# RRFW Riverwire - Grand Canyon River Trip Lengths May Change



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

If contacting the Park super Dave U. through snail mail how do I cc my representative?


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

jmacn said:


> If contacting the Park super Dave U. through snail mail how do I cc my representative?


I hope I don't come off as a wise guy but you'll need to copy the letter, then send it to your representative in a separate envelope. It's kind of old school, the origin of "cc" in your email program being the abbreviation for "carbon copy."

-AH


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

I guess I assumed that if the Park Super could plainly see that the state rep also received the same letter, THAT would be his incentive to ensuring that I "receive a reply" as Tom suggests. Tom, you list the mailing address not the e-mail address for the Super so this must be the most effective route of communication? The suggestion to cc my State Rep made me think the Super might respond to e-mails as well. In which case, what's the address? I guess a better question might be: How does expressing my opinions to the State Rep influence anything I might express to the Park Super? If his inbox looks anything like mine, I can see why a letter from me would be more appropriate. Thanks again for the info Tom. Even though I don't share all the same views regarding boating in the Canyon as you, I appreciate your passion and willingness to get involved.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

CC'ing your Congressional Rep, as Andy points out, requires you to make a copy of your letter, and send that to your Rep. Your point about e-mail inboxes is why snail mail is good. You are ccing your Rep to be sure your concerns get a response. All the best, tom


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

I think the idea of conducting a lottery immediately after a trip cancels needs some discussion. At first blush, anyway, it seems to me that some advance notice is good for everyone, but this ought to be followed by a little time in which those who might be interested can prepare, or not, to participate in the actual lottery. Otherwise, it seems to me, a more limited group of applicants who have the time and inclination to do so can be ready to "pounce" on a lottery opening, while others with busier lives but who are equally deserving might miss the chance to participate. As for how it is done now, I've often thought that getting 2 or 3 days advance notice of a follow-up lottery is a bit short. And if NPS isn't having problems filling those open spots, I'm not sure shortening the preparation and notice period is more inclusive.

Just some thoughts.


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

I guess I'm still unclear on the relationship between the Super and my State Rep. Ensuring a response from who, the State Rep? I can clearly see why a letter is more appropriate. The Park Super has the position to make policy changes for GC private boaters. How does Dave U. know that I CC'd the State Rep? How does a response from the State Rep help Dave U. know that I'd like the option of a 2nd private trip if no one else is going to use that permit?

-Sincerely Curious


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

jmacn said:


> . How does Dave U. know that I CC'd the State Rep?


How I do it is.....at the bottom of the letter, I list all the people and the addresses I'm sending it to.


----------



## superpuma (Oct 24, 2003)

*BUMP*

This need more thinking and talking.:roll:


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hey Super, yes it does. In speaking with someone at the park, it looks like data from other years shows this "problem" in the spring comes and goes, and there are a lot of "dials and levers" that can be adjusted, besides the sledgehammer of impacting 28 trips in April from here on out. Hope you express your concerns to the NPS, yours, tom


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

GCPBA's President, Wally Rist, has been in direct contact with Steve Sullivan on this.

The Park has no plans to implement any trip length change this year. So there's plenty of time to chime in with your thoughts.

One point of clarification. I'm hoping when folks refer to their "state rep.", they're really intending to contact their U.S. Representative in Congress. I don't think interior will respond nearly as much to a state-level rep, as they will to a Federal congressman -- who they should at least give the courtesy of reading and responding.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
Secretary, GCPBA


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, Yes, that's right. The original Riverwire notes the NPS proposed shortening of 30 spring trips would happen in 2015. And yes, contacting the Park and your congressional representative is what the Riverwire encourages anyone concerned about this to do. 

Rich, does the GCPBA board still stand in support the NPS trip shortening proposal for the April trips? Am I wrong in sensing a softening of that position? I can only once again encourage you all to reconsider that position, and hope that after careful reconsideration, you all may decide to let the NPS know you have reconsidered the issue and now do not support the proposed change in spring trip lengths.

All the best, Tom

Tom Martin
Co-Director, River Runners For Wilderness


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

As folks know who have followed this on the GCPBA listserv, there was quite a bit of chatter about this subject over there. 

First though, a clarification of something you said. We've been in direct contact with Steve Sullivan. Unless he changed his mind in the last week, no actual decision has been made to implement this in 2015.

Back on point. At the time this first came up, we didn't have any serious concerns because the shortening of Spring trips was equally offset by an increase in trip lengths in the much sought-after Fall season. And in any case, nothing was going to happen right away. But after participants on our listserv got fired up on the topic, we discussed it in one of our Board conference calls. 

You choose to portray the trip length change issue as a "loss in the Spring" situation, when it's really just as much a "gain in the Fall" proposal. It's an equal trade, and people have legitimate preferences that cut both ways on it. Our current position is that we don’t think this is a very serious problem, but we wouldn't object if the Park were to make that change. We also decided that we're going to see if we can develop an alternate proposal that would include leaving April trip lengths in place, while adding to the length of trips in September. 

Hope this helps.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, that is correct, the change in trip lengths is still a proposal, hence we are encouraging people to write the Park opposing the proposal. This is GREAT news that you all are considering an alternate proposal questioning the legitimacy of the NPS attempt to link the spring issue with the fall. I am encouraged by your last sentence, as that makes a lot of sense. 

Our offer of Dec 9 to you to work together on a joint statement to the NPS about this still stands...

Yours, Tom


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

As so often happens, you put your own words in my mouth. 

Regardless, if you've got an idea along those lines, drop Wally a line. He might be open to you putting your words in his mouth also. 

Rich


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, OK, I'll contact Wally, yours, Tom


----------

