearing Held on Federal Lands Takings Legislation 
September 23, 2019

Do-it-yourself Access is about to get a whole lot worse if special interest legislation passes out of the House of Representatives. Introduced with bipartisan support by Bob Bishop of Utah and Debra Haaland,of New Mexico, two bills sponsored by America Outdoors, the private tour company trade association, would allow a whole new wave of Special Recreation Permits for private tour group companies (called outfitters and guides) across a huge swath of federal lands. Those lands include the National Park Service, US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and US Fish and Wildlife refuges.

The bills are not “sponsored by America Outdoors.” Many organizations were involved in providing input on these bills, including American Whitewater, Outdoor Alliance, and The Wilderness Society to name a few. The bills are sponsored by a bipartisan group of House Members and Senators.

Why is this important to you? If you are a do-it-yourself river runner, you already know how hard it is to get permits.

Agreed on this point.

In August of 2019, Grand Canyon National Park held a lottery for 66 do-it-yourself river trips to raft through the Grand Canyon. There were 3,034 lottery applications for these permits. This spring, the US Forest Service held the annual Four Rivers lottery for do-it-yourself permits to raft the Selway, Hell's Canyon, the Middle Fork and Main Salmon rivers. Over 13,000 lottery applications were submitted for under 400 applications.

These facts are correct but irrelevant to this legislation. This legislation does nothing to change existing allocations on currently-permitted river systems. Those allocations and capacity determinations are developed through the river management planning process. It is important for the paddling community to engage in these processes and ask for more regular reviews but this is not covered in this legislation.

As do-it-yourself river runners lose lotteries year after year, more and more non-profit organizations charter commercial river trips simply to get guaranteed timely access to their federal lands for fundraising activities with donors and board members. All these areas have private tour groups whose very existence is subsidized by prior takings of access from the do-it-yourself public's access.

I participate in those same lotteries like everyone else and know the frustration. There are however places outfitters and organizations can lead trips, provide instruction, or introduce youth to the outdoors. The biggest barrier to providing these opportunities is the fact this is not a priority at federal land management agencies. This legislation seeks to make outdoor recreation a higher priority.

The activities covered by these two pieces of legislation adversely impact the entire spectrum of the do-it-yourself recreational public including families, scouts, church groups, veterans and friends who backpack, horse pack, fish, hunters, ATV ride, four-wheel drive ride, kayak, canoe, raft and bicycle on federal lands.

In fact, the Recreation Not Red Tape Act includes a number of provisions that benefit the recreating public and require land managers to pay more attention to recreation. See in particular Title III of Recreation Not Red Tape.

On Thursday, September 19, the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands held a hearing on the legislation. Speakers included the trade association, a guide training company, and two businesses leading private tour groups . No group or individual representing do-it-yourself access was allowed to speak.

The decisions about who is invited to testify at a hearing always involves a host of decisions that are largely driven by the needs of individual Members of Congress. It is not a reflection of the full spectrum of all who have had input on the legislation. Louis Geltman, a highly respected whitewater boater who is Policy Director for Outdoor Alliance, testified on the bill last Congress. I was invited to testify in an oversight hearing on the topics covered in these bills in the Senate. Both Louis and I directly represent the those who enjoy planning their own trips on public lands and waters. Both of us have paddled hundreds of rivers including those with permit systems and we both know the frustration and disappointment of coming up empty in the permit lottery.

One of the speakers was from the non-profit Bold and Gold and talked about how her organization takes inner city children onto federal lands for overnight activities. While most do-it-yourself recreationists support this type of activity, most private tour companies that will benefit from this legislation cater to the upper end of the public spectrum. The fact that disadvantaged and at-risk groups are underserved is not for lack of private tour companies operating on federal lands.

This legislation will benefit volunteer-based clubs, small business owners who provide outfitter-guide services, non-profit outdoor leadership organizations, and university outdoor programs. 

The language in the legislation is not explicitly aimed at disadvantaged and at-risk populations, nor is there any language in the proposed legislation specifically focused on that need.

This is by design; the bill is meant to provide opportunities for programs who serve disadvantaged and at-risk populations but it is not meant to be exclusive. Small business owners, outdoor clubs, and other outdoor programs face the same challenges. These groups sat down together and directly engaged organizations like American Whitewater who reprsent the interests of those who organize and plan their own trips.

The speakers at the hearing failed to mention the economic powerhouse do-it-yourself recreation brings to small rural communities. They also failed to point out that awarding additional recreation permits to private businesses takes access away from do-it-yourself recreational activities in areas with defined ceilings of recreational use, as well as areas where those ceilings have yet to be defined.

Actually Representative John Curtis did mention the value of outdoor recreation for communities.

These bills require the federal land agencies to bypass the National Environmental Policy Act by incorporating categorical exclusions using "extraordinary circumstances procedures" and "revise relevant agency regulations and policy statements to implement those categorical exclusions."

These bills emphatically do not require agencies to bypass the National Environmental Policy Act (see above).

The bill removes the do-it-yourself public's voice when it comes to reviewing the need for new commercial permits. Both bills state that "the Secretary concerned shall not conduct a needs assessment as a condition of issuing a special recreation permit for a public land unit under this Act." In fact, the bills require that once an application is received, the permit will need to be issued within 60 days.

I don’t believe a needs assessment is necessary (see above). The bill emphatically does not require an agency to issue a permit within 60 days. It requires agencies to acknowledge a request for a permit has been received.

The NEPA exclusion also bypasses the agency need to define carrying capacities. Once access ceilings are reached by the outfitted groups, there will be no access remaining for the do-it-yourself public.

Carrying capacity does need to be defined for rivers designated Wild and Scenic (this bill does not bypass that requirement). Even on other rivers, a capacity determination may still be necessary. However in some cases it is clearly not necessary.

The bills both state "If additional use capacity is available, the Secretary may, at any time, assign the remaining use to 1 or more qualified recreation service providers." The permits also include actual commercial use plus 25 percent. That 25 percent comes right out of the public do-it-yourself access.

The 25% does not come right out of the public access; it comes out of an outfitter’s allocation (see above).

Oh, and get this. Language in the bills frees the permitee and the Federal Government from litigation by clients and their families who experience serious bodily harm or death except in cases of gross negligence.

This is a misunderstanding of what this section is working to achieve (see above).

If you recreate on federal land with your friends and family without using commercial services, you need to speak up. For the full text of the bills and to see the hearing proceedings, click hear:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/hearings/npfpl-legislative-hearing4

Do-it-yourself visitors to our federal lands have a choice. You can give up your and your children's do-it-yourself access to federal lands, or you can comment about this giveaway. You can also tell your friends and please share this Riverwire.

You only have ten days to comment on this legislation. That's no later than Wednesday, October 2, 2019. Comments should be emailed directly to the H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879 Hearing Clerk:

[email protected]

Again, we repeat, you do not have only ten days to comment. This, as with most legislation has taken years to get to this point and at best will move forward at the end of the year.


----------



## AW-Evan

We've also got a Medium article up with an even deeper dive for those inclined, especially if you're interested in learning about some of the major benefits to recreation in the bill. https://medium.com/american-whitewa...tdoor-recreation-on-public-lands-6bc17a9ebec8


----------



## sarahkonamojo

I have not read/interpreted the legislation. I do have a problem, however, with legislation often written without citizen input. We "DIYers" are stakeholders as well. If legislation is too dense for the common person to understand, it seems intentional by the legislators. Such overly verbose language makes the situation ripe for abuse by those with access to legal counsel. Just look at the tax code.

Also the idea that DIY days will be reduced is not acceptable. Is it acceptable that our wildlands are pay to play? We all know how difficult it can be to get a coveted river permit. But sure, you can buy a trip. Perhaps, eventually, that could be the only way to get on the river. 

I would argue that any family able to pay for a commercial river trip could buy a raft package for the same price. However, boaters are a cheap bunch, we won't buy a new rig every year. (It just feels as if I do.)

That is all.

Sarah


----------



## Andy H.

Evan - Thanks so much for putting up the posts with the information. I can see Tom O'Keefe put a lot of effort into those rebuttals.

For those who don't know him, AW-Evan is Evan Stafford. A local Front Range boater who's been a MB member since the early 2000s (or longer), and formerly posted as "RiverWrangler" before he got the gig with AW here in Colorado. Now he gets paid a measley non-profit sector salary to pursue his passion and work on private boater advocacy and access issues. Along with Kyle McCutcheon (MB member "Cutch"), *AW-Evan is coauthor of "Whitewater of the Southern Rockies,"* aka "The New Testament."



sarahkonamojo said:


> ...the idea that DIY days will be reduced is not acceptable.... I would argue that any family able to pay for a commercial river trip could buy a raft package for the same price.....


Sarah - There's nothing in the legislation that will reduce private boaters' allocation. As for "pay to play" the wildlands often have user fees associated with them, or permit fees. As for a family buying a raft or going on an outfitted trip, that's not what this is about - those folks can book a trip with an outfitter, and it won't cut into our share of the permits. This is about streamlining the special use permitting process so small businesses, non-profit groups, clubs, and other entities can more easily get special use permits. The allocation that would be used by these groups has already been set aside and is currently underused because the "special use permits" are currently a bureaucratic nightmare to apply for. The big issue Tom Martin has is that it would be easier for a Girlscout troop to spend their cookie money to _hire an outfitter_ to take them down the San Juan or Deso-Gray and experience the wilderness.



MontanaLaz said:


> The title of the thread implies that there is an urgent need to act or else there will be no more access for DIY'ers, yet the gist of the argument from opponents of the bills is that DIY days will be reduced, at worst.
> 
> Seems like a bit of hyperbole...


MontanaLaz - That is absolutely correct. The (false) argument is that we'll have some user days reduced. If you don't know him, Tom can be a bit hyperbolic. A great example would be the thread he started titled, "Afternoon disaster in Grand Canyon?" From the title, you'd think it would be about some gruesome fatality, right? He was really trolling for accounts of commercial trips passing private trips to snag prime campsites (Disaster!!!). Tom has a serious obsession with camp-jumping, and his exhaustive research managed to document 10 times in 12 years that commercials have scooped privates. You should read the thread. 

One other thing: AW is part of The Outdoor Alliance which helped write the legislation Tom Martin opposes. This group pooled their resources to pay lawyers and finagle pro-bono help to get these bills written. The Outdoor Alliance consists of:


The Access Fund 
The American Canoe Association
American Whitewater
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)
Winter Wildlands Alliance 
The Mountaineers 
The American Alpine Club
The Mazamas
The Colorado Mountain Club 
The Surfrider Foundation

You may recognize some of these organizations, or even support them.

-AH


----------



## paulster

Question for Evan: Apologies if this is oversimplified, but I'm curious about the math involved. If the carrying capacity of a public resource is established (and in many cases, it isn't) and the purpose of these bills is to streamline permitting and provide more access to commercial entities, it seems like either 1) the resource is being used below capacity and commercial use will increase to fill that capacity, 2) the resource is at capacity and non-commercial use will be decreased to allow for more commercial use, or 3) the resource is at capacity and land managers will allow more commercial use and exceed the capacity. In all of these scenarios, non-commercial users and/or the resource suffers. What am I missing here?

Regarding Categorical Exclusions: my close-up experience has been that local resource decision-makers have the ability to use (abuse) those to make decisions at least in part to avoid public opinion and scientific evidence that might conflict with the outcome they want (or are told to) reach. Any action that increases the likelihood of Categorical Exclusions puts us all at risk of land management serving special interests more than those of us without lobbyists.

I have a lot of respect for what AW has accomplished. But I also remember that they supported a disastrous land use proposal in Emery County, UT that fortunately other environmental organizations were able to stop and re-work into something much better.

I support most of the content of these bills, at least as much as I understand them. But what would it hurt to acknowledge the equal priority of maintaining or increasing non-commercial use and to add assurance that Categorical Exclusions will be used as they were intended by NEPA?


----------



## jbolson

*Be careful what you wish for*

I appreciate the additional info given. 



As I understand it, a commercial trip must have a special use permit or regular permit for any activities on public lands. I think this is good and protects public lands from destructive profiteering. 



HOWEVER, this is generally not true for private use. It would be a terrible development if the government decided it would require all private use of public lands to be permitted (and of course pay a fee). Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## matt man

paulster said:


> I support most of the content of these bills, at least as much as I understand them. But what would it hurt to acknowledge the equal priority of maintaining or increasing non-commercial use and to add assurance that Categorical Exclusions will be used as they were intended by NEPA?


That’s kinda how I feel about it to, Paul.
I have nothing against making it less of a pain in the ass for outfitters and organizations to deal with the red tape. I’m fine with sharing the river with outfitters, I’ve been a guide, and I think commercial trips can impact peoples lives in a good way...

What I don’t want to see happen, is the bill interpreted to take present or future access away from private users, or public land use over allocated, in order to advance commercial profits.
Plenty of motive to do so exists, because money is involved, and at least most of us hear are kind of confused, some at a disagreement, as to what the bill mean, already.

Putting some direct wording in there to make sure private users are protected, like Paul said, seems wise to me, even if it’s redundant, and we don’t need it. You would probably do the same thing if it was a contract for selling your house. CYA.

Thank you Even for taking the time to try and explain things to us.
Glad folks care enough to have this discussion hear.


----------



## jbomb

It's really funny that the AW person is trying to minimize the huge boon to commercials in these bills and instead pointing at how the YMCA will get underserved kids onto the river. Hmmm, let's play "follow the money"!!



> The 8 mostly highly compensated YMCA employees received $3.3 million (an average of $413,000):
> 
> $662,893: Kevin Washington, President and CEO
> $451,157: Kent D Johnson, EVP, Chief Operations Officer
> $410,507: Rebecca Bowen, EVP, Chief Development Officer
> $393,481: Andrew Calhoun, Sr VP, Large YMCA Resources
> $377,947: Angela F Williams, EVP, General Counsel, and Chief Administration Officer
> $368,606: Jacqueline E Gordon, SVP, Chief Human Resources Officer
> $353,425: Jonathan A Lever, EVP, Chief Membership and Programs Officer
> $325,000: Nancy L Owens, Sr. VP and CFO


----------



## Rick A

jbomb said:


> It's really funny that the AW person is trying to minimize the huge boon to commercials in these bills and instead pointing at how the YMCA will get underserved kids onto the river. Hmmm, let's play "follow the money"!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 8 mostly highly compensated YMCA employees received $3.3 million (an average of $413,000):
> 
> $662,893: Kevin Washington, President and CEO
> $451,157: Kent D Johnson, EVP, Chief Operations Officer
> $410,507: Rebecca Bowen, EVP, Chief Development Officer
> $393,481: Andrew Calhoun, Sr VP, Large YMCA Resources
> $377,947: Angela F Williams, EVP, General Counsel, and Chief Administration Officer
> $368,606: Jacqueline E Gordon, SVP, Chief Human Resources Officer
> $353,425: Jonathan A Lever, EVP, Chief Membership and Programs Officer
> $325,000: Nancy L Owens, Sr. VP and CFO
Click to expand...

Do you really find that odd? There are approximately 2700 YMCAs in the United States with 20,000 full time employees. They also engage 22 million people each year. Do you really think they could get qualified people to run an organization that big for 50 grand a year. I don't.


----------



## jbomb

Rick A said:


> Do you really find that odd? There are approximately 2700 YMCAs in the United States with 20,000 full time employees. They also engage 22 million people each year. Do you really think they could get qualified people to run an organization that big for 50 grand a year. I don't.


I don't find the salaries odd at all. Can you think of anything else in this context that might be noteworthy about the massive corporate "non profit" entity getting special legal consideration?


----------



## Rick A

Not really, maybe you can enlighten me. I certainly don't consider it noteworthy than a organization that large is using their clout to try to secure better opportunities for their membership.


----------



## MaxRoadster

*Congressional Contacts*

Several have asked about how to contact their legislators. 

The following link will take you to the alphabetical page, scroll through it until you find your Representative. https://www.house.gov/representatives

The next link will take you to the Senate site: same as above-
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?Class=1

BTW: each of them is assigned to a committee and in some cases, several committees. Again, using the above sites / links you can determine where your legislator works. While reading a few comments it is obvious there are many here voicing anger. An old adage worth remembering is, "He that angers you controls you." Yes, legislation can be difficult if not impossible to interpret. Legislation is created most often by lawyers and they strive to insure their "bills" are bullet proof. Do not give up! A single voice may not be heard but many saying the same thing can not be ignored. Just keep it civil!


----------



## lmyers

If the purpose of this legislation is to increase access to the outdoors for an underprivileged sector of our society, then why aren't they subsidizing outfitters with the contractual obligation that they offer more of their services to 501(c)3 organizations? I can't think of a single river in the western United States that would benefit (from an environmental perspective) from maximizing capacities.


----------



## zcollier

Hello Mountain Buzz Community,

I've been following this thread and have been hesitant to respond as I understand this is a heated topic. It's hard to read some of the misleading comments that misrepresent the intentions of these bills that do benefit outfitters but should not hurt DIY users. Over the past few years I have been involved with advocating both of these bills in both in Oregon and Washington DC.

There is no intention to affect or take away any use from DIY users. One of the goals is to clean up permitting and make the permit process less cumbersome for our overworked federal agencies. Another is to make permits for new types of trips easier to obtain for small businesses on our public lands. There are many other well intentioned things in these bills that help more people safely use our federal public lands.

To learn more about the bills and the groups advocating for them I would urge you to watch the testimony given to the National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee Hearing at: 

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

Respectfully,


----------



## malmsmith

Watching the hearing for the 3rd time makes me even more against this bill as written. If there was an upfront passage, in plain english, that stated for every new permit offered for commercial use one would be available for privates, that would be a start. Also would like to see a description of exactly what the process would be to up the capacity on "under used" river sections. Who decides where more permits are issued and will there be a chance to comment on these changes in a public forum before they are issued?
We private users are skeptical of any far reaching legislation designed to streamline the process for commercial interests. I personally believe "non profits" operate more like a commercial operation than a private do it yourself user.
Where I live, there is an outfitter for every possible activity. Things that no one should need an outfitter for have 10 companies operating guided trips.
We have turned into a nation of sheep.


----------



## MNichols

I do believe the term that was coined for this is "Sheeple"


----------



## zcollier

Thank you for watching the testimony and I respect your informed views. I live in Oregon where there is a ton of public land that is highly underused and small outfitting businesses could offer trips on these public lands that help support local economies. I respect that you live in a place that is crowded and have a different view.

Below are few quick responses.



malmsmith said:


> If there was an upfront passage, in plain english, that stated for every new permit offered for commercial use one would be available for privates, that would be a start.


The intention of the new permit language is for new permits on rivers or trails that have unlimited private use already. I've been through the brutal process to get new permits on the Chetco and Illinois River already and it is a waste of government resources. Both of these rivers allow for unlimited private use. There are 3 outfitters on the Illinois River and 2 outfitters on the Chetco. In the Illinois River the Wild and Scenic management plan states that *private use will always have priority* so we don't launch trips on or around weekends.

New permits are mainly requested bu outfitting groups (and the public that wants these trips) that would like to to lead hiking, mountaineering, and mounting biking trips on public lands. Popular rivers on our public land are already saturated but there are some unpopular rivers with unreliable seasons (like the Chetco and Illinois Rivers) or challenging logistics where new river outfitting could make sense.



malmsmith said:


> Also would like to see a description of exactly what the process would be to up the capacity on "under used" river sections. Who decides where more permits are issued and will there be a chance to comment on these changes in a public forum before they are issued?


The current regulations state that outfitters get 25% more use if they have over 1000 user days and 15% more use if they have under a 1000 user days. The proposed change is to make it 25% across the board. I don't know of any outfitter that has gotten an increase in user days based on this regulation. The maximum capacity (based on NEPA and/or Wild and Scenic Management plans) is already met on most (popular) rivers so there is no new use to give out.

This regulation is used commonly to ratcheted down outfitted use. There are some outfitters that use only a fraction of their allocated use and this regulation has been used to reduce their use. Lets's say an outfitter has 2000 user days. It's really hard to sell exactly 2000 spots so a successful outfitting might sell 1800. For their next permit they would get 1800 plus 25% which would be 2250. Since there is no more use, they would get their 2000. Less successful outfitters might run 1000 user days. They would get 1000 user days plus 25% so 1250. This reduction in user days would ratchet down over the years. Once they get below 1000 user days the amount changes to plus 15% so it's even more brutal. What the bill is asking is to change the below 1000 user days to the same plus 25% standard. That's it.

An example is my Illinois River operation. This is a river that runs in the spring and trips commonly cancel due to high water, low water, or weather. Last spring we had 4 trips sold out and had to cancel 2 due to low water. My permit allows me to run 165 user days per year. I can sell 165 user days but in reality I'm only going to run 100 or so because trips will cancel. If that happens I'll get 115 (100 user days plus 15%) on my next permit. Again I can only sell what I have capacity for so I'll sell 115 user days and then only get to run 70 or so due to cancellations for weather and flow. My next permit will have 70 plus 15% so 81 user days. So under the current regulations (and even the proposed regulation) my permit is going to be ratcheted down to zero. Again, on the Illinos River privates have unlimited use and all you need is a self issue permit AND we don't launch trips in the popular weekend timeframe so there is almost no private-commercial interaction.

I understand that many people don't like or want outfitted use but that's a separate conversation.

Respectfully,


----------



## Ever_Cat

This just hit my inbox from AW. I haven't gone through all of it yet but it looks like it includes reasonable summaries of the multiple sections. I am still sorting through material on this topic and I am hoping this will help lift me out of the legal quagmire.

https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/34318/


----------



## malmsmith

I'm not convinced by all the justifications that have come forth by the sponsors of this legislation. A tell for me was the honest response from the oregon outfitter who detailed his situation of unused trips due to weather ect. on flow dependent rivers. I can totally see his frustration. These were rivers that historically were up for grabs to the brave and prepared "private boaters". We could expect to see few people or mostly no one. I'm talking 30-40 yrs ago.
They were rivers that were underused for a reason, especially in the spring runoff and the talent available at the time. There will always be stretches, hopefully, that won't see much use because of there remoteness or difficulty. But that boundary is constantly being pushed by the new generation who's training ground might be the next commercial explosion.
A bill of this magnitude, enacted on a national scale, is a disaster in the making. Why wasn't a private boater like Tom Martin not included in the hearing?
Just saying!


----------

