# New lottery idea for MFS



## Idaho_ski_bum (Jun 22, 2018)

It's okay. All of us Idahoans know the rest of you are just jealous.


----------



## Favre (Nov 17, 2010)

Hate us because you ain't us.


----------



## FatmanZ (Sep 15, 2004)

Ah, the 4 River Games. Or the Annual Voluntary Donation (AVD) to spin the wheel on rec.gov. 

The odds are simply not in your favor and are decreasing yearly. Though it's not impossible to get lucky! 27 years of applying for the Main and Middle and I've been fortunate having drawn twice - once in 2005 and again in 2015. In 2010 the odds were increased when the rivers were split into four separate lotteries, but even that improvement has been swallowed up since that time. 

Here are the sobering odds of drawing a permit according to the USFS:
(kudos to them for taking the time to put these facts and others together each year about the 4Rivers) 

*


https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5408633.pdf


*
May the afternoon winds be at your back and the odds of drawing a river permit ever in your favor.


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

Good luck, the same people who take over on every thread will derail it into bullshit and should have been banned in the clean up.


----------



## John_in_Loveland (Jun 9, 2011)

What ever happened to the idea of preference points? I thoughts the FS was considering it at some point.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

John_in_Loveland said:


> What ever happened to the idea of preference points? I thoughts the FS was considering it at some point.


The FS employees are too busy working on comprehensive forest and river plans and timber sales and other NEPA projects and trying to avoid getting sued and dealing with litter all over the Forests from Covid campers and too busy to rock the boat and try to coordinate all the Forests to change their permit plans in a corresponding manner.








Meanwhile, Rec.gov tells the USFS that everything is working well.


It ain't ever gonna change.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

uh eau said:


> This topic came and went in the midst of a ridiculous thread on rollover permits, viruses, and how much everybody hates Idahoans. But none of that is the point.





Idaho_ski_bum said:


> It's okay. All of us Idahoans know the rest of you are just jealous.


Not jealous or hater. I love you, neighbor!
(Montana sucks and it's great that everyone can visit you in Idaho!!)


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

During the mass migration currently happening in the west, it's refreshing to hear when a new person says they grew up in Montana. Hope that's a reciprocal feeling neighbor.

I've hashed out my opinion on a weighted lottery system or preference points on the MFS in many threads. I'd caution anyone in favor of it to be careful what you wish for.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

I'm a 4th generation Montanan (but we all came from somewhere...Minnesota/Iowa/Canada/Germany/Denmark/England/Norway/Scotland for me)
and if I didn't live in MT, ID would be at the top of my list


----------



## ski_it (Aug 27, 2015)

Conundrum said:


> During the mass migration currently happening in the west, it's refreshing to hear when a new person says they grew up in Montana. Hope that's a reciprocal feeling neighbor.
> 
> I've hashed out my opinion on a weighted lottery system or preference points on the MFS in many threads. I'd caution anyone in favor of it to be careful what you wish for.


There are so many simple possibilities. For example- you go, then you can't for 10 year. Not great but gives more people opportunity. I suspect the limit resource problem has been studied to death......


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

I think that's a more fair way to do it. But that would really cut back on my trips ; ) Also issues of people who don't go often might remove some of the stewardship with experienced folks taking new folks provide. Might have to up the enforcement contingent to protect it.


----------



## Pinchecharlie (Jul 27, 2017)

Allways feel like locals should get permits first but I guess it'd be only locals then huh? But I bet you guys around there get pretty mad about it. Everytime I hear an out of state hunter brag about a big bull I get quietly angry. I will promise now in front of God that if I get any permit ever I will invite all of you! And I'll go with you too on your 4th of July weekend middle fork trip!


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

Conundrum said:


> I think that's a more fair way to do it. But that would really cut back on my trips ; ) Also issues of people who don't go often might remove some of the stewardship with experienced folks taking new folks provide. Might have to up the enforcement contingent to protect it.



10 years seems onerous. 5 years?

Or does it just displace the users? If you had a MFS and can't go again until 2031...now you're putting in for every other permit in CO/ID/UT/AZ if you weren't already.

Hell, enforcement is already strapped and not enough of them to enforce current regs.


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

Maybe just limiting it to one trip per year? Although I suspect that would only reduce group size, not the number of permits used.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

That's not the worst suggestion.
Could also reduce max group size from 30 to 20 and release 50% more permits (flows and campsite availability permitting)


----------



## DidNotWinLottery (Mar 6, 2018)

Weighted lottery like the Grand. Only way I see to fix it.


----------



## DidNotWinLottery (Mar 6, 2018)

MT4Runner said:


> Could also reduce max group size from 30 to 20 and release 50% more permits (flows and campsite availability permitting)


I COMPLETELY agree! 30 person trips are really not even appropriate for Middle, maybe Salmon its ok, but why do you need such a huge group? Honestly 15-16 would be plenty. Most trips are not that large anyways, but dropping the size would help justify a few more permits for the pheasants.


----------



## SheepEater (Jul 9, 2020)

I believe the max group size for the Middle Fork is 24, regardless of lottery control season or low-use season. Plus the number of days you can be on the river is reduced already for larger groups (6 nights/7 days for 11-20, 5 nights/6 days for 21-24).


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

DidNotWinLottery said:


> Weighted lottery like the Grand. Only way I see to fix it.


Why?


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

MT4Runner said:


> That's not the worst suggestion.
> Could also reduce max group size from 30 to 20 and release 50% more permits (flows and campsite availability permitting)


I don't think there are enough camps to add more permits. During peak season, between privates and commercial, almost all the camps are used every night. Logistics would become a real bastard for camp assignments.
Already are.


----------



## theusualsuspect (Apr 11, 2014)

Conundrum said:


> I've hashed out my opinion on a weighted lottery system or preference points on the MFS in many threads. I'd caution anyone in favor of it to be careful what you wish for.


Wise words, agree completely.


----------



## ski_it (Aug 27, 2015)

theusualsuspect said:


> Wise words, agree completely.


There are many different theories of weighted lotteries... so can't agree.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

DidNotWinLottery said:


> Weighted lottery like the Grand. Only way I see to fix it.


Maybe for the demand season part it could work. For the shoulder season there is no need.


----------



## David Snyder (Dec 9, 2010)

MT4Runner said:


> That's not the worst suggestion.
> Could also reduce max group size from 30 to 20 and release 50% more permits (flows and campsite availability permitting)


Good idea, I've thought that group sizes are too large on most permitted extended trips. Lower group sizes to even 16 and increase # of launches.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

David Snyder said:


> Good idea, I've thought that group sizes are too large on most permitted extended trips. Lower group sizes to even 16 and increase # of launches.


The problem with this is there is a finite amount of camp spots available.. one would think that it's enough of a problem already as they assign your camps at launch...


----------



## David Snyder (Dec 9, 2010)

MNichols said:


> The problem with this is there is a finite amount of camp spots available.. one would think that it's enough of a problem already as they assign your camps at launch...


Yes, that is an issue also.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

Could do like the Grand and offer small group trips. There are a lot of pocket beaches where 8 people can fit.
Under the current permit system, the resource/recreation managers have no idea whether a group of 2 or a group of 30 is showing up.


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

MT4Runner said:


> Could do like the Grand and offer small group trips. There are a lot of pocket beaches where 8 people can fit. Under the current permit system, the resource/recreation managers have no idea whether a group of 2 or a group of 30 is showing up.


I am not sure if the USFS is going to continue to assign camps a week before launch as they have the last two years or at the launch site as they did before that. Either way they know ahead of time how many people will be in each group from the information collected by wreck.gov. Smaller groups are already assigned the smaller or less used camps. You would be surprised how many 2-4 person groups there are, especially early in the season.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

Wadeinthewater said:


> I am not sure if the USFS is going to continue to assign camps a week before launch as they have the last two years or at the launch site as they did before that. Either way they know ahead of time how many people will be in each group from the information collected by wreck.gov. Smaller groups are already assigned the smaller or less used camps. You would be surprised how many 2-4 person groups there are, especially early in the season.


Yes but the FS doesn't know for sure that there are a specific number of small groups at lottery time...not soon enough to know to release more permits.


----------



## smhoeher (Jun 14, 2015)

How can we, the users, do to fix the problem? Has there ever been a formal proposal presented to the USFS showing the problem with options. justifications, and solutions? 
What about a massive mail/email to all level of the river management, Secretory of Agriculture all the way down to the river rangers? Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## John_in_Loveland (Jun 9, 2011)

I think those are options but we need to define what "we" want. I also think that it would be better to involve a lobbying group such as American Whitewater because they would have the DC connections that an Ad Hoc group just wouldn't.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

John_in_Loveland said:


> I think those are options but we need to define what "we" want. I also think that it would be better to involve a lobbying group such as American Whitewater because they would have the DC connections that an Ad Hoc group just wouldn't.


And historically, AW has stayed far away from stuff like this, I can see why they would. It would be akin nailing jello to a tree to get it's national membership to agree on this, and there the " why aren't you doing the same thing on MY river that I feel is inequitible in it's access system" part of the equation.. A sticky wicket. They typically do things the majority of their members can get behind. Mountain Buzz is but a very small sample of boater demographics...


----------



## smhoeher (Jun 14, 2015)

Lobbying groups was what I began thinking about after my past post. They are the best to lead but I'm sure we, the boaters, can contribute. Does anyone know if American Whitewater, or anyone else, ever addressed the permit issue? I think I might start to dig in to things.

See ya' all on some river!


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

There are two private lobbying groups for the Grand.
It takes a MASSIVE amount of work to keep a group like that going..but they do have a seat at the table.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

I know one is gcpba, but wasn't aware of a second. Who are you thinking?


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

RRFW 
Not intending to delve into that dichotomy in this thread.


----------



## uh eau (Jun 12, 2008)

Hey all,

OP here. A good (and civil) discussion. I am still hoping for thoughts on leveling the playing field between private and commercial river users.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

I’m a private, not a commercial, but would throw this out there for the sake of discussion:

commercial use hasn’t really changed. They have an allotted number of user days. we don’t know if their demand has changed.

Demand for private launches has increased, private launch permits have remained steady.

In your view, what makes the current allocation unfair?


----------



## uh eau (Jun 12, 2008)

Unfairness: If you can pay the $$, you are guaranteed a prime-season MFS trip in 2023. You can get a shoulder season trip in 2022. If you play the lottery, it may be years - or never. 

All river users should be getting permits to run the river in a same mechanism. Commercial outfitters need not get guaranteed launches, IMO. Just permission to take paying customers down the river.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

I'd argue that if commercial operations didn't have allocations, then non-boaters would _never_ go on the river. Too much barrier to entry, and too many pieces to coordinate to get the permit, find a guide with availability, etc. Easier to book a trip to Disneyland or MLB spring training.

And the barrier to the commercials would be the unknown. With a fixed number of user days every year, they can schedule an exact number of guides, bus drivers, warehouse staff, etc. If they had to wait for the phone to ring hoping it was a gearless private, they wouldn't know how to staff each season.

Have you always felt this way, or is it more recent (since the past 3 year-spike of lottery applications ... the Main Salmon had something like a 36% increase last year)

And I'd argue that the private:commercial allocation is WAY more skewed on the Grand than on the 4 Rivers.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

now add in the guides clamoring for a living wage and you don't even know if you'll have trips booked for them.
I could see the commercials folding or at least closing operations on the permitted rivers.

If all the permits then go to privates...a private with $10k in gear can go on a trip...and now someone with $10k in their pocket cannot.



I do not think the status quo is perfect, but I think it's OK.


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

As a private, I'd rather have non-boaters with some type of access through commercials than none. If we're going to keep wild places wild, we need advocates in more corners than just our weird little dirt bag boating bubble.

Saying they can learn to boat isn't the answer. Most of them won't.


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

uh eau said:


> I’m starting a new thread on the need for a new strategy for permits on the MFS (and Selway, and probably Main). This topic came and went in the midst of a ridiculous thread on rollover permits, viruses, and how much everybody hates Idahoans. But none of that is the point.
> 
> It is time for EVERYBODY on the river to go through the same process. Apply for a space on the river in a lottery. Get lucky. Plan your own (private) trip, or hire an outfitter to take you. Please, Zach C, I want to know why this won’t work!


I plan to go again this year…yes I am an optimist. I was fortunate enough to get a permit for the last two years. I ending up inviting more people that I would prefer to in order to not deprive someone the opportunity to go down this great river. I just don’t think that it is right to go down this river with a very small group. This is something that needs to be shared and if we networked a little, more of us can go.


----------



## Nanko (Oct 20, 2020)

Conundrum said:


> As a private, I'd rather have non-boaters with some type of access through commercials than none. If we're going to keep wild places wild, we need advocates in more corners than just our weird little dirt bag boating bubble.
> 
> Saying they can learn to boat isn't the answer. Most of them won't.


I hear this argument a lot and want to understand it better. Clearly this was true in the past but how are commercial tourists in 2022 tangibly helping to keep intensely pressured places like the MFS wild? 

Are they changing their voting patterns post-trip? Becoming lifelong AW members? Writing letters to congress? Maybe the kids along are inspired to careers in natural resource management? Seems nebulous. What are the pre and post measures of “advocacy”? If all commercial passengers on MFS were replaced by private boaters, what does the conservation world lose really? No doubt something, but what? And is there another way to get it than screwing public landowners out of their fair share of a chance to access their river? 

To me the cumulative benefits, to the extent we can even quantify them, don’t justify such inequitable access to a limited public resource. “Pay up or get lucky” is not an appropriate way to manage access, and directly in opposition to the spirit of public land ownership.


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

I don't have any concrete examples. Just my opinion after talking to non-boating people who have taken commercial trips and the impact it has on their views towards wild places. The response is I normally hear is "Oh wow, now I see why you raft so much. I didn't understand it before but I think I get it. What a special place..." They then talk about the scenery, the solitude, shutting off their phone, getting to know people and learning about the guides. So many similar reasons private boaters could list. Maybe I'm an optimist that it does really help. Or at least have people look at the environment in a different way and make even just small changes in their lives. Maybe some of them do get more involved. Or maybe we just have all the people who already try to protect keep trying and hope it works.

On the flip side, do you think that shutting down commercials and giving those spots to privates is a fair way to manage access? Based on the last couple years' draw odds, doubling the launches might give another 1% chance to draw give or take. So now the people that don't have the ability or time don't have a way to get down the river. People like me who have done it probably more than I should as a private keep going and others who might have never do. Or because I've done it a few times, is my future access cut off because I've done it while others haven't had the chance?

Other than pay up or get lucky, what would your proposal be to allow and manage access? Two of the things that makes that place special is pseudo feeling of solitude and a semi-pristine wilderness experience. Other than allowing more people there (possibly jeopardizing some of it's qualities), what's the answer?


----------



## Nanko (Oct 20, 2020)

My post had some devil’s advocacy; I don’t know what’s right but it’s fun to think about. I’m 100% with you on the optimism that exposure does really help things. Taking someone down a river is a good deed that will be payed forward. And super rewarding for the doer of the deed. Best part of boating. My post was specific to situations where demand for access exceeds supply. On a non-competitive river, commercial outfits are huge for conservation. I don’t overlook how true this is historically. But it seems to me when 7 jillion people want a permit, the agency shouldn’t be allowed to give any away to be sold. As far as people not having the time or ability to run a river, there are many commercially run, non-competitive rivers.

I think the alternative to pay up or get lucky is simply get lucky. The crux for me is getting past equal opportunity. Or odds of opportunity in this case. I’m not complaining about my personal odds or wanting more permits issued. I would love to see the odds get worse because that means more people value the resource. Worse, but equal. Maybe I’m being a hypocrite here because I like a weighted lottery. Edit: A Grand style weighted lottery. If you think you’re screwed now be grateful rivers don’t have a point system like hunting. 

I also don’t know shit, and I’m not trying to disrespect anyone on here. I just enjoy the topic.


----------



## smhoeher (Jun 14, 2015)

Just wondering about how the commercial system works. Do commercials have to go through their own lottery system? How are their launch days and dates allocated. Does one company get more launch days than another? How much do they pay to the USFS for a trip? 

Regardless of the allocations between commercials and privates, our gripe is still how our lottery system. The consensus seems to be the need for some type of weighted lottery or point system. Again, how can we make this happen?


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

smhoeher said:


> Just wondering about how the commercial system works. Do commercials have to go through their own lottery system? How are their launch days and dates allocated. Does one company get more launch days than another? How much do they pay to the USFS for a trip?


Prior use. Original permits were allocated at the time the river got its Wild & Scenic designation, and the companies are sold and bought with the permits attached. The permit itself cannot be sold.



https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd605806.pdf


3% of gross revenue.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

smhoeher said:


> Regardless of the allocations between commercials and privates, our gripe is still how our lottery system. The consensus seems to be the need for some type of weighted lottery or point system. Again, how can we make this happen?


I'll take a stab at this:
I think the USFS policy of not re-issuing canceled August permits is unfair. If salmon redd protection were TRULY a concern, they would not issue August permits in the first place.
This unfairly penalizes private boaters. If you don't go on your trip, nobody else can go in your place.
Commercials have their dates scheduled a year in advance. If your party doesn't go, they can book another party in your place.

Up the penalty for cancellations. Just because you got a campsite at Gettysburg and are now in the wreck.gov website and get the email reminder to apply for a river permit doesn't give you carte blanche to muck with the system. If you go on a trip, great. If you cancel? Maybe a 3-year moratorium on ALL wreck.gov reservations..not just MFS permit applications.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

smhoeher said:


> Just wondering about how the commercial system works. Do commercials have to go through their own lottery system? How are their launch days and dates allocated. Does one company get more launch days than another? How much do they pay to the USFS for a trip?


Prior use. Original permits were allocated at the time the river got its Wild & Scenic designation, and the companies are sold and bought with the permits attached.


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

smhoeher said:


> Regardless of the allocations between commercials and privates, our gripe is still how our lottery system. The consensus seems to be the need for some type of weighted lottery or point system. Again, how can we make this happen?


How are you calculating that the consensus is a weighted system? I quickly went back through the thread and counted two people for, two people against, and two people who said it _might_ work. Maybe I'm off a bit...it was a quick survey. When you say "how can we make this happen", who is we? I think you've got your answer now. "We" won't. If we can't agree as a private rafter group how it should work, or even at least form a majority opinion, it's hard to lobby for it.

Currently, I'd comment strongly against a weighted or point system. But, I'd be open to hearing reasons why people think it would work and play devil's advocate and give counter points. Those type of conversation would make whatever consensus outcome that happens a much stronger proposition. Plus, I might even be convinced it could work and join the cause. As of right now, I've heard nothing compelling that it makes sense for the majority of private boaters. It actually makes sense for a guy like me but I feel that fairness, access, and opportunity need to be considered when doling out public resources and none of the systems being talked about give an advantage on all three.


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

Conundrum said:


> I don't have any concrete examples. Just my opinion after talking to non-boating people who have taken commercial trips and the impact it has on their views towards wild places. The response is I normally hear is "Oh wow, now I see why you raft so much. I didn't understand it before but I think I get it. What a special place..." They then talk about the scenery, the solitude, shutting off their phone, getting to know people and learning about the guides. So many similar reasons private boaters could list. Maybe I'm an optimist that it does really help. Or at least have people look at the environment in a different way and make even just small changes in their lives. Maybe some of them do get more involved. Or maybe we just have all the people who already try to protect keep trying and hope it works.
> 
> On the flip side, do you think that shutting down commercials and giving those spots to privates is a fair way to manage access? Based on the last couple years' draw odds, doubling the launches might give another 1% chance to draw give or take. So now the people that don't have the ability or time don't have a way to get down the river. People like me who have done it probably more than I should as a private keep going and others who might have never do. Or because I've done it a few times, is my future access cut off because I've done it while others haven't had the chance?
> 
> Other than pay up or get lucky, what would your proposal be to allow and manage access? Two of the things that makes that place special is pseudo feeling of solitude and a semi-pristine wilderness experience. Other than allowing more people there (possibly jeopardizing some of it's qualities), what's the answer?



If you have been, even once, through the Grand Canyon, especially on a private trip of 16-25 days and you talk to someone else about it, you can TELL whether they've been or not. There's just something about the experience that is clear in how they listen. They get it. It is so indescribable that when people ask about it, those that have been (and "get it") often get more details. People who haven't been, even if they've done rivers like the Middle Fork, really don't quite get it. They won't understand when your eyes tear up thinking about the view from Nankoweap or the butterflies you feel scouting Hance. I can imagine that someone who can and does go on a commercial trip also has some of that reaction. When you come back, you are not the same person as before you went. This is probably true of all rivers. Getting people who care into those places could make converts to conservation. Then again, some people, like James Watt, will never be converted.

I took a friend on a Rogue trip last year. She was very nervous. I was worried she'd have four days of hell. She was on edge the first day, but eventually she realized that we would be OK. By the end of the trip, she was ready to go again. She particularly enjoyed the layover day. Contrast that with a trip I remember from several years ago when we were camped at lower Half Moon and could hear the conversations from the commercial group at Upper. There was a couple from New York who we could hear lamenting that, "We came all those thousands of miles and spent all that money and we STILL can't get away from people." To be sure, their group was a loud one with lots of kids. Part of me really wanted to go over to them and point out that there was a trail at the back of camp, and if they walked even a hundred yards, they could find solitude. I'm not sure if that couple would be converted.

As far as lotteries go, I really do not like the current system for most rivers. Same with how most rivers allocate cancelled permits. On both these, I think the GC lottery is the best model. It's not easy to get the permit unless you are willing to go in winter. You have to pay a big non-refundable fee very soon after the permit is won. Anything not claimed goes back out to those people already in the lottery or those who want to join it late. As cancellations happen, they also get reallocated through the same lottery. It can't be hard to just push the button again. I also like the way your odds are increased if you have never been or haven't been lately (whether it was your permit or not). I do not like the way hunting permits add points; the inflation is just silly. I am not sure, but I think if you pull, for example, a Bighorn or Mountain Goat permit in Oregon, you can take other people on your hunt and it does not affect THEIR points. Go down the Grand Canyon and you go back to one. You can never have more than five tickets.

I am not sure how a permit lottery system would work for people who wanted to do a commercial trip. If there were a way to set one up that would allow companies to survive and get people who don't have the skills to row or paddle (or know someone who does and would be willing to invite them) to access such awe inspiring journeys, I think I could get behind it. My primary complaint is the same as most; anyone with money can get on pretty much any river they want at the time of year they want within a couple years. Want to run a private GC trip in mid April or a Middle Fork trip in late June any time in the next couple decades? Good luck. That's a mismatch of supply and demand.

Well that was a lot longer than I expected. Sorry 'bout that.


----------



## peernisse (Jun 1, 2011)

FatmanZ said:


> Ah, the 4 River Games. Or the Annual Voluntary Donation (AVD) to spin the wheel on rec.gov.
> 
> The odds are simply not in your favor and are decreasing yearly. Though it's not impossible to get lucky! 27 years of applying for the Main and Middle and I've been fortunate having drawn twice - once in 2005 and again in 2015. In 2010 the odds were increased when the rivers were split into four separate lotteries, but even that improvement has been swallowed up since that time.
> 
> ...


I did a ML predicted success rate for the MF . Not too surprising…a couple graphics showing the situation:








GitHub - peernisse/riverLottery: Machine learning regression models to predict river trip permit lottery success


Machine learning regression models to predict river trip permit lottery success - GitHub - peernisse/riverLottery: Machine learning regression models to predict river trip permit lottery success




github.com


----------

