# Friendly Reminder: Cancel your Permits



## Aknoff (Aug 24, 2007)

We were on Ruby over the weekend and this morning Black Rocks 2, 3, and 4 were all empty. We were up early and floated by around 9am so I think it’s highly unlikely all three had parties that left before us. So, friendly reminder to please cancel your permits if you’re canceling your trip. No doubt others would have gladly made use of those spots. Thank you!


----------



## blueotter (Nov 30, 2018)

I've been wondering if some sites are blocked off or something. It's virtually impossible to get some sites even 60 days out...


----------



## sfluckiger (Aug 18, 2018)

I spoke with the Ranger at the Westwater Station about this issue a few weekends ago and he acknowledged that it is an issue but didn't make it sound like they had a clear resolution. This has been ongoing for several years now and needs to get fixed. It is easier by far to pick up a Westwater permit these days than it is to get a Mee Corner or Black Rocks 5 (among others) campsite on Ruby.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Heading up this weekend, at present is Glenwood Canyon open in both directions or either?


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

Failure to use or release a winning permit should result in a 3-24 month ban depending on permit demand.


----------



## jberg421 (Jul 19, 2020)

mr. compassionate said:


> Heading up this weekend, at present is Glenwood Canyon open in both directions or either?


Same here. Believe it’s one lane for a bit? On the damaged section


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Thanks, i just found the info on Cdot and will monitor this week. Crossing finger for no heavy rains!


----------



## jberg421 (Jul 19, 2020)

mr. compassionate said:


> Thanks, i just found the info on Cdot and will monitor this week. Crossing finger for no heavy rains!


For what it’s worth I heard the canyon got 3” of rain last week. And only minimal mud came down. It rained everyday in edwards. Forecast this week looks drier. See ya on the river were at black rocks 1 Friday night lime green RMR


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

jberg421 said:


> For what it’s worth I heard the canyon got 3” of rain last week. And only minimal mud came down. It rained everyday in edwards. Forecast this week looks drier. See ya on the river were at black rocks 1 Friday night lime green RMR



Putting in Friday a.m. Orange and Purple Aires


----------



## zercon (Aug 30, 2006)

Been saying this for years, it is very easy

"Failure to use or release a winning permit should result in a 3-24 month ban depending on permit demand."

We used to drop our permit in a box at the take out. That is not much to ask, and it will stop some of the shameful waste of permits.


----------



## slc21 (Aug 11, 2021)

Unused permit fees do help pay for administration of our public lands without incurring environmental damage. Maybe the status quo is fine?


----------



## Aknoff (Aug 24, 2007)

Use it or lose your ability to get another one for some period of time seems fair to me. Easy to implement too.

The canyon had some sections of one lane in each direction and yesterday we got stopped at No Name for 5-10 minutes. Otherwise it’s really impressive how relatively good the road conditions are given how many miles have mud piled up to the guard rails. The view of the damage from the eastbound (lower) lanes is incredible. Also saw two kayakers scouting lower death (I think that’s what’s right below the biggest slide area where the top deck is showing mangled rebar). It actually looks like the mudslides helped channelize it and make it more straightforward. Still very big but looked more cushioned (at least from my highway view).


----------



## IntrepidXJ (Jun 27, 2008)

slc21 said:


> Unused permit fees do help pay for administration of our public lands without incurring environmental damage. Maybe the status quo is fine?


...and line the pockets of Rec.gov, which is why they promote permits and lotteries as much as possible and don't really care if you use them. They get paid either way.


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

slc21 said:


> Unused permit fees do help pay for administration of our public lands without incurring environmental damage. Maybe the status quo is fine?


As far as rafting goes, I'd say a group following best practices in established areas creates no appreciable environmental degradation.... Then again that is the lie they feed us for the reasoning behind the strict limiting of permits.


----------



## slc21 (Aug 11, 2021)

This is a tangent, but I don't agree that recreation.gov or environmental degradation are schemes to milk us. If anything it's the other way around.

Administering our public lands costs taxpayers a ton of money and those of us that know how to enjoy these lands are beneficiaries. We get to enjoy kickass vacations on the cheap, subsidized by people that will never step foot on them.

I don't care one way or another about banning people that don't cancel permits, just bringing up the fact that they paid for them, and not using them is a valid interest too.


----------



## jbolson (Apr 6, 2005)

I understand the issue, but not sure that dinging folks after the fact helps at all. I think what is needed is some type of registration for people to make a permit. I know this won't be a popular approach for the anti-gov buzzards, but it might actually help keep the tourists from getting permits that they aren't going to use. It could be like a driver's license where it involves people (and perhaps qualification level) or could be a boat permit where you would have to provide a registered boat to get a permit. Personally, I would be more than happy to pay registrations fees if it keeps the looky-loos out of the permitting process (for any river).


----------



## hysideguy67 (Jul 15, 2021)

This discussion is very interesting and, I believe, very appropo for the new normal..... so many more people taking advantage of our amazing outdoors. If we assume that Gov is operating in a manner to perpetuate recreational sustainability then we must assume that the # of permits issued will not overwhelm the resource. That said, it really sucks to not get a permit when a permit holder no-shows. I do believe a permit hiatus for no shows is totally reasonable but how that's enforced is a whole nuther can of worms. On a tangent, we recently did a Deschutes (warm springs-sandy beach). My 1st even tho it's in my back yard. While I'm not a fan of adding Gov regulation to anything I'd be hard pressed to do it again. My take..... it's an unpermitted sh!t show (30 mile day to get a crappy camp kinda blows) With the new normal and subsequent increased usage in our stomping grounds I am afraid most private use of public recreational resources will be a permitted affair unfortunately. And, that said, PLEASE cancel your permit so that others may enjoy if you cannot


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

Unfortunately the people who actually care about sharing and protecting our public lands with either not read your post or not be on the buzz. I wish it was different, but the apathy clearly shows a different story. I wish the basic people of tictok and Instagram would keep their phones in the car to truly absorb the beauty they went to go see. But seems like everyone is too busy taking all the permits, and blasting the remote places on social media. I remember when we used to do ruby quite a bit growing up. Makes me worried what it’s going to be like in 5-10 years if the trend keeps going up…next thing you know ruby will be just as hard to get on as the Grand Canyon.


----------



## sfluckiger (Aug 18, 2018)

slc21 said:


> This is a tangent, but I don't agree that recreation.gov or environmental degradation are schemes to milk us. If anything it's the other way around.
> 
> Administering our public lands costs taxpayers a ton of money and those of us that know how to enjoy these lands are beneficiaries. We get to enjoy kickass vacations on the cheap, subsidized by people that will never step foot on them.
> 
> I don't care one way or another about banning people that don't cancel permits, just bringing up the fact that they paid for them, and not using them is a valid interest too.


So as long as you get your permit your good right? 

As an avid rafter and outdoorsman I am all for the regulation that permits provide. Otherwise we end up with the camping situation on the Upper C where people take dumps wherever they like, don't clean up the sites after camping and it's a mess. For the most part, the people that are actively pursuing these permits tend to be familiar with the rules and regs and respect them. Unused permits on stretches of river like the Salmon or Green get blacklisted and I think that is appropriate. Stating that "not using them is a valid interest too" is an assenine comment. The current system already limits use. But, as long as you get your permit your good right...?


----------



## DrBigDog (Apr 15, 2009)

Aknoff said:


> We were on Ruby over the weekend and this morning Black Rocks 2, 3, and 4 were all empty. We were up early and floated by around 9am so I think it’s highly unlikely all three had parties that left before us. So, friendly reminder to please cancel your permits if you’re canceling your trip. No doubt others would have gladly made use of those spots. Thank you!


Yes, PLEASE!


----------



## slc21 (Aug 11, 2021)

sfluckiger said:


> So as long as you get your permit your good right?
> 
> As an avid rafter and outdoorsman I am all for the regulation that permits provide. Otherwise we end up with the camping situation on the Upper C where people take dumps wherever they like, don't clean up the sites after camping and it's a mess. For the most part, the people that are actively pursuing these permits tend to be familiar with the rules and regs and respect them. Unused permits on stretches of river like the Salmon or Green get blacklisted and I think that is appropriate. Stating that "not using them is a valid interest too" is an assenine comment. The current system already limits use. But, as long as you get your permit your good right...?


I think you're reading my post wrong and I don't want to get into an argument. Are you aware that we're talking about last minute cancellations here? Ruby already has a full refund 8 days prior to launch which is a strong motivator to cancel. The only people that benefit from last minute cancellations are:
1- The few individuals with insanely flexible schedules. They already benefit heavily from the design of the permit system.
2- Individuals that want to modify their existing permit for more people, or so they can stay at a specific site, but a no-show ties it up.

Im not too worried about user group #1, and Im assuming the OP is part of #2, because Ive never met someone who complained after the fact that there weren't more people on the river.

As I said in my post, I don't care much if you ban people for not cancelling, but I do think there are valid reasons for not doing that. If you disagree, that's totally fine. I personally always cancel and modify my permits to account for actual group sizes, but Im not going to complain if I get on the river next month, and there are fewer people than max capacity.


----------



## Powench (Jun 19, 2009)

The unfortunate truth is in a location with low permit fees and self issue print at home permits, there is often not enough incentive to cancel the permit if they don't intend to use the opportunity. I do not like or promote the idea of high fees, but in our society cost implies value, be that experience or object. 

The only way to know for sure that someone has utilized their permit is to have in the flesh check in folks and even that will not keep groups from taking out early from their registered sites. The rate of voluntary compliance for dropbox feedback is a whopping 15% which is why you rarely see it used. Those boxes become a dumping ground for garbage and not returned cards as one would hope. 

With extreme high use comes more extreme administrative measures in order to keep the system working for everyone and still protect that magical resource. It is an unfortunate thing I have learned after 40+ years working in the field with permits and rivers. People who want what they want are rarely altruistic and or do the right thing.


----------



## thegoodpuppies (May 14, 2021)

Playing "the game"...

Semi-new to overnight rafting/float trips, but my family has been avid car campers for years. I learned how to play the national park/state park campground book-and-cancel game all too well. As everyone here knows you book the furthest date out you possible can (60 plus days for RH) and ensure that you have this or that spot (in this case Black Rocks or Mee for most floaters) for the real date you intend to camp. The game would be played by booking 65 days out- book an additional campsite for a few days before, then the system allows you to continue booking (I think) five additional days = 65 days out. So now you have the advantage of scoring the site you really wanted. You will not always win as someone else may out smart you or "ghost" book the site you really wanted. As for the regular car campgrounds we'd get the spot next to the lake, the great canyon view, or the largest spot in the campground for the specific dates we wanted by booking 6 months plus ahead of time. Then, I'd go back in a week later, after initially booking, and cancel all of the days I know we were not going to use, and get a REFUND for those nights I canceled. Go ahead throw rocks, but I ALWAYS canceled the nights I won't be there. Ruby-Horsethief does not offer this financial incentive- as you are paying to be on the river and it doesn't matter if you book for one night or five nights. To my knowledge, you are paying to use the river, not the land so-to-speak. (Unless you don't stay overnight- then I guess it's free, but where's the enjoyment in that?)

IMHO- RH needs to charge per night (just like car campgrounds) do vs just a flat fee to be on the river, and 'maybe' this would incentivize people to actually cancel their future unused nights. Maybe take away the per person/heartbeat fee and just go old-fashion w/ a per night fee. (By no means do I want the fees raised or added to- just adjusted as a per night. And, why the heck not- if you hop sites on the river a couple of times then you are technically applying a use-fee to the land.) I believe no return financial incentive makes some people lazy to just let the nights go unused. What's it to them if they don't show up the first three nights? The 8 day cancellation policy wouldn't apply, or matter, to these people as they intend to eventually show up, but later on in their reservation.

Another IMHO moment- RH's cancel and rebook system scares the crap out of newbies. We are not sure if we are going to lose all of our nights by simply cancelling the ones we know we won't be using. A few months ago, I was on a 43 minute chat with the RH customer service operator going round and round with the person who kept saying, "any change in permit launch dates needs to be fully cancelled and rebooked." She couldn't answer any additional questions and couldn't even tell me the specific sites I had booked- she just kept saying check my reservation email or RH permit policy page. I was scared as heck to lose my spots by altering my dates! For people who have learned the system, there has to be an easier more secure way to cancel specific days or camps without starting the booking phase over. BTW- why do we really have to change the launch date if we were already supposed to be on the river? The same # of people on the river should be available as we were already supposed to be there??? So why do I need to start my reservation over just to change the launch date?

Last IMHO thought- I don't know if this already exists as I haven't tried it but, if they changed the booking policy to a fee per night/site, then they should also change the ability to go back in and tweak your own campsites without fear of losing out. For example- if I booked Mee 1 because Mee Corner was taken at the time of booking, but then opened back up from a cancellation, it would be favorable to allow someone with an existing reservation to go in and switch campsites without potentially messing up their whole reservation. Or maybe tweak the one reservation at a time to one reservation within a 7 day period so that we can have some flexibility in switching sites as or if they become available (kind of like they allow car campers 14 night limits in most national park campgrounds or 7 night limits at popular national park campgrounds). Maybe even charge a small fee to change the campsite location or do what car campgrounds do and charge a premium fee for some sites. (Sorry to raise some people's blood pressure!)

Years of booking campsites in state and national parks, and even now a few other floating river campsites, this RH system seems to be the most out of whack of all of the ones I'm familiar with. I am 110% for the permit systems and I believe that more regulations should be in place to take care of our rivers and land, but the RH system for booking needs a little revision.

P.S. Contrary to my thoughts on tweaking the permit system, I also feel the river and land need some down time from people too. So for the time being that the RH permit system stays hairy, blessed are the trees that can sing in the wind, the roots that stretch their limits without being trampled, and the river that freely dances down the canyon- all whom hopefully encounter the least amount of human interference as possible.


----------



## Pine (Aug 15, 2017)

k2andcannoli said:


> Failure to use or release a winning permit should result in a 3-24 month ban depending on permit demand.


On the 4 rivers lottery a no-show results in a 3 year ban on holding another permit.


----------



## cdcfly (Jul 28, 2013)

In order to promote release of permit within the (8) day period where no refund is possible, I think there should be a point or incentive system where you get preference if you release a permit despite no financial motivation. I'm not sure how the points could be used, but perhaps a lottery similar to hunting. Tho I don't hate the idea of a short duration ban if you fail to release


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

jbolson said:


> I understand the issue, but not sure that dinging folks after the fact helps at all. I think what is needed is some type of registration for people to make a permit. I know this won't be a popular approach for the anti-gov buzzards, but it might actually help keep the tourists from getting permits that they aren't going to use. It could be like a driver's license where it involves people (and perhaps qualification level) or could be a boat permit where you would have to provide a registered boat to get a permit. Personally, I would be more than happy to pay registrations fees if it keeps the looky-loos out of the permitting process (for any river).


I'm one of those anti-government Buzzards, but to be honest (and as my daughter clarified for me this past weekend), maybe more of an "anti-Federalist". I simply dislike the large, bloated Federal bureaucracy and their one-size-fits-all rules. Even the areas that are getting over-used and abused take time to get Federal protection (and yes, permits) implemented....where areas with State oversight could see more rapid and appropriate response.

I'm not anti-permit, but I don't want to see a permit that results in no oversight on the ground. I do think that oversight is necessary even though I wish people would use common sense and respect the resource and each other.


And rec.gov is not the same thing as the management agencies. They're no different from Facebook or eBay and collect a fee based on number of users...so it's in their best interest (but not necessarily the resource...or die-hard river users) to widely advertise permits. That $6 lottery application fee goes to Rec.gov and not the agency. The agency only collects the permit fee and per-user fees. More people applying for the lottery doesn't monetarily help the agency. Rec.gov sucks.


----------



## slc21 (Aug 11, 2021)

MT4Runner said:


> And rec.gov is not the same thing as the management agencies. They're no different from Facebook or eBay and collect a fee based on number of users...so it's in their best interest (but not necessarily the resource...or die-hard river users) to widely advertise permits. That $6 lottery application fee goes to Rec.gov and not the agency. The agency only collects the permit fee and per-user fees. More people applying for the lottery doesn't monetarily help the agency. Rec.gov sucks.


Rec.gov is owned by the federal government and the contract to develop and maintain it was re-awarded to booz allen hamilton a few years back. Im not a big fan of the defense industry, but the site works great and a $6 fee is pretty darn cheap. What do you want to see work differently?


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

I agree it’s highly functional.

I dislike that BAH is advertising permits broadly to people who have nointention of getting on the river. Hence this thread.


----------



## slc21 (Aug 11, 2021)

What do you think there is a secret cabal of people registering for permits that don't plan on using them? Recreation.gov doesn't advertise, period, and certainly not for river permits.

The idea of river runners being libertarians is the least self-aware thing Ive ever heard. You guys should go buy a private river and raft that thing over and over again.


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

@slc21 I don’t think you understand the topic……it’s a pretty big issue that actually is bigger than ruby. Us life long rafters have been noticing this issue and dealing with this issue for some time now. The permit system doesn’t work efficiently. Given that, it’s important the lookyloos who booked a trip and didn’t go don’t negatively effect the others who do and will go. Number of permits probably won’t go up…but the number of people wanting them will…


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

slc21 said:


> What do you think there is a secret cabal of people registering for permits that don't plan on using them? Recreation.gov doesn't advertise, period, and certainly not for river permits.
> 
> The idea of river runners being libertarians is the least self-aware thing Ive ever heard. You guys should go buy a private river and raft that thing over and over again.


Yes, they did advertise the River lottery. Not everyone in the world, but to anyone and everyone in their system who had ever visited a historic battlefield or booked a campsite. That’s a LOT.

nice strawman.
You are clearly itching for a battle.

I’m going boating, will pack out my poop, pick up others’ trash, and have a wonderful day. I hope you can do the same.


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

slc21 said..."you guys should go buy a private river and raft that thing over and over again." , and i say, you are an "idiot", be proud of it, because you ware it well.


----------



## slc21 (Aug 11, 2021)

Guys, you aren't getting this. You are the ones taking the permits. The boogeyman is you. It's not rec.gov. It's not Tic Tok users. And it's certainly not looky loos or historic battlefield visitors. It's rafters, kayakers, etc. And most of the advertisement is you posting cool shit on the internet that other people want to get in on!

I'm sorry that I poured cold water on your libertarian utopia but that fat bloated federal government is the only reason you have safe, protected, and reasonable access to your favorite rivers.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

That same benevolent government is also the reason Glen Canyon (And numerous other amazing rivers we never got to see) is buried in silt.

You’re not wrong, private individuals and corporations do some pretty fucked up things, but so does the government.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

Well said: "I'm sorry that I poured cold water on your libertarian utopia but that fat bloated federal government is the only reason you have safe, protected, and reasonable access to your favorite rivers." 

Emotionally stunted, historically ignorant, and grossly unaware of the basic structure/function of government and society are keys to comfortably embracing the libertarian ideals that pretty much avoid the difficult land (people) management decisions required to protect and enjoy what little running water and high ground these "libertarians" did not gobble up or destroy in the name of Manifest Destiny and other genocidal doctrines deployed by a federal government that has often been controlled by ecocidal maniacs trying to monetize every last drop. Under the false banners of States Rights and Federalism, the Lords of Greed pretty much seek to destroy established institutions and growing trends in our federal government that seek to protect land, air, and water. These Lords of Greed have a useful army of LiberZombies Idiots everready and willing to muddy the discussion of ways to improve river access by inserting libertarian tripe.

Glen Canyon was drowned by letting the Lords of Greed run our federal government, and the Canyon is being slowly but inevitably liberated by a coalition of forces, including elements of the federal government and the public (including former feds) that despise what the Wrecked Bureau hath wrought on behalf of their Lords. 

End the resource privatization scams that are federal dams and rec.gov. Give permitting back to the federal land management agencies, and protect their ability to carry out their difficult mission. Hard enough to keep the feds on the right line with all the competing demands. Impossible to implement decent but imperfect land/river management decisions on level of use when the federal government is polluted with privatization scams seeking to capture every potential greenback for themselves.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

Forgot to agree with the OP: cancel permits you can't/won't use, or be banished from holding a permit for a couple years.


----------



## slc21 (Aug 11, 2021)

raymo said:


> slc21 said..."you guys should go buy a private river and raft that thing over and over again." , and i say, you are an "idiot", be proud of it, because you ware it well.


You and sfluckiger should get together and have a spelling bee.


----------



## Lasercat (May 7, 2021)

I cancelled a permit last year within the no refund window due to a broken collarbone, which would have made rowing Westwater a bit sketchy. I can see how some folks just wouldn't bother though, since they wouldn't get any money back. 

As such, the biggest change that rec.gov could make for the better, in my opinion, is to change the "no refund" period to a "50% refund" period. That would incentivize people to cancel permits they can't use, but still have enough of a financial penalty to hopefully prevent frivolous bookings. 

Seems like a no-brainer to me...


----------



## jbolson (Apr 6, 2005)

Lasercat said:


> As such, the biggest change that rec.gov could make for the better, in my opinion, is to change the "no refund" period to a "50% refund" period. That would incentivize people to cancel permits they can't use, but still have enough of a financial penalty to hopefully prevent frivolous bookings.
> 
> Seems like a no-brainer to me...


That's a great idea. But would take money out of gov. pockets it is already in, so, unlikely to change.

Another possibility along the same lines, that is often used in rental properties, is to offer a full refund if it is re-booked. If it is not re-booked then no refund. That way there is still an incentive to cancel and the gov. doesn't give away money. There is also an incentive to cancel early so you have the best chance for a full refund.


----------



## cain (Dec 28, 2011)

4 Rivers lottery doesn't ban you from holding a permit for 3 years. It bans you from the lottery for 3 years. You can still pick up cancelations or off season permits.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

cain said:


> 4 Rivers lottery doesn't ban you from holding a permit for 3 years. It bans you from the lottery for 3 years. You can still pick up cancelations or off season permits.


I didn't know there was that distinction. That's not bad..


----------



## whitty (Aug 15, 2016)

I had a labour day weekend permit. On the Saturday we floated past Cottonwoods at 5 PM and noone had arrived yet. Then on Sunday noone showed up to Mee 2.

Really frustrating that people aren't using their camps especially with how hard it is to get a reservation on a popular weekend.


----------

