# Grand Canyon News - Hualapai Nation Announce Intent to Require Permits for Camping



## David L (Feb 13, 2004)

Do they really expect people to reserve a Grand Canyon camp two weeks before a trip???!!! On all the trips I've done we've always had plans change from what we intended even just a few days prior.

Wanting people to buy an open ended camping & hiking permit for anywhere on their land would make more sense, even if I didn't want to have to do it.


----------



## The Beer Hauler (Jun 29, 2017)

*A Little Spendy You Think!?*

$30 per person, per night is a little steep. With no details or other reports of environmental damage at these camps, it seems to me this is more a revenue generating scheme for the Hualapai tribe.


----------



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

Holy Crap!!!! And a triple load of crap to the Hualapai for claiming camps in Grand Canyon are trashed. I've never seen anything of the sort, and barely any microtrash. Just footprints!

It sounds like a lame excuse as a simple try at a money grab by them. Do they really expect people to reserve a camp weeks in advance when no river runner could be sure of where they will be on any day that far into a trip? And how do they expect to enforce it?

Thank you GCPBA for putting this info out there.


----------



## 50119 (Jan 17, 2016)

Plans change constantly on rivers without mandatory camp sites/dates (Middle Fork for example). Pay as you go? Pay station? More camps on the other side?

How about pay stations with other amenities such as ice, beer, propane & snacks?


----------



## villagelightsmith (Feb 17, 2016)

At that price, they will get 100% 0f nothing.
Respect is a 2-way street, and so is disrespect.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

villagelightsmith said:


> At that price, they will get 100% 0f nothing.
> Respect is a 2-way street, and so is disrespect.


The way I see it is they're not going at this from a business standpoint but just want the rest of us to stay off their land.

-AH


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

villagelightsmith said:


> At that price, they will get 100% 0f nothing.
> Respect is a 2-way street, and so is disrespect.


Seems like everyone thinks they're trying to make a buck. The way I see it is they're not going at this from a business standpoint but just want the rest of us to stay off their land.

-AH


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

*Hualapai Rights*

"Wise men make the rules . . . "

In this case, white men made the rules. If, by law, the land belongs to the Hualapai (and this may be a controversy that the courts will resolve), who are we to say that cannot keep us out or profit from ownership? Tear down all your fences around all of your backyards or have some respect for what may be someone else's land.

Or, we can go back and rewrite the treaty . . . . .


----------



## Rapid Resolver (Jan 31, 2010)

As in any negotiation you have to start somewhere. Draw a line in the sand and stake out something that they likely feel has been owed awhile. They'll likely need to sit down and hash this out with all voices at the table. Just from this short thread there are creative ideas that would meet everyone's interests. Devils in the details though and using some sort of adaptive management plan could help. 


"An adventure is never an adventure when it happens. An adventure is simply physical and emotional discomfort recollected in tranquility." ~Tim Cahill


----------



## David L (Feb 13, 2004)

His claim of river campers "misusing/abusing the land, and showing disrespect by leaving graffiti, trash, and vandalism" is a flat out lie and a rotten way to start discussion and negotiation about this.


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

I was at National when the Hualapai flew in to install the signs on July 13. They flew directly over the river, by the way (tsk, tsk). We were told by the work crew that river runners were desecrating the Hualapai land. I couldn't help but think about that statement as I floated downstream among the din of hundreds of helicopters from Las Vegas landing on Hualapai land and creating incredible amounts of noise pollution. Who is doing the desecrating here?


----------



## villagelightsmith (Feb 17, 2016)

It gives them a powerful feeling to get together and "Huff! Huff!" about it. We do the same thing about drive-in campers, boom-boxes, late-nite partiers, motorboats and motorbikes. And Government. Maybe we need to have some culturally approved program of respect for each trip. Pay the tax of an hour's program for every trip. Or if we could get them to be Anti-Park-Service on a mutually beneficial issue and call it a socio-religious/cultural-heritage-environmental-diversity leave-no-permanent-trace Art thing, Hell, we could have a native-anglo pow-wow-rondezvous the size of Burning Man!


----------



## villagelightsmith (Feb 17, 2016)

I just got a 22' Snout Boat, with 32" (?) tubes. So now I can drive the Airstream aboard, anchor offshore and say "Nyaaa-Nyaaa-Na-Nyaaa-Nyaaa!" over the bullhorn. Not really. That would be just too rude. But, "I-yam wot I-yam!" BTW: if anybody knows of an old aluminum frame for a 20 to 22' Cat, I'd appreciate hearing about it. ~~~__/)_~~~
Jerry


----------



## trevko (Jul 7, 2008)

GC Guide said:


> I couldn't help but think about that statement as I floated downstream among the din of hundreds of helicopters from Las Vegas landing on Hualapai land and creating incredible amounts of noise pollution. Who is doing the desecrating here?


I was thinking the same thing! With the Hualapai it often seems to be about money.


----------



## Dsuth82 (Apr 2, 2012)

Of course it's about money and control. But that is the tribe's right. It's similar to how the Navajo Nation runs their side of the San Juan. It will sway my decision on future trips. My biggest problem with these permits is nailing down an exact date and location. I would rather pay a flat fee for the length of my trip, like the Ute side of Deso.


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

Dsuth82 said:


> Of course it's about money and control. But that is the tribe's right. It's similar to how the Navajo Nation runs their side of the San Juan. It will sway my decision on future trips. My biggest problem with these permits is nailing down an exact date and location. I would rather pay a flat fee for the length of my trip, like the Ute side of Deso.


You would really pay $480 for your group to camp for one night at National Canyon, Mohawk or Spencer? Never mind the logistics, that's a huge expense. I am just curious who would pay that for a group of 16 to camp.


----------



## paulster (May 27, 2011)

Interesting to see how, for some, free market capitalism and the ability to charge a high price for a high-demand product is ok if you are doing the selling and not so much if you are doing the buying. How many of those howling about the Hualapai's grubbing for money are equally outraged at Apple, medical device companies, parking lot owners, etc? I respect their ability to charge what they feel like for accessing their land. That doesn't mean I approve of their silly statements like river runners trashing their land or the way they manage commercial boats or helicopters and I probably won't be paying that fee or using their land any time soon, but it seems funny when we complain when they adopt "our" cultural tactics.


----------



## Dsuth82 (Apr 2, 2012)

I said it would sway my decision on future trips. I said I would prefer a flat fee for the length of the trip. Nowhere did I say I wanted to pay $480 for a night to camp. If the tribe really want's to stick it to river runners they will impact access at Diamond. Just saying. They have a monopoly of sorts.

Don't like it contact the Hualapai Council
Tribal Council « The Hualapai Tribe Website


----------



## trevko (Jul 7, 2008)

Well, there is that boundary issue of middle of the river vs high water....


My guess is they are looking at the pockets of the outfitters and the private boaters are getting caught up in it.


----------



## buckmanriver (Apr 2, 2008)

* Side question.

Do the native tribal folks own Deer Creek as well or is it just a spiritual location which is why the park banned entering the narrows? 


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

In regards to the camping permit assuming it goes through I do not see it being enforced in the winter.


----------



## dsrtrat (May 29, 2011)

The main problem here is that the boundary has never been adjudicated. The NPS claims the historic high water line, the tribes are claiming center of the river. Until this is settled the tribes both Navajo and Hualapai can and will try to dispute the boundary.
A case in point is the Escalade project which would surely trigger a lawsuit if allowed to proceed.
The NPS seems to be taking a hands off approach to this and seems to not want to disturb the status quo.

I have no problem paying to take out at Diamond Creek as we are clearly trespassing over tribal lands when doing so. Camping below the high water line is another case entirely unless there is a clear court decision.
If they wanted to the Navajo could do the same thing on the Marble Canyon section to the confluence with the Little Colorado. You could be hauled into tribal court and would need to contest it...........How? 

If the Hualapai are concerned about site disturbance maybe they should remove the ladder at Travertine Canyon and the Helicopter pad above Whitmore, to say nothing about the mess at Quartermaster Canyon .

As for Deer Creek narrows this is on NPS land and the was closed at the request of the Paiute tribe.


----------



## 50119 (Jan 17, 2016)

Any current feedback on how this situation is unfolding/managed? I will be on a trip with a party of eight at the end of April and looking at options/costs/etc.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

There has been some discussion on the part of the tribe to do a flat fee for the whole trip, but currently it is a per person per day and you have to designate the day/s you'll be staying at each camp. I believe they even set up a website to do it at. I think its $50 per person per day....so it really adds up.

IMHO, that amount is ludicrous and I'd rather just stay on the right side then pay it. I mean, a 16 person trip will pay $800 a day to stay there. Plus, we all know that you never really know how your itinerary will go, so reserving a specific site on a specific day is a bit hard especially towards the end of the canyon.

There is still a relatively good chance that you won't see a Haulapai representative until you get to Diamond Creek. They believe they have the right to enforce use of their land, which usually entails confiscation of your stuff.

As of now, most of the people that are part of the talks are recommending avoiding use of the left side of the river at all. This includes side hikes and attractions as well.

Sucks...but it is what it is. I think there is a chance that they will have some sense talked into them between now and your trip, but its still a pretty contentious subject and neither side seems willing to budge (NPS or Tribal).


----------



## dsrtrat (May 29, 2011)

Some first hand information.
I got off the river a couple of weeks ago and saw no signs at any of the river left camps throughout the canyon. There was no mention of any camping restrictions in the pre trip talk.
One of our trip members swamps for a commercial outfitter and reported that the commercials have been using the river left camps all summer. All the camps we used were in great shape especially considering that in late season most had been used every night all summer long. 
We had a motor delivered at Diamond Creek and paid the tribal fees for our vehicle and driver.Our permit was checked when we picked up the motor but we had no other contact with tribal members during the trip.


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

The Ute have been requiring permits to camp on the right side of Desolation Canyon for decades. It is their land. Get over it. The feds charge us to camp on fed land. What's different about the Hualapai?


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

Uh, believe it is river left on Deso and the Grand.
Paying to camp or access seems fair, but a more efficient system could be implemented similar to Deso/Gray.
S


----------



## dsrtrat (May 29, 2011)

In my opinion it is different because there is still an open question on where the border of the tribal lands and the NPS jurisdiction ends and begins. As stated before until this is adjudicated there is no clear boundary. If my neighbor claims my fence is on his property he would have to prove it to the contrary, same goes for the disputed boundary. The tribal members should push for a clear determination of the boundary if they wish to profit from river runners using what they claim as their lands.
The 1975 Grand Canyon Enlargement Act seems to give the park jurisdiction over the water but the Hualapai still continue to claim to the center of the river. The NPS has been skirting this issue for years and until it is resolved are putting river runners in the middle. It's time for them to step up and resolve the issue, not put river runners in limbo and subject to a test case.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Ah, yes, but that means it might wind up pitting the NPS against the BIA -- both Interior components. 

Better to not risk kicking up a long and costly legal battle that would require outside counsel for one or both sides, to avoid a conflict of interest.

Now if a third party raised the issue in court, they might have to finally resolve it. But who has the money and resolve to do that and stick it out to the bitter end?

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

Correct Sarah of the Waves! It is river left in Deso. Either way, I see no reason not to respect what little the native american's have left in their claims, status or whatever. I heard the same grumbling in Alaska over a disputed piece of turf that the salmon fisherman liked to walk through but was actually Tlingit tribal land. Me, I just went around. Plenty of places to fish.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Would be a major bummer for river Runners, if the boundary location were taken up in court and ruled to be down the middle of the river.


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

dsrtrat said:


> Some first hand information.
> I got off the river a couple of weeks ago and saw no signs at any of the river left camps throughout the canyon. There was no mention of any camping restrictions in the pre trip talk.
> One of our trip members swamps for a commercial outfitter and reported that the commercials have been using the river left camps all summer. All the camps we used were in great shape especially considering that in late season most had been used every night all summer long.
> We had a motor delivered at Diamond Creek and paid the tribal fees for our vehicle and driver.Our permit was checked when we picked up the motor but we had no other contact with tribal members during the trip.


That was out experience in May. We stayed at Mohawk because everything above that was taken. No signage. Same thing in Sept. '16. Everything above was taken. I also asked one of the commercial guides about it and he said they stay at river left camps all year.


----------



## 50119 (Jan 17, 2016)

Thank you for the recent updates, though much could change in the next 5 months before I launch. I live in the PNW where tribal rights regarding fishing/hunting/access has been a way of life - sometime contentious and sometime not. I see both sides.


----------



## dsrtrat (May 29, 2011)

As a correction to my earlier post I now remember that Spencer Canyon had a sign stating permit required. If you plan on camping on river left below Diamond you will want to keep this in mind. Some of the canyons below Diamond have been blown out this summer, Spencer and Surprise Canyons among them.


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Yes, Surprise was pretty ugly. We stayed at Bridge Canyon, no signs. I think Spencer is is being used by the Hualipia for overnight trips. There was a school trip camping at Travertine Canyon. I'd not seen that before. Seperation Canyon looked usable. We stayed at 243 camp in fall '16. It was usable. Not great but better than Surprise.


----------

