# Ruby/Horsethief thoughts?



## SimpleMan (Dec 17, 2009)

I am assuming you are talking about the rumor that they are going to regulate that stretch of river as in permits etc? For me it's a double edged sword. Permits keep non-boaters out, thus reducing some of the danger associated with unexperienced and unprepared boaters on the water. At the same time, this is a pretty tame stretch of water we're talking about here, and the fact that you can drive up and float it whenever you want is super awesome. I hate to see government tighten the reins on anything, especially backcountry access. I guess my final two cents is the old 'slippery slope' argument. If we start requiring permits on every stretch of river where dumb ******** and renters can go out and get drunk and float, there won't be much left pretty soon. 

An analogy to offer. When I was a kid, Horsetooth Mountain park and the entire reservoir was managed by another entity. I was a kid, so I don't remember who exactly. It was a place where you could go and hike, bike, boat, and water ski with relative freedom. There were rangers, but they were the give-you-information type of rangers, not the badge give-you-a-ticket type of rangers. Then in the early 90s the park started being managed by the county. That means Sheriff's department. Suddenly it was $8 to park at the trail head and hike. It was suddenly $4 to park and have a picnic lunch. They closed off two, very popular climbing spots. They began ticketing people for swimming off their boats without vests and swimming anywhere in the reservoir except the swim beaches. In short, the more regulation made what used to be a super friendly, beautiful place to recreate into a place where you were paying to use public lands, paying to park, and looking over your shoulder every minute for a badge wearing ranger. Three years ago I took my powerboat up there three times to relax. I was shook down and checked and smelled each time by those boys. Stopped going. 

More regulation ruined Horsetooth mountain park. Myself and my friends never go there any more. So sad. Let's not do the same thing to Ruby.


----------



## bberwyn (Jun 25, 2010)

Thanks! I think it's more than a rumor. The BLM is probably going to pick one of the alts they've presented, or a combination thereof, unless somebody comes up with a better idea. That's why, IMO, folks who know that stretch of river should try and comment. Sometimes (often) the users have better ideas than the agency managers.


----------



## MustacheTheGauley (Feb 16, 2010)

I agree w the "double edge sword" idea. My thoughts: It IS a nice section to introduce new people/kids to the water, it does make a nice prequel to Westwater Canyon, I do NOT like seeing knuckle heads on the water giving real boaters a bad wrap by not taking care of the river and its banks. I wonder what will happen to the population of users if we have to score two consecutive permits (one for Ruby then time the second for Westy). I do hope some thought is put into this as I enjoy Ruby and Westy 2-3 times a year.


----------



## G-man (May 24, 2005)

Having grown up in junc town, ruby was always right out the back door. I loved being able to pull up and float it without a permit, but I hate the inexperienced people leaving trash, taking campsites that we were signed up for and runining the run for the rest of us. I dont think it needs to be permited, but a fee that would keep someone there to regulate fire pans, groovers, and campsites might not be a bad idea. 

There has to be another option than a full on permit system.


----------



## openboat (Jul 13, 2004)

I have been going down that stretch for many years, and love the solitude and scenery. BLM told us 2010 was the last year to run w/o a permit - so no rumor.

I talked to BLM rangers on Ruby-Horsethief several times over the past few years. I understand why they think they need to do something. I can't remember the actual number of people they told me who float Ruby-Horsethief, but it is MANY thousands per year. 

I believe they want to get some control over the usage. It will hurt to find out all the permits are gone for a time I want to run it, but hope they can work out the kinks and make the system user-friendly.


----------



## ilanarama (Jun 25, 2010)

What about doing something like they do on the Montezuma Creek section of the San Juan? You need a permit, but it's free, and there are no restrictions on numbers, so you just call up the office and get it. It basically ensures that boaters contact the BLM and read the regs and have a toilet system and so on. If you have a permit for Sand Island onward it's no difficulty to get an additional permit for the upper section.


----------



## jbolson (Apr 6, 2005)

*camp poaching*

Hi,

We do RH evrey now and then, including once the last two years. There is currently a sign up sheet for campsites. Both times, our camp at blackrock that we had registered for was poached. The second time, we shared the camp, because the family in ours had had their camp poached. Interestingly, I had just spoken to BLM Rangers on the river above black rock about the possible regulations. They said it was primarily about camp poaching and indicated there had been more than a few violent interchanges.

BLM is in a public input phase and have several options. If interested, look it up and register your opinion. Personally, I would rather pay my fees than deal with camp poachers.


----------



## 3d3vart (Apr 15, 2010)

The BLM is taking comments now on the management plan. Don't speculate, just go here: Ruby Horsethief and look at the comparison in alternatives yourself. They range from no action (not gonna happen) to self-issued mandatory permit system (as opposed to the self-issue voluntary system that is in place now) to partial self-issued (Mon-Thur) to full on Field Office-issued permits 7 days a week in the summer months.

In my opinion, there is no doubt a mandatory permit system of some kind needs to go into effect for the summer months. The voluntary registration recorded 18,000 camping user days on that stretch last year (and not everybody signs that register), which averages out to around 50 per night, 365 days a year. July averages something like 127 camping user nights per day, which is huge.


----------



## Brotorboat (Apr 14, 2009)

I too think it is a double edged sword. But the good in this far outweighs the bad. There are simply too many people floating this stretch without firepans and groovers. The Rangers have been saying for a number of years that the behavior of folks down there is driving the wildlife away from the River. They are CONSTANTLY finding human waste, tampons, trash, etc...etc...This is just unacceptable. 

No matter what is decided, there is no doubt that it's going to have a positive impact on the banks, the wildlife, and the individual boaters' experiences in the canyon. Sure it might mean the end of an era...but progress is not always easy to see immediately.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Do permits really accomplish all this? People are idiots and inconsiderate, whether they have a permit or not. Unless they are going to actually patrol up and down the river all day long, these kinds of things can still happen. If someone wants Blackrocks, they can get a permit for something else and then poach it. What's anyone to do if there's no enforcement? Same with trash and such. Claim it was already there for that matter.

I like the idea of a fee that would go towards more personnel on the river to actually address the issues, without the permit. Pay a fee when you get there, first come first serve on the camp sites, and somebody WILL be by later in the day to make sure you are in your camp, and nobody else is in your camp.


----------



## emptypockets (Apr 11, 2009)

More government is never the answer. RH is probably cleaner now in terms of trash than it ever has been, and some of what little trash you do see is just river trash that has nothing to do with boating. Complaining about beer drinking boaters on a flat-water canoe section? Come on, you guys sound like a bunch of angry old men sitting in the nursing home, shaking your fist yelling "damn kids and their rock-and-roll." As far as "too many people," try Brown's canyon on a weekend or the Moab daily or Pumphouse. Way more crowded. I think they should open up more camping. It looks like there are 5 designated primitive camping areas on about 25 miles of river, how is that impacting the wildlife? I'm sorry, I just don't see how there is this crisis situation that suddenly requires government intervention in our recreational activity.


----------



## MustacheTheGauley (Feb 16, 2010)

Boilermaker- If I have signed up for Blackrocks and someone has poached it, you better believe they are moving or funding my group's beer and booze for the night. I am fine sharing a site BUT I and my group will be moving their tents into the morning sun or they are gone. I don't play around with "We were her first." I have seen it and I disagree and will not put up with poachers on a 'select your site' section of water.


----------



## SimpleMan (Dec 17, 2009)

"More personnel" is the problem with this whole idea Boilermaker. It's not the regulations that suck, it's the ******** with the badges that enforce them. Why not check for groovers at the put in and then let us be once on the river? "Impacting wildlife?" Please. Have you seen how big that desert is? Humans have a right to be there too. You're not actually floating Ruby for a "pristine" wildlife experience.


----------



## Matty (May 13, 2004)

I guess I feel a bit differently than most on the camp poaching on RH. The sign up is optional, and I always assumed there was a pretty good chance someone would be in the site I signed up for. If it were down in the canyon where the rangers assign them, I could see being upset. However you have to take into account the fact that perhaps the group set out with the best intentions of staying at a particular site, and had to go to plan b when their planned site was unavailable. Kind of hard for me to get upset with someone who essentially is in the same situation I am in.
It is pretty crowded down there, and I sure hope whatever plan they adopt will allow for some sort of system for picking up a RH permit in conjunction with your Westwater permit. I just hate dragging all my crap down there for a single night on the Rio.


----------



## emptypockets (Apr 11, 2009)

Ruby Horsethief <--BLM plan link

"Section 1.4 - Objectives of the Plan - Reduce conflict between visitors."

The people who complain all the time about campsite poachers is the exact reason this is happening. So congratulations, floating RH will be just as much fun in the future as trying to get a Westwater slot or a Deso/Gray slot. Every weekend will be booked solid all year and you'll have to plan your trip 6 months in advance. Not having a permit will make floating this section of river a federal crime. People will make reservations, then no-show and not bother to cancel. Plus, it will now cost $20. All because some people didn't understand that the campsite sign-up sheet was an informal courtesy to other boaters and the group campsites were in fact, first-come first-serve.


----------



## bluepuma3 (Apr 8, 2008)

I haven't read all the comments, so excuse me if this thought is a duplicate. If Ruby Horsethief were regulated so that an impromptu trip was difficult, it would push locals toward the stretch of the Gunnison River between Delta and GJ where there is little or no enforced regulation. Someday the same problems there? 
Finding half-buried human waste near the Black Rocks camp sites is enough to make me want to require, and enforce, regulations requiring groovers. Fire pans, too. If we don't pay for law enforcement, it appears a place gets trashed by its users. Sad.


----------



## bluepuma3 (Apr 8, 2008)

I also agree about the ignorance concerning the campsite sign-up. It is plainly non-binding and intended only to give you an idea of what is going on down river. To think it is something else brought the heat down on us. 
Did the guy that bragged that he would demand beer money from a camp-poacher at Blackrocks tattle, or did the people he intimidated? 
I've witnessed boaters at Blackrocks who are simply inflexible dicks. They would suck on any river, like they probably suck in the real world. Partly because they don't play well with others and partly because they failed to comprehend the actual rule which is first come, first served.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

*wish it were not true but it is*

I have had the pleasure of floating RH and Westwater a number of times. Had a great time and each trip was very worth the time and effort to make the float.

I am sad to see the RH area get trashed by a few yahoos who screw it up for the rest of us. But, it happens way too much on any "unregulated" river these days.

I do not like the fact that I have to pay, get lucky on a permit and then drive long distances to get to float any of the western rivers we have.

Having said that, it is a great feeling to know the folks in the peaked hats are there in case of emergency, keeping the area reasonably clean and maintaining some level of order that would not be there if the river was not under some sort of Ranger resource. I will mention Middle Fork of Salmon as one river with heavy use but I have yet to see a trashed out camp site on that run.

So, I can pay the fees and put up with the occassional over eager to show their authority Ranger just to know the river is being taken care of and the yahoo types are reduced to allow us regular folks to enjoy the float.

I am all for less governmental control, but in this case my vote is for the permit system and river rangers on patrol. Too bad but it seems our society is just not able to police itself.


----------



## emptypockets (Apr 11, 2009)

Apart from the "take no action" option, several of the proposed options contain: 
$7 per man, woman, and child per day
$7 per dog per day
28 total private camping permits per night for all weekends May through September
7 total commerical camping permits per weekend night
No camping outside of designated sites (currently you can camp anywhere along the river)
Group size maximum is 25 per permit, dogs count as permit slot
Reservations 6 weeks in advance for weekends ($20 cancellation fee)
Pay in envelope/tube slot at boat ramp on weekdays
Only currently existing commercial businesses will be allowed to operate in RH

Comment form on this proposal is due July 1st and can be emailed.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Pir8 Jim said:


> Boilermaker- If I have signed up for Blackrocks and someone has poached it, you better believe they are moving or funding my group's beer and booze for the night. I am fine sharing a site BUT I and my group will be moving their tents into the morning sun or they are gone. I don't play around with "We were her first." I have seen it and I disagree and will not put up with poachers on a 'select your site' section of water.


 
I think you mis-read my comment, or I wasn’t clear. If there is a sign-up, then I am a believer in enforcing the sign ups in some way, shape or form. Those who signed up should get what they signed up for. It should be binding, or it does more harm than good. Therefore, if you signed up for Blackrocks, I would agree that you are entitled to it. If someone beat you to it, that shouldn’t entitle them to the site. That makes them an inconsiderate prick in my book. From the sounds of it, the sign-ups are not enforceable, and that’s part of the issue. You have one perspective and appear to be very adamant about it, bu those that feel it’s optional to sign up may feel every bit as justified in taking the site if they are there first. If it isn’t enforceable, who is right? Both. Neither. That’s where the fights start…
Now, if they were signed up for something above that and some other inconsiderate prick stole their site, then they are in a touch situation. If they took your site because of that, I’d feel a little more compassion for them. Circumstances always need to be taken into account, and reasonable, sound judgement needs to be exercised. For example, those of us with kids wouldn’t want to get into a confrontation that leads to aggression, fights and firearms being involved. If someone takes my site that I signed up for and wants to literally fight over it, I am likely to get back in my boat and “poach” someone else’s site downstream and hope for a more reasonable group when they arrive to share the site with. I would do the same if I were at my site, and a group showed up that was kicked out of their own site, I would hope for the same in return some day.



SimpleMan said:


> "More personnel" is the problem with this whole idea Boilermaker. It's not the regulations that suck, it's the ******** with the badges that enforce them. Why not check for groovers at the put in and then let us be once on the river? "Impacting wildlife?" Please. Have you seen how big that desert is? Humans have a right to be there too. You're not actually floating Ruby for a "pristine" wildlife experience.


 
That’s fine with me, but checking for groovers doesn’t resolve the poaching. And I actually have to disagree with you on the regulations part. They do suck, or there wouldn’t be so many issues. They need to be crystal clear and enforceable, or they suck in my book. If the regulation requires a groover, then absolutely nobody should be allowed on the river without it. Period, end of story. How is that enforced? By having people there to enforce it. Same goes for camp sites. If it is first come, first served, then get rid of the damn sign up sheet. End of story. Then everyone knows that they may or may not get Blackrocks or whatever their favorite site is. If there is a sign up, then it should not be optional, and there should be some means of enforcing it. At a minimum, there should be some sort of receipt or confirmation that entitles the bearer to the use of the site for the day. Again, the only reliable way outside of permitting I see to accomplish that is to have a person there that you sign up with, and that person gives you a receipt to take with you.
In order to accomplish enforcement, there has to be unbiased, third party human intervention. That takes money, so that would mean a fee at a minimum. I would be fine with paying a small fee like I do for Pumphouse or Hecla or places like that. I really hope they come up with something besides a permit system, because I do hate permitting. I don’t think permitting necessarily addresses the issues people are concerned with in this case. All it does is limit the quantity of people that can enjoy the river, and I don’t see that as the real issue here.


----------



## Matty (May 13, 2004)

The sign up at Loma is not a permit, it does not entitle you to ANYTHING. It is simply a courtesy to other people on the river to let them know what might be going on down stream. It is a first come first served system, just like Pumphouse, and just like Fisherman's bridge. The person who is in the site that you signed up for is not poaching anything. It is a crowded stretch of water and we all should to be ready to "our" space.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

I haven't done a lot of river camping yet, I am just getting my own equipment now (my trips have been with ithers to this point). The timing of this sucks, because I may be spending a lot of money for nothing if this kind of action keeps up. I don't have the time or energy to sit on the phone every day hoping to get a permit for every river in the west, and I hate to be locked down to one weekend and have it be rainy, cold and lightning that weekend.

For those of you that do a lot of camping, how does the system at Pumphouse and Fisherman's Bridge (for example) work (ie, works well, sucks ass, etc)? Are there as many "conflicts between visitors"? Are the sites clean? Should I stop buying camping gear and forget about it altogether? In another thread, seems like you can still be first to a camp site, only to have some other jack-ass come along and move your gear from the site and take it anyway.

If I had a vote in these proposed plans, my inclination would be to ovte for something more like these areas rather than a full on permit system. Maybe they could try a fee system with a ranger at the put in to provide some enforcement and see how that goes for a couple of years. Review the data again in a few years and see if things improve. If not, then notch it up from there.


----------



## atg200 (Apr 24, 2007)

Ruby Horsethief is a shit show during the summer. A permit system is a good idea as long as the number of users allowed is high enough. Last weekend at the black rocks I saw half a dozen fire rings with ashes and charred wood, lots of garbage(which I packed out), tons of dog shit(some of which I packed out), and a few human turds with little toilet paper flags. It is absolutely disgusting, and you don't see rivers trashed like this anywhere that has a permit system. Thankfully it is only the Black Rocks area that seems to be treated like a frat house.

Don't bail on getting camping gear just because Ruby/Horsethief goes to a permit system. There are other rivers nearby with no permits or easy to get permits like Labyrinth Canyon, Cisco to Moab on the Colorado, The Green below the Flaming Gorge, or Deso that are really nice. Ruby/Horsethief just gets so abused since it is so easy, a perfect length for an overnight, and close enough to do as a weekend trip for millions of people. The river is also mostly deserted before the middle of April and after the end of September.


----------



## BruceB (Jun 8, 2010)

*I too am for permits on Ruby/Horsethief*

I agree, you simply do not find the frat house treatment in sections requiring permits. The results of permit systems speak for themselves, specifically available and pristine campsites. 

The permit system is not without shortcomings - I have had at least four full gear inspections, I have broken camp and givien up one of the best campsites in the whole Grand Canyon so a commercial group with 45 guests could camp there (there were only three in my group) and I have STILL never pulled a Yampa/Green permit (and it costs just to apply). But the benefits outweigh the shortcomings. There are simply too many people trying to use a confined river corridor at once; the situation needs to be managed.

There are also some things we can do on our own to help. Take some vacation time and go on a Tues/Wed/Thurs. Westwater permits are also easy to get those days. Go with smaller groups. This includes permitted rivers. It's not only for less impact - small groups have more flexibility choosing campsites, especially at high water when some are under water. Talk to toher groups and see where they intend to camp. And if you have been through these areas eight or 10 times, think about giving it a break and go elsewhere. I suspect it's only a matter of time until someone tries to impose individual visitation limits on us for some of these areas. We regulate ourselves........or have it done for us.

And nothing comes for free, including the wilderness, so I will pay whatever fees they decide to charge. Maybe I'll even send $15 with my Dinosaur application next year. Again.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

*Reminder - Comments are Due July 1*

To view the BLM website with the plan and comment form, click HERE.

One of my main concerns is that boaters getting a Westwater permit will have trouble getting a R-H permit as well and not be able to do the entire stretch.

-AH


----------



## dgosn (Sep 8, 2006)

The desert is a fragile place that gets 'loved' to death by all users, some more than others. RH gets so trashed because it is easy enough that an inne rtube and cooler of beer is all you need.

I am for some sort of enforcement, and I hate the man, but I hate seeing resourses trashed even more. I dont want to pay $7 a day per person or dog, but would rather pay a couple dollars if it means I dont have to pack out 40 lbs of someone elses garbage every time. I'd also rather pay a couple dollars than find my dog dug up some one's shit buried in the sand.

Unfortunately once RH gets permitted and or enforced the yahoos will go elsewhere. I'd imagine the the Escalante section of the gunnison will be the next area to get trashed.

I have seen the same things happen in climbing area like Indian creek, moab, castle valley, and other places. Once the masses arrive things get trashed and the man has to step in. 

Other than a national breeding card system or forced sterilization of idiots the only option is regulations of some sort. I float RH quite often, but every year my trips seem to be more in the winter and shoulder seasons. I haven't been down ruby in the summer for 2 years as it is as atg2000 says a 'shit show' I don't care about drunkenness or nudity as long as it is accompanied by river etiquette and leave no trace practices. RH has unfortunately suffered greatly, and now something must be done.

Scott


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

dgosn said:


> ...Other than a national breeding card system or forced sterilization of idiots the only option is regulations of some sort....


 That was funny. I was thinking the same thing. That would solve so many issues (not just river issues), wouldn' it!


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

BoilermakerU said:


> I don’t think permitting necessarily addresses the issues people are concerned with in this case. All it does is limit the quantity of people that can enjoy the river, and I don’t see that as the real issue here.


I beg to differ. If permitting didn't accomplish the agency management objectives of protecting the resource and recreational experience, then why are so many high-quality rivers permitted? If you compare the conditions (resource impacts, social impacts, etc.) on RH to the Yampa, Deso, Middle Fork of the Salmon, Main Salmon, Lodore, San Juan, Selway, Snake, Rogue, etc., they're far worse across the spectrum on RH. Permits won't solve all the problems - you can't fix stupid - but a permit system, as much as it might suck, will go a long way towards minimizing the excessive impact that RH currently receives from the free-for-all system now in place. Am I bummed that RH will be permitted? On one hand, yes. It was great to have at least one multi-day trip that you could jump on at any time. On the other hand, it's long overdue. 

It was good while it lasted...


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

JBL said:


> I beg to differ. If permitting didn't accomplish the agency management objectives of protecting the resource and recreational experience, then why are so many high-quality rivers permitted? If you compare the conditions (resource impacts, social impacts, etc.) on RH to the Yampa, Deso, Middle Fork of the Salmon, Main Salmon, Lodore, San Juan, Selway, Snake, Rogue, etc., they're far worse across the spectrum on RH. Permits won't solve all the problems - you can't fix stupid - but a permit system, as much as it might suck, will go a long way towards minimizing the excessive impact that RH currently receives from the free-for-all system now in place. Am I bummed that RH will be permitted? On one hand, yes. It was great to have at least one multi-day trip that you could jump on at any time. On the other hand, it's long overdue.
> 
> It was good while it lasted...


You're right, what I said isn't true, it's not really what I meant I guess. Of course it will address "agency management objectives ". It will more or less address my concerns too, but it comes at a steep price (not being able to even use it potentially by not getting a permit) IMO. I guess I still don't see why they can't address my concerns without a permit system so that we don't have to pay as steep a price.

Again, the one concern that keeps coming up is already a regulation, permit or no permit. Just enforce it. Requiring a permit won't do anything to keep dog crap, human crap, trash and fire remains out of the camps if they don't enforce the regulations already in place. The frat boys will get their permits, and knowing there's no enforcement, will trash the camp, shit all over the place, and leave their fires behind. So what?

Requiring a permit won't do anything to keep people from fighting over camp sites if there is no enforcement over that too. What's to stop one of the idiots that don't give a damn about anyone but themselves from getting a permit for any old camp site and then pulling into Black Rocks anyway and pulling a gun on anyone that tries to tell him it's theirs? 

I do imagine that just having to get a permit will discourage some of the frat boys from even going out there though. The idioats that treat the camps the way they do are probably not smart enough to get the permit in the first place... LOL It's sad then that we are talking about regulating stupidity really.

Permitting will definitely reduce environmental impact and reduce the satellite sites and those kinds of things. Some say it's a huge dessert and that's not an issue. They seem to think it is an issue. I am OK with that, but again, you could easilly reduce camping on the river by issuing first come first served camping permits at the river by a ranger, and then enforce the other regulations (firepans, groovers, leashed dogs, etc) at the same time. No firepan or groover, you don't even get on the river, let alone be assigned a camp site. If you have what you need, the ranger takes your fee, hands you a receipt for your site, and it's YOURS. They have people at Pumphouse doing even less, why not have some here?

It takes money and people to improve things though, so fees are a must regardless of the route they take. I am OK with that, I am willing to pay to keep things clean and orderly. I just wish there was a solution that kept things open and flexible.

To me, part of the "recreational experience" is being able to go whenever I want, when the weather is good, when my familly are all healthy, there aren't work conflicts, etc. It's not as recreational when I have to plan that far in advance and fill out forms for a simple overnighter, it almost becomes a job (and I already have one of those)... LOL


----------

