# $100 Scalp Fee Middle Fork�Greedy



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

*$100 Scalp Fee Middle Fork…Greedy*

Anchorless on the “Improving 4-Rivers and Dinosaur Permit Systems” just shared that a guy has created an automated program that searches rec.gov 24/7 for your desired permit date for a $100 fee.

Greedy!

Here's info for the 4 River Permit Office: 
Contact Info:

Home - River Nerd

Billy
[email protected]



[email protected]

[email protected]

Middle Fork of the Salmon River 
Middle Fork Ranger District
208-879-4101
Fax: 208-879-4198


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

Not just Middle Fork but everything 4Rivers REC.GOV.


Is anyone else pissed?! I keep thinking of how many hours / days / weeks of total time I've spent on the computer when really I didn't even stand a chance. This explains how all of the "A"s disappeared in a micro second. 


How do we fix this? I'll start calling tomorrow but is that all we can do?


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

ob1coby said:


> *Not just Middle Fork but everything 4Rivers REC.GOV*.
> 
> 
> Is anyone else pissed?! I keep thinking of how many hours / days / weeks of total time I've spent on the computer when really I didn't even stand a chance. This explains how all of the "A"s disappeared in a micro second.
> ...


Earlier, this modern day *TOLL BRIDGE TROLL* had just the Middle Fork listed and has since added all of the 4 River permit, so lets also write and call these other offices:

*Main Salmon River*
North Fork Ranger District
208-865-2700
Fax: 208-865-2738
[email protected]

*Snake River *
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 
888-758-8037
(509) 758-1957
Fax: (509) 758-1963

*Selway River *
West Fork Ranger District
406-821-3269
Fax: 406-821-1211


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Wow. Your public lands sold to the highest bidder. 
Please no one actually do it, but someone aught to strangle this little fuck.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

This is a problem created by technology (Rec.gov), real rafters — i.e., humans — are now left out in the cold, unless we pay some greedy asshole a toll to gain access to the river. 

If the permit issuing process were more low tech, it would be much harder to game the system. For example, to camp below the rim of the Grand Canyon, it has a section that is explicitly labeled “enter by hand, not with the computer.”


----------



## wshutt (Jun 20, 2013)

Jeez, well that may explain things. I was hitting the site with great regularity and did get a Main to match my MF but then saw absolutely nothing come up later which is really odd. I always said it should be easy for someone with the know how to do this kind of thing but I figured they would only do it for themselves not try to turn it into a business.

Who is the guy? Someone must know........ Some bad river karma headed that way.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

He has a Utah phone number. Don't know if it's real or not; don't know if what he's doing is illegal or not. Hopefully between that and his site IP he can be traced.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Anchorless said:


> He has a Utah phone number. Don't know if it's real or not; don't know if what he's doing is illegal or not. *Hopefully between that and his site IP he can be traced.*


Be great to see what his batting average has been the last few permit seasons.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

wshutt said:


> *Who is the guy?*



*Billy Bateman* Twitted on January 15th about launching rivernerd.com:

https://twitter.com/BillyBateman2/status/820758467442937856

https://www.facebook.com/billy.bateman.75


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

I guarantee this guy is not the only one doing it. The problem is not Billy or any one Code writer, the problem is that the system is designed with loopholes that allow these programs to take advantage of the system.


----------



## jamesthomas (Sep 12, 2010)

I had to take the site down, it was working perfect, then one day I started to get punched regularly in the street by random people I didn't know. Not that I'm condoning violence.


----------



## SugarHigh (Mar 7, 2017)

I wonder how many people on here will be using his service. I know it sucks, but $100 to get you on ...

Torey Pines golf course is the nicest municipal in the country. If you wanted on, you had to call a service that had retired guys flood the reservations when they opened. Prices were 4x. It went on for years. Finally they killed it. This was people calling in and the reservation folks knew it.

I can't see that this gov't agency will have the funding to stop this guy. They have limited resources and skill sets.


----------



## Kirks (Oct 6, 2011)

I agree, we gotta move all the permitted rivers to a point system so eventually your time will come to draw when you accrue enough points. It's only fair after paying the fees year after year.


----------



## climbdenali (Apr 2, 2006)

_*"point system so eventually your time will come to draw when you accrue enough points"*_

I wholeheartedly oppose any system that functions like a wait list, the way that many hunting tags do. If you want to do a weighted lottery, like GC, I'm on board. I've said over and over again that while not _perfect_, GC has the fairest system in the country.

If we make a point system where you've got to have 17 points before you'll even be considered, then I need to start applying for my 1 year old now. Back to the good ol days of the GC waitlist. You know, in East Germany, when you had a baby you put his name on the waitlist for buying a car so that by the time he was 18 or 20 he could buy a car.

I honestly don't think the automation software is what you guys think it is. I doubt anyone has set it up to actually _reserve_ a permit. The software that I've seen is just a notification. It's like an RSS feed where you get a notification if something on the site changes.

I think we would be better off to fight for a system where cancellations are strongly discouraged and encouraged at the same time. What I mean is this: _discourage_ cancellations by making the permit fees cost enough that you wouldn't want to lose them, and then make them non-refundable. That would stop this wholesale shotgun approach many take, of applying for everything, then deciding later if they want to go on the trip. Secondly, we _encourage_ cancellations by saying that if you don't cancel 30 days ahead, and your trip doesn't launch, then you are barred from applying to that river for 5 years.

I think that combination would weed out lots of disingenuous applications, and reel in the thin odds. It could all be done just with rule changes, within the current framework of rec.gov, that all the agencies seem committed to at this point.


----------



## atg200 (Apr 24, 2007)

I could write a webharvest script in about 2 hours that notify me about permits, maybe another 4 hours of work and a properties file to fully book the permit. Thought about it for my own use, but decided it was unethical and didn't.

This could fairly easily be stopped for anyone but the most sophisticated by implementing a captcha field, which is free and really trivial to do.


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

I have yet to see that there is anything compromised about the rec.gov lottery or standard (rolling) reservation system. None of these third party systems are making bookings, and I do believe that the database managers can guard against robo-bookings. They all seem to be notification systems. Get rid of the post-as-they-come cancellations and these notification systems will be of no utility. I say this because I think that the federal managers can be swayed to make changes to the way cancellations are handled, but asking to go to a whole different system is probably not on the table. As I've suggested, rec.gov could easily run a lottery from Dec 1-Jan 31, provide a month for lottery confirmations, and then post all the leftover launch dates for those WITH UNSUCCESSFUL LOTTERY NUMBERS on March 1. My guess is that most launch dates would get booked this way, and it would disincentivize the "I'll wait for cancellation permits" strategy. To guard against robo-notification subsequent cancellations could be made available on the first day of each month, or something like that.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

*What Money Shouldn't Buy*



ob1coby said:


> How do we fix this? I'll start calling tomorrow but is that all we can do?



What Money Shouldn’t Buy? Unequal access to our National Park & Forests!

In the immediate future, I believe it’s best to inundate the permit offices with complaints and focus on ringing their phone off the hook non-stop. Ultimately, they control this process and have the power to make changes.

I’ll also be emailing them, but those can easily be ignored. *However, their phone ringing non-stop with pissed off river runners for a few weeks will get exhausting real fast for them.*

Second, I also suggest contacting local & national news agencies, conservation groups, industry periodicals and manufactures. When Yosemite permits were being scalped, it made the national news (NBC, NPR, etc.):

Yosemite tries to outsmart reservation scalpers - Travel

Yosemite Cracks Down On Campsite Scalpers : NPR


----------



## Kirks (Oct 6, 2011)

I guess by point system I meant weighted lottery like GC, since they use points to track your attempts and wipe it after a lottery win. Point is there are better and fairer systems that can implemented, and Rec.gov just doesn't cut it.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

atg200 said:


> I could write a webharvest script in about 2 hours that notify me about permits, maybe another 4 hours of work and a properties file to fully book the permit. Thought about it for my own use, but decided it was unethical and didn't.
> 
> This could fairly easily be stopped for anyone but the most sophisticated by implementing a captcha field, which is free and really trivial to do.



Lets create a notification program that everyone has free access to. This will make it equal for everyone and put this greedy punk out of business.


----------



## wyosam (May 31, 2006)

After quick scan, I didn't notice this posted. Didn't occur to me until this morning I had seen an email from this guy- went straight in the trash and forgot about it. Was able to retrieve it- He has a Boise mailing address at the bottom (no real name)

*River Nerd [email protected] via mail251.atl101.mcdlv.net *


Apr 2 (9 days ago)


to me 









*River Nerd*  *Automated Middle Fork of Salmon Permit availability updates are here!*










*Automated updates for Middle Fork of the Salmon available permits are here! *​ 
It's taken a little longer than anticipated but you will know within minutes when the Forest Service posts a canceled permit, now available to the public.

No more checking recreation.gov or calling the Forest Service constantly all you have to do is wait for a text or email to update you!

This service did not come about without some blood,sweat and tears, so it's not free. 

For this year the service will be $100.00.

We've already seen cancellations for early season dates and expect more to come. ​ 

Sign Up   
_Copyright © 2017 River Nerd, All rights reserved._
You are receiving this because you signed up for the River Nerd Cancellation List. We are still working on the details and will update you when you've got the details.

*Our mailing address is:*
River Nerd8927 Craydon Drive
Boise, ID 83704

Add us to your address book


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list





















Click here to Reply or Forward













3.1 GB (20%) of 15 GB used
Manage



Terms - Privacy 



Last account activity: 15 minutes ago
Details


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

https://www.facebook.com/pg/rivernerd/posts/

There's the Facebook for his site. So far not a lot of follows but what he does have seems to be positive feedback.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Here is his Linkedin:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/billy-bateman-53338029


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

I don't think doxxing him is necessarily a good idea, but sending messages via his River Nerd website and social media is fair game.


----------



## Fishn (Apr 8, 2012)

I believe that people using this service to book their trips are no longer "private" trips. Here is a section from the MFS rules and regs:

A formal, complete passenger list will be required on the day of the launch. At that time each person will be required to sign a document certifying that their trip is a private trip. A river trip is not commercial if: (1) There is a bona fide sharing of actual expenses, including transportation to and from the site; (2) The trip does not include any costs for payment of salaries or expenses of any person to help with the trip or logistics of the trip; (3) Costs shared by trip members include the costs of damaged or lost equipment, renting or buying minor equipment or the acquisition of new equipment to the advantage of an individual or an organization. Persons involved in unauthorized commercial operations are subject to fine and/or imprisonment.​


----------



## SpeyCatr (Aug 14, 2013)

You could always boycott the system and come rafting in Canada 🇨🇦 - no permits required and our dollar sucks balls right now which means you win!!! 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Koffler (Aug 4, 2015)

Fishn-- yeah, its illegal, but how ya gonna catch that person.

I think the larger question here is that others (many others?) have already figured out how to game the same the system, but don't advertise/charge for this, so stay under the radar.
This system is broke and needs to be changed so all have a fair access at any returned/cancelled permits.


----------



## T.O.Mac (Jun 6, 2015)

SpeyCatr said:


> You could always boycott the system and come rafting in Canada


Wish I had the time to make that happen right now!!! Sounds amazing


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

If you know where to find open source software you can find source code for applications that scrape rec.gov for openings. It's definitely out there.


----------



## SpeyCatr (Aug 14, 2013)

T.O.Mac said:


> Wish I had the time to make that happen right now!!! Sounds amazing



Yeah just pick your dates, book your vacation, and go!!


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

climbdenali said:


> If you want to do a weighted lottery, like GC, I'm on board. I've said over and over again that while not _perfect_, GC has the fairest system in the country.



Respectfully, I disagree. The Grand Canyon is a weighted lottery with a twist, that attempts to overcome the effect of unsustainable exponential progression in weighted lotteries by automatically giving 5 points to newbie applicants. In other words, a newbie applicant is automatically placed 5-years ahead in line, which is the front of the line. *However, the automatic 5 points for newbies in the Grand Canyon weighted lottery is allowing river groups to game the system. *Lets look at some figures:

Of the 463 permit opportunities in the 2018 lottery, 314 (67.82%) were won by those with 5 points, 23 (4.97%) were won by those with 4 points, 0 (0%) were won by those with 6 points.

It doesn’t take being a statistician to realize that newbies with an automatic 5 points are getting most of the permits.

River groups know that newbies have the greatest advantage and are now having every non-boater they can convince apply for the lottery. In return, are offering a quasi-guided trip for the newbie. In some cases, are even offering all-expense paid quasi-guided trip down The Grand for non-boater winners.

I believe the *low-tech* Westwater has the fairest system in the country. 

*Soon we’ll all equally share in the misery of not ever getting on the river and our rigs will just be expensive garage queens, unless we get involved soon. *


----------



## climbdenali (Apr 2, 2006)

Fishn said:


> (2) The trip does not include any costs for payment of salaries or expenses of any person to help with the trip or logistics of the trip;


Does that reading of the regs make trips that hire a shuttle driver, or rent gear, or pack food a commercial enterprise? "help with the trip or logistics of the trip" would include shuttle, rental gear, menu planning, etc. if you ask me.

I wouldn't vote against a rule that prevented that type of outside commercial services from being utilized on non-commercial permits. Sure would reduce the number of "newbies" and "rich" boaters taking up permits from all of us "real" boaters. . . (some sarcastic emphasis added)

I think the intent of #2 is to keep a TL from saying, "Trip fees are $XXX. Since I'm spending 60 hours organizing things, I think I'll pay myself $1200 and call it a trip expense."


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

Fishn said:


> I believe that people using this service to book their trips are no longer "private" trips. Here is a section from the MFS rules and regs:
> 
> A formal, complete passenger list will be required on the day of the launch. At that time each person will be required to sign a document certifying that their trip is a private trip. A river trip is not commercial if: (1) There is a bona fide sharing of actual expenses, including transportation to and from the site; (2) The trip does not include any costs for payment of salaries or expenses of any person to help with the trip or logistics of the trip; (3) Costs shared by trip members include the costs of damaged or lost equipment, renting or buying minor equipment or the acquisition of new equipment to the advantage of an individual or an organization. Persons involved in unauthorized commercial operations are subject to fine and/or imprisonment.​


This section you have quoted specifically addresses the passengers or trip participants. This is to make sure that there aren't commercial guides going as a 'passenger' and getting paid to be on the water. 

Trust me I don't like rivernerd whatever he is doing as it is bullshit but not illegal or in violation ( of this section) unless he gets paid to get the permit and then goes on that same trip. 

By that logic anyone who gets paid to do anything (shuttles, food, rentals) would make it a commercial trip. 

I am looking into other sections of the rules. Where this apparently works as an 'alert' instead of booking the permit it appears he might be in the clear.


----------



## Fishn (Apr 8, 2012)

climbdenali said:


> Does that reading of the regs make trips that hire a shuttle driver, or rent gear, or pack food a commercial enterprise? "help with the trip or logistics of the trip" would include shuttle, rental gear, menu planning, etc. if you ask me.
> 
> I wouldn't vote against a rule that prevented that type of outside commercial services from being utilized on non-commercial permits. Sure would reduce the number of "newbies" and "rich" boaters taking up permits from all of us "real" boaters. . . (some sarcastic emphasis added)
> 
> I think the intent of #2 is to keep a TL from saying, "Trip fees are $XXX. Since I'm spending 60 hours organizing things, I think I'll pay myself $1200 and call it a trip expense."


See #3
(3) Costs shared by trip members include the costs of damaged or lost equipment, renting or buying minor equipment or the acquisition of new equipment to the advantage of an individual or an organization.​


----------



## Fishn (Apr 8, 2012)

carvedog said:


> This section you have quoted specifically addresses the passengers or trip participants. This is to make sure that there aren't commercial guides going as a 'passenger' and getting paid to be on the water.
> 
> Trust me I don't like rivernerd whatever he is doing as it is bullshit but not illegal or in violation ( of this section) unless he gets paid to get the permit and then goes on that same trip.
> 
> ...


I think those paying for this service and then cost sharing this service might be in violation. Maybe just wishful thinking. At the very least, raising the question might scare off some customers of rivernerd...


----------



## Fishn (Apr 8, 2012)

After looking into the possibility of "gaming the system" it appears that one could use a free browser extension like Firefox's "Watchlist" to notify them of changes to recreation.gov website.

If everyone on Mountain Buzz used this and set the settings to ping every 5 seconds...



Customers of Rivernerd would be out their cash unnecessarily.
More importantly, everyone would be on an equal playing field.
Even more importantly, everyone could get back to work instead of spending their time checking for permits.
And most importantly, we might just crash recreation.gov with all the ping traffic, forcing them to close this loophole.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

First of all, I don't think Rivernerd deserves to be hated on for making this service available to the rest of us. He found a weakness in rec.gov's system and sought to make it available to the public at large. Sure, he's charging for it, but I'm glad it's out in the open now, since I believe this kind of thing has been happening in the shadows for some time.

Is rec.gov to blame? That depends on their contract with the government. If the contract doesn't stipulate exactly how rec.gov is supposed to distribute cancelled permits, including blocking this kind of software "attack", then perhaps they've done nothing wrong, either.

So the buck (most likely) stops with the government. It's up to the FS to make sure this problem gets fixed. Same goes for the NPS and BLM and a bunch of state agencies that have also hired rec.gov to handle permits. Those managers are the folks who are ultimately in charge of the permit system. And as far as I'm concerned, this is just one problem among many that needs to be corrected.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Koffler said:


> yeah, its illegal, but how ya gonna catch that person.


It’s very easy to catch this person and his customers:

The river office will contact The U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement & Investigations Unit and have this person investigated for unlawful exploitation of federal government’s natural resources for personal gain through the creation of an unlawful advantage for his paying customers.

The assigned investigator will need all of 30-minutes to gather the probable cause to file a sworn affidavit to a judge requesting a digital search warrant. Said judge will sign it so fast it will practically bounce off the desk.

In addition to more probable cause, the digital search warrant will provide all pertinent information on his paying customers. Said paying customers will likely not be charged, but will probably have any permits stripped and receive a sanction banning them from the rivers for a given number of years. Followed by a warning that a violation of this sanction will likely bring charges of unlawful exploitation and trespassing. 

That fast and simple.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

riverdoghenry said:


> It’s very easy to catch this person and his customers:
> 
> The river office will contact The U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement & Investigations Unit and have this person investigated for unlawful exploitation of federal government’s natural resources for personal gain through the creation of an unlawful advantage for his paying customers.
> 
> ...


Just saying it's unlawful a bunch of times doesn't make it so. 

And ...."permits stripped and sanctions" followed by "charges of unlawful exploitation and trespassing" sounds to me like someone who knew a lawyer who once slept at a Holiday Inn. Seriously you don't know what you are talking about here.

I don't like the hack either but sending an alert to someone doesn't constitute trespassing in any way. 

This seems unethical as it bends the playing field toward those willing to spend more money to get a 'private' permit.


----------



## Fishn (Apr 8, 2012)

Sorry - the Firefox Add-on is not called Watchlist. It is called "Distill".


----------



## jaffy (Feb 4, 2004)

landslide said:


> So the buck (most likely) stops with the government. It's up to the FS to make sure this problem gets fixed.


I'd be curious how you propose they "fix" this. If it's available on the web for legitimate use, there's really no way to prevent someone from scraping the site periodically and setting up an automated alert. 

I suppose they could limit it to phone calls only, but then they'd have to field a ton of calls. Or, they could implement the feature themselves and let everyone sign up for email alerts if a permit for a date you're interested in becomes available.

As someone already pointed out, it is relatively easy to leverage existing services or tools to set this up for yourself. No need to pay this guy, except he's already done the work for you.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

carvedog said:


> I don't like the hack either but sending an alert to someone doesn't constitute trespassing in any way.


I wasn't discussing alerts. I just stated that a person could be sanctioned and banned from the river and if they they still choose to go a permit, it would be considered trespassing.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I wholeheartedly agree with Carvedog that this may be unethical (to the spirit of the system) but it is clearly legal. His system doesn't acquire permits, doesn't satisfy "commercial" definitions of permitting and it also doesn't attack the recreation.gov website. The scale and content of the response by a few here doesn't match the reality of the service Rivernerd is providing.

Its a simple, passive script that pings the website. I am curious on how it pings every date in the permit season given it normally takes multiple pages to see a season (pings every date range separately?). He is just accessing public information which is completely legal. Does seem like a system like Captcha (isn't it being abandoned because of its ineffectiveness??) could help but I doubt it would be more than a short term stop gap.


----------



## dingdong (May 27, 2016)

So, let me get this straight. In America, a guy comes up with an idea that serves a particular purpose. He spends his own time/resources to package this idea into a marketable product and sell it on the open market. How is this greedy? 


Seems pretty simple to me....you can pay to use the product or find a different way to achieve the desired result. But to assume that someone is greedy and trying to convince other people not to use the product doesn't seem right. 


I think $329 is a lot to pay to a mesh stern bag, but I just bought one because it I have a use for it. I don't think the company is being greedy, they put forth the effort and should receive payment for there product without being slammed.


maybe I don't understand this thread, but I don't think piling on Rivernerd is appropriate. now piling on the gov't....that seems to be more appropriate.


enjoy the river everyone. I for one am stoked on what looks to be an amazing year on the water.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

restrac2000 said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with Carvedog that this may be unethical (to the spirit of the system) but it is clearly legal. His system doesn't acquire permits, doesn't satisfy "commercial" definitions of permitting and it also doesn't attack the recreation.gov website. The scale and content of the response by a few here doesn't match the reality of the service Rivernerd is providing.
> 
> Its a simple, passive script that pings the website. I am curious on how it pings every date in the permit season given it normally takes multiple pages to see a season (pings every date range separately?). He is just accessing public information which is completely legal. Does seem like a system like Captcha (isn't it being abandoned because of its ineffectiveness??) could help but I doubt it would be more than a short term stop gap.


I’ll agree with you and carvedog, it’s probably just unethical to utilize a program to only gain information. 

However, when this program is being utilized by a *for-profit entity without a Commercial Use Authorization* by the Forest Service, in which the entity is providing a specific service to end use permit holders of the Forest Service, this is a violation. 

The “for-profit” is the problem here.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

riverdoghenry said:


> I’ll agree with you and carvedog, it’s probably just unethical to utilize a program to only gain information.
> 
> However, when this program is being utilized by a *for-profit entity without a Commercial Use Authorization* by the Forest Service, in which the entity is providing a specific service to end use permit holders of the Forest Service, this is a violation.
> 
> The “for-profit” is the problem here.


dingdong - the unethical part is that everyone is supposed to have the same degree of access. By charging for this 'service' those with more money have easier access. 

riverdog - you are on the right track but for it to be in violation of the commercial activities, the use has to take place on the Forest or River. 

A solution is being worked on. Not sure the final form but it will happen.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

dingdong said:


> Seems pretty simple to me....you can pay to use the product or find a different way to achieve the desired result. But to assume that someone is greedy and trying to convince other people not to use the product doesn't seem right.



*Again, What Money Shouldn’t Buy? Unequal access to our National Park & Forests!*

Having access to our countries National Park & Forest should never be pay-to-play. Period!

“Seems pretty simple to me....you can pay to use the product or find a different way to achieve the desired result.” 

Your rational, is that a person must find a “different way” by having the ability hustle the system with coding skills on their own. Otherwise, those who don’t, must pay 1566% above the permit fee cost to have any hope of getting a permit.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

carvedog said:


> riverdog - you are on the right track but for it to be in violation of the commercial activities, the use has to take place on the Forest or River.


Thanks for being patient with me, I'm just seeing red right now and pissed that someone would be so spineless and have the gal to demand 1566% above the permit cost to folks who don't have his skill set.


----------



## deadlizard (Mar 10, 2008)

*The application does not get you a permit.*

It would have the same issues getting one that we all do on rec.gov. Apparently all it does is check for openings, the same as we all can.

A single, or household of PC's generating http requests is not going to guarantee anyone a permit, or cause rec.gov to go down in a DOS attack.
The non-deterministic nature of TCP/IP and the lack of capacity of a single NIC connection severely limits you.

You could accomplish the gaming, but there would have to be some industry standard norms to follow. The first being to rent a fleet of bots from some Eastern-European semi-mobster. Some additional engineering would be required to conceal exactly who was ending up with each of those 5 winning permits you were so lucky to steal. If you had 500-5000 hijacked PC's at your disposal, the odds would be very much in your favor.
5-10 and your odds are no better than when your paddling group goes online the day of cancellations.

Everyone is an expert, but I've been in this game long enough to remember how horrible it was to drop a box of IBM 360 punchcards on payday processing. And new enough to finally be able to stop writing another damn flash driver for a web site video.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

I was finally able to get through to someone at the 4 River’s office and had a good conversation. The person I spoke with agreed that Rivernerd has created an unfair advantage and discussed some other “anomalies” their keeping an eye on.

The good news, is that they’re countering Riverbrain by setting up a Grand Canyon like free notification system that sends out a mass text/email when cancelations become available. Everyone will have to sign up for this free service.


----------



## Kilroy (Oct 23, 2011)

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet that this doode is in business and successful because we are giving him the moolah. Supply/demand here folks, just like the drug problems in this country. Those of you out there using his services (and I know you're on here) need to have 'yer necks wrung just like rivernerd. 

Because it's just not feasible (like many have already pointed out) me thinks the real fix will come in the form of a system over-haul (like a few point out already)

In either case, thanks for posting and discussing your opinions. I'm better educated on the matter because of it. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

riverdoghenry said:


> I was finally able to get through to someone at the 4 River’s office and had a good conversation. The person I spoke with agreed that Rivernerd has created an unfair advantage and discussed some other “anomalies” their keeping an eye on.
> 
> The good news, is that they’re countering Riverbrain by setting up a Grand Canyon like free notification system that sends out a mass text/email when cancelations become available. Everyone will have to sign up for this free service.


The only way this notification system will be useable is if you can limit the notifications to a specific permit during a specific date range. For example, I only wish to be notified if there is a Selway permit available between June 29 and July 5. ANY OTHER PERMIT RELEASED BY THE FS DOES NOT RESULT IN A NOTIFICATION TO ME!! If I get text or email bombed with every single permit released on every single river, I'm not going to be able to use this notification system.

But I'm really happy to hear that the FS is trying to address this problem. These discussions on the Buzz about permits and the permit system are not going unnoticed.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

riverdoghenry said:


> The good news, is that they’re countering Riverbrain by setting up a Grand Canyon like free notification system that sends out a mass text/email when cancelations become available. Everyone will have to sign up for this free service.


That is really great news. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

dingdong said:


> So, let me get this straight. In America, a guy comes up with an idea that serves a particular purpose. He spends his own time/resources to package this idea into a marketable product and sell it on the open market. How is this greedy?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty simple to me....you can pay to use the product or find a different way to achieve the desired result. But to assume that someone is greedy and trying to convince other people not to use the product doesn't seem right.
> ...


Fuck off sleaze.


----------



## SpeyCatr (Aug 14, 2013)

*$100 Scalp Fee Middle Fork…Greedy*

This whole thing reeks of socialism to me. Don't you guys live in one of the most capitalist countries in the world? Isn't it all about exploiting people and things to make a profit? Where life isn't fair and supply vs demand dictates the price and where people who come up with clever ideas and products to make money are awarded with patent rights and royalties along with being celebrated on shows like the shark tank as successful investors? Sorry I think you can see I have my tongue in my cheek a bit here. Personally I believe in socialized programs myself that offer equal opportunities for all . But I can't help but see some of the irony here. Just a Canadian 🇨🇦, what do I know. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## SpeyCatr (Aug 14, 2013)

Ss


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## cmharris (Apr 30, 2013)

riverdoghenry said:


> The good news, is that they’re countering Riverbrain by setting up a Grand Canyon like free notification system that sends out a mass text/email when cancelations become available. Everyone will have to sign up for this free service.


Good News? That's not good news. I like the completely random nature of cancellations. So, if I'm understanding what is being considered, texts/emails will be sent when a cancellation is posted - and the robot still gets to play. This approach fixes nothing and will make matters worse.

Envision this. A text is sent and a thousand people run for their computers/phones and the bot wins anyway. What a mess.

The Bot should not be allowed to play. That's the bottom line. It's common sense. I can't compete against a bot.

I'm not familiar with the details of obtaining a Grand permit, but I would guess that text/email notification of cancellations is not part of the process. I may be wrong.


----------



## ArgoCat (May 14, 2007)

I get notifications of open dates on the Grand and then you need to put your name into a follow-up lottery that is then drawn to award the open dates. So it is not necessarily like the Grand. Of course, this is for permits that are still months if not a year away, so it might not work for 4 rivers. It's still a step in the right direction. The people that entered the original lottery and paid their money get first crack at any and all follow up lotteries. Permits that are cancelled within 21/14 days or something like that can go the old way of the pop-up A's.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

cmharris said:


> Good News? That's not good news. I like the completely random nature of cancellations. So, if I'm understanding what is being considered, texts/emails will be sent when a cancellation is posted - and the robot still gets to play. This approach fixes nothing and will make matters worse.
> 
> Envision this. A text is sent and a thousand people run for their computers/phones and the bot wins anyway. What a mess.
> 
> ...



If you read through the “improving the 4 river” thread, I was absolutely against a notification system. However, a few greedy narcissist jerks who only care about #1 have ruined the cancellation system for all of us. There will be a lot more changes coming soon, not just notification alerts.

“Good news” could have been said different, but Rivernerd has forced the Forest Service to fight fire with fire, by allowing everyone equal access via a notification alert system. The good news is they’ll be taking back control of the permit system out of his greedy hands. Bad news, we’re all getting screwed by his greedy choices that’s forcing all of use to now utilize notification system.

When you see Billy Bateman on the river, remind him how much of a greedy SOB he is!


----------



## Kilroy (Oct 23, 2011)

Again, supply/demand - tell the same thing to the douche bags giving him the $100. Without them paying he's out of business. They walk amongst us right here on the buzz prolly...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

cmharris said:


> Envision this. A text is sent and a thousand people run for their computers/phones and the bot wins anyway. What a mess.
> 
> The Bot should not be allowed to play. That's the bottom line. It's common sense. I can't compete against a bot.


But there is no bot other than the current, private, bot notification system. It's just a bunch of people getting chimed on the smart phone and dropping everything (acetylene torch, scalpel, belay rope?) to rush to rec.gov and get that cancellation. 

The post as they come approach is never going to last in the face of this type of notification scheme. They're going to need to roll out the cancellations at some predetermined time. But in the short term, a free notification system should resolve the $100 notification system, as far as I can see.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

riverdoghenry said:


> If you read through the “improving the 4 river” thread, I was absolutely against a notification system. However, a few greedy narcissist jerks who only care about #1 have ruined the cancellation system for all of us. There will be a lot more changes coming soon, not just notification alerts.
> 
> “Good news” could have been said different, but Rivernerd has forced the Forest Service to fight fire with fire, by allowing everyone equal access via a notification alert system. The good news is they’ll be taking back control of the permit system out of his greedy hands. Bad news, we’re all getting screwed by his greedy choices that’s forcing all of use to now utilize notification system.
> 
> When you see Billy Bateman on the river, remind him how much of a greedy SOB he is!


Agree. 

I'll be calling the 4 Rivers office and Rec.Gov tomorrow to let them know of my disgust with Billy Bateman and Rivernerd's "tool." I'll also be asking them to figure out some sort of script / bot prevention or to simply implement a universal and "fair" notification system available to everyone. Perhaps they can just start with all of those who signed up and paid for the original lottery (they will have those emails already) and auto notify them regarding cancellations, and offer an opt-out if people don't want to be notified. 

Bad news is given the government's _modus operandi_, it will take them years to implement something like this, and we all lose to a-holes like Bateman and those who pay for his service. 

Bateman's local to Boise. I guarantee this will not be well received in the community here, and river karma might be a b-tch.


----------



## wshutt (Jun 20, 2013)

Someone asked our favorite nerd on his FB page if he was planning on doing the same for Deso, Yampa etc. The response "not yet".


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

Anchorless said:


> Agree.
> 
> I'll be calling the 4 Rivers office and Rec.Gov tomorrow to let them know of my disgust with Billy Bateman and Rivernerd's "tool." I'll also be asking them to figure out some sort of script / bot prevention or to simply implement a universal and "fair" notification system available to everyone. Perhaps they can just start with all of those who signed up and paid for the original lottery (they will have those emails already) and auto notify them regarding cancellations, and offer an opt-out if people don't want to be notified.
> 
> ...


They are working on several different options right now. At least the folks I talked to were open to a short term immediate option and a long term option as well.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

I think a long term option that could help WOULd BE a system similar to how the Grand Canyon periodically releases cancellations, and sends out a notice to everyone. It also keeps it a little more fair for the people that can't hang out with a device 24/7 waiting.


----------



## dingdong (May 27, 2016)

riverdoghenry said:


> *Again, What Money Shouldn’t Buy? Unequal access to our National Park & Forests!*
> 
> Having access to our countries National Park & Forest should never be pay-to-play. Period!
> 
> ...


 
I guess I don't fully understand the system or coding for that matter, I thought the information was more available. I agree that we should all have the same access. And if something or someone is unethically or illegally ripping people off, I am of course against it. 

My rational is not to "hustle" the system. I am far to ignorant to do that. My rational was completely different and probably based on not understanding how the system works or how on gods earth it could be hustled.


----------



## dingdong (May 27, 2016)

Anchorless said:


> Fuck off sleaze.


 
Wow. That's rich. I hope I don't know you.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

dingdong said:


> I guess I don't fully understand the system or coding for that matter, I thought the information was more available. I agree that we should all have the same access. And if something or someone is unethically or illegally ripping people off, I am of course against it.
> 
> My rational is not to "hustle" the system. I am far to ignorant to do that. My rational was completely different and probably based on not understanding how the system works or how on gods earth it could be hustled.


How are you not hustling the system? You're being purposefully obtuse here. 

It's pay to play. You're asking people to pay $100 for a system that gives them an advantage in picking up cancellations over other users. You're creating an uneven playing field. 

Now, I agree that ultimately the problem isn't you or your system. You've simply created something that takes advantage of the obvious limitations of the cancellation and release process, and more precisely, the software and coding by which it operates. The problem is less with you and more with Rec.gov and the 4 Rivers office. 

It's not unlike scalpers that employ bots to purchase concert tickets in a nanosecond after they're released, and then putting them on the secondary market for double, triple, or more of the face value. 

Or maybe more accurately, like how Napster took advantage of MP3 files and peer to peer sharing networks. People have always been sharing and trading music. But there was a vast difference between making a physical tape or CD copy and giving it to some of your friends, and hosting a MP3 for the whole world to download at no cost and at great ease. 

Similarly, people have always been trying to game the cancellation system here, by coordinating a release time and then having interested friends jump on at the exact moment it was released. I'm not saying that's right either, but it's obviously happening. 

The problem is that there are many flaws in how Rec.gov and the river offices manage their permits, with the lotteries and with cancellations. It's just slimy that you're taking advantage of these flaws for financial gain to the demise of a relatively fair playing field.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

dingdong said:


> Wow. That's rich. I hope I don't know you.


If you're a Boise boater I'm sure we run in the same circles.


----------



## dingdong (May 27, 2016)

Anchorless said:


> How are you not hustling the system? You're being purposefully obtuse here.
> 
> It's pay to play. You're asking to pay $100 for a system that gives them an advantage in picking up cancellations over other uses. In other words, you're creating an uneven playing field.
> 
> ...


 
uh, it's not my system. nor have I created anything. I am not rivernerd. 

as I pointed out before, i don't understand the system. if someone has created an unfair advantage, then I'm against it. if someone has created a system that is fair, but has a cost, then I'm ok with it. 

maybe I'm simple, but not being obtuse


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Anchorless said:


> dingdong said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I don't fully understand the system or coding for that matter, I thought the information was more available. I agree that we should all have the same access. And if something or someone is unethically or illegally ripping people off, I am of course against it.
> ...


Am I missing something? Why do you assume he is RiverNerd?

I read his original comment as one highlighting a legitimate perspective about entrepreneurship. Its not my personal preference but none of this is black and white. In fact, the entire idea of multiple-use land mandates thrives off of creativity like River Nerd exhibited. Now its on the onus of the agencies to respond if it interferes with their preferences and goals. And lets be clear, most of the fair access comments being made are personal preferences being projected onto the system that aren't codified at all. As people have pointed out, its never been an even playing field given different access to technology and time constraints many people have in life. 

What RiverNerd has done has no relationship in kind or degree to the scalping comparison. The technology he has employed is much more passive, never actually obtains the resource or limits our access to permits. The permit is first come, first served; he is just sending people information that allows them to get there first. Several folks clearly don't understand his system as it had very little statistical influence on the original release of permits from the winter lottery. The people who paid for his service had no advantage on that set release date as those cancellations had been sitting there for a long time. The advantage he offers is really only helpful for randomly released permits.

I applaud the 4 Rivers folks for responding so quickly to a new challenge but that is different than this lynch mob mentality against River Nerd.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

*E-Government Act*



Anchorless said:


> Now, I agree that ultimately the problem isn't you or your system. You've simply created something that takes advantage of the obvious limitations of the cancellation and release process, and more precisely, the software and coding by which it operates. *The problem is less with you and more with Rec.gov and the 4 Rivers office. *


Respectfully, 4 Rivers and rec.gov can’t fix this problem in the way you think they should.

The problem is a loophole within the E-Government Act. One of the laws within this act requires everything that ends in “dot gov” to allow third parties access to data via an application programming interface, in real time. Using the guidelines, a maximum rate limit of 25 hits per second and 2 million per day.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...13/m-13-13.pdf

Rec.gov technical procedures:

https://www.recreation.gov/outdoors/shareData.htm

Simply, the 4 Rivers and Rec.gov are powerless to do anything about this loophole within the e-gov act. Only congress and the president have the power to change this.

This law was developed to share government data widely through this interface system, and in the big picture, was a good idea. However, they failed to factor in the government created scarcity by limiting the number of permits available to our National Parks and Forests. *Essentially the government is allocating a very rare commodity at a fixed low price, which has created a black market (pay-to-play) via a loophole in this act.*

The authors of this act, lacked the foresight to see that it would be utilized to an unfair advantage regarding the allocating a very rare commodity; permits to our National Parks and Forests

On the other hand, 4 Rivers can choose to opt out of rec.gov system like Westwater BLM office has done. It’s a simple human-to-human interface that works on a level playing field.


----------



## UriahJones (Aug 10, 2015)

Well, I see that I was not the only one upset with the RiverNerd's idea to create a little side income. I was pretty angry when I first saw that. And I agree completely that it is an unethical (though possibly legal) practice. 

The automatic alert for all will certainly not fix the problem. I commented on the 4-Rivers thread already that it will create a similair system as I experience as a substitute teacher in Oregon. 100's of people will receive a notification that there is a job/river opening and the ones quickest on the draw (or with robot assistance) will win. Unless you park your behind in front of a PC with the screen open at all times you will still miss every permit that you try for. 

IMO the only possible 'fair' option is to offer a follow-up lottery for canceled permits. Give everyone reasonable notification of the follow-up and then draw a lucky winner. No gaming really possible in such a situation. I'd also advocate strongly that a person must have been a participant in the original lottery in order to draw again.

In fact, I'd even be open to persuasion that only those that originally applied for that _date_, should have the option to re-draw. Not convinced on that idea, but open to it. 

The real future, my friends, is sad. We are all likely to run the best rivers less and less often. In particular this is depressing for me, as I have many of the gems yet to run. But there will always be whitewater that is available if we put in the effort. Permit less runs due to bad weather, difficult rapids, and horrible access will continue I believe. Like I said, the future is sad. 

In the meantime, I will be adding my call to the 4-Rivers people and complaining about the current system!


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

While I'm glad to see that more and more boaters are starting to wake up and realize that way rec.gov handles permits is prone to gaming of the system, I really think a lot of you are missing the forest for the trees.

The service Rivernerd is offerring only notifies you that a permit is available. It doesn't book it for you. However, it does prove that rec.gov's system is vulnerable to gaming by people with excellent computer skills.

Based on what I heard from the FS yesterday, their short term plan is to release all of the cancellation dates on a specific time and date, after announcing this plan far and wide. That will destroy any advantage of using Rivernerd's notification system. Great.

HOWEVER, by releasing all of the permits at a specific time and date, savvy computer experts can now flood rec.gov using "auto-ping" software that will ping rec.gov with thousands of hits per second until one of those hits goes through and the permit gets reserved.

So we've really accomplished nothing. Many (most?) permits will still be won by people using their computer skills to game the system. At best, the average Joe sitting at home frantically hitting "send" on his stupid little laptop might get lucky and pick up whatever crumbs fall through the cracks. 

Does this sound like a solution? Does this sound fair? We need to consider the problems of permit system as a whole, rather than just fixating about the latest outrage.


----------



## winterwinds (Mar 14, 2011)

This is a real problem and costs/penalizes the boaters that play fair. The temporary solution that could be implemented immediately would be to not release canceled permits at random times but to do it a a specific time every day or every other day or? That would take the advantage away from the auto program cheats. It's a short term easy fix that recreation.gov already has the progrmmming completed for. A slightly longer term fix would be to have a step in the process that would require the user to identify letter/number/pictures that change randomly. A technique that is used successfully by other sites to deal with this type of problem. It's time to start writing your congressman, the Salmon-Challis NF Supervisor etc. asking for an immediate halt to the current process and an investigation into Reserve America's (the contractor who operates Recreation.gov) failure to implement appropriate programs to detect when auto programs are being used for finding available permits. Our reservation fees go to them to pay for their operation of the system and we should be getting fair treatment!


----------



## UriahJones (Aug 10, 2015)

Well, I had a couple of conversations with FS employees at the various Ranger Districts in the 4-Rivers system. Seems like my fellow buzzards have already paved the way and they are familiar with the issues. 

I was told that an upcoming change is likely to just release all permits at a specific time. Either in a batch, or else every day at a predetermined time. Such a system is already in place on the Rogue river, and it is a hassle, but better than the current random release. Either way it would put RiverNerds service out of business. 

I advocated that such a plan is still completely vulnerable to technologically savvy programmers who could reserve permits for themselves and friends with impunity, destroying the level playing field that is trying to be created. My vote is still for the follow-up lottery. The lady at the Main Salmon office (Dee) told me that there is already a program rewrite for Rec.gov ready to be implemented next season, but was unable to give me any specific information about it. Frankly, it didn't sound like much more than a cosmetic and ease of use update, possibly the change to release schedule for cancellations. Nothing like a true fix to our problems. 

Let's all keep hammering away at those phone lines and let our voices be heard!

I am optimistic that we will see meaningful change over time if we unite to be heard. Great work by the community here in bringing this issue up and into the open!


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

I'd add this probably goes beyond just 4 Rivers reservations. 

If anyone has done the Lochsa River on Memorial Day weekend, and have tried to grab a camp spot for that weekend between Thus-Monday, virtually all reservable spots in Loops A, B, and C are booked the very instant they are available. Seemingly some before they are technically "open" to be reserved. 

We always marveled at how certain people seemed to be able to reserve a handful of (mostly the same) spots every year, while the spots we are able to grab are far more random in availability. 

So yeah. This goes beyond river permits and extends to anything reservable under rec.gov / Reserve America.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

*The Lottery Is Gamed*



UriahJones said:


> IMO the only possible 'fair' option is to offer a follow-up lottery for canceled permits. Give everyone reasonable notification of the follow-up and then draw a lucky winner. *No gaming really possible in such a situation.* I'd also advocate strongly that a person must have been a participant in the original lottery in order to draw again.



The lottery is also being gamed. 4 Rivers is now seeing a rash of permit holders with obvious fake identifications. These individuals are applying to the lottery with numerous fake sock puppet accounts to leverage the odds more in their favor and getting a fake ID for whatever puppet wins.

Prosecutors won’t do anything about it, because they have bigger fish to fry than some guy sleazing onto a river, so the rangers are powerless.

Scarcity alters human behavior (Black Friday Madness). The whole thing has become a train wreck on the part of some conniving greedy individuals.


----------



## UriahJones (Aug 10, 2015)

Good point RiverDog. I hadn't thought about that. You really think that there are tons of people running around with fake ID's in order to draw a permit though? 

I may be wrong, but I think that is still far less likely than the programmer beating the current system. 

Anyone have a better idea for something that would beat the scammers?!

It's pointless to say the system is broken without offering an alternative.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

UriahJones said:


> Good point RiverDog. I hadn't thought about that. *You really think that there are tons of people running around with fake ID's in order to draw a permit though?
> *
> I may be wrong, but I think that is still far less likely than the programmer beating the current system.
> 
> ...


Yesterday, I was informed of the issue in my conversation with one of the 4 River offices.

$100 seems to be going rate for a permit hustles:
http://chfake.com/prices/


----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

riverdoghenry said:


> The lottery is also being gamed. 4 Rivers is now seeing a rash of permit holders with obvious fake identifications. These individuals are applying to the lottery with numerous fake sock puppet accounts to leverage the odds more in their favor and getting a fake ID for whatever puppet wins.
> 
> Prosecutors won’t do anything about it, because they have bigger fish to fry than some guy sleazing onto a river, so the rangers are powerless.
> 
> Scarcity alters human behavior (Black Friday Madness). The whole thing has become a train wreck on the part of some conniving greedy individuals.


I don't know about you, but I've done a lot of permitted rivers and I've never had to show ID to anybody. They just want to see the permit. You could have all sorts of accounts with fake names to increase lottery odds.


----------



## SpeyCatr (Aug 14, 2013)

*$100 Scalp Fee Middle Fork…Greedy*



UriahJones said:


> Anyone have a better idea for something that would beat the scammers?!.



Start up a business that charges way less for the same service. Make it no longer worthwhile for the guy to
Compete OR at least make it so much cheaper that almost everyone can afford it. With it becoming more common place at the same time have people complaining about it to the point something must be done. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzzy


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

UriahJones said:


> Anyone have a better idea for something that would beat the scammers?!
> 
> It's pointless to say the system is broken without offering an alternative.


Here's a recent thread that is devoted entirely to identifying problems *and* solutions to the current permit systems. Read all that from the beginning and then add your own comments.

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f42/improving-4-rivers-and-dinosaur-permit-systems-68794.html


----------



## UriahJones (Aug 10, 2015)

landslide said:


> Here's a recent thread that is devoted entirely to identifying problems *and* solutions to the current permit systems. Read all that from the beginning and then add your own comments.
> 
> http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f42/improving-4-rivers-and-dinosaur-permit-systems-68794.html


Thanks landslide. I have been following the thread, and have already added comments to it. 

It appears that there is likely no solution that is entirely free from the possibility of abuse. However, unless we can form some kind of common opinion and advocate for a specific solution we are likely to continue to get whatever fire suppression measure Rec.gov throws our way.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Uriah Jones, 

I agree, it's hard to reach consensus on exactly what the problems are, let alone what solutions will work the best. I represent no one but myself, and when I talk with the federal agencies in charge of wilderness permits, I am only one voice. 

However, I've been doing my best to beat the drum here on the Buzz and get others involved as well. The first step is to make people aware that the permit system isn't working so well for people who play by the rules, and that our problems will only get worse as demand for permits increases. Threads like this serve that purpose well: Word gets out. The pot gets stirred. This, in turn, puts pressure on the federal and state agencies to respond.

At this point in time, it might seem like nothing is getting done and nothing is being fixed, but I think the more we bring these problems up for discussion, the more likely it is that we'll reach a point where real change can happen.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

SpeyCatr said:


> Start up a business that charges way less for the same service. Make it no longer worthwhile for the guy to
> Compete OR at least make it so much cheaper that almost everyone can afford it. With it becoming more common place at the same time have people complaining about it to the point something must be done.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzzy


Great idea!


----------



## Kylerberry99 (Apr 12, 2017)

Ahhhhh can't build the code and give it out for free eh? #lazy a$$. This thread is funny..... I doubt anyone has even bought this service......


----------



## Kylerberry99 (Apr 12, 2017)

Sooo take bitterness out on rivernerd? If you guys were smart the group would all pitch in but his product.... then share the feedback from when a permit is available..... but spending 10 hours whining is better? Second lottery would work well.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Kylerberry99 said:


> Sooo take bitterness out on rivernerd? If you guys were smart the group would all pitch in but his product.... then share the feedback from when a permit is available..... but spending 10 hours whining is better? Second lottery would work well.


 You've been a member for 8-minutes and already have five pointless posts!


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

landslide said:


> Uriah Jones,
> 
> I agree, it's hard to reach consensus on exactly what the problems are, let alone what solutions will work the best. I represent no one but myself, and when I talk with the federal agencies in charge of wilderness permits, I am only one voice.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

I remember back in grade school, one of my curriculums called America the "land of fair play", kindof aggravating as hell when it isn't, enough for me to want to do something. Since beating the boogers out of the river nerd is really not socially acceptable any more, or legal, talking about it on mountain Buzz, and bugging the regulatory agency's to fix the problem, seems reasonable.


----------



## SwimmerPirateJoe241 (Apr 13, 2017)

It's just not fair how can he do this to us??? I bet the guy doesn't even boat and is some wiz kid from California!!!


----------



## SwimmerPirateJoe241 (Apr 13, 2017)

I mean call me a snowflake but I'm going to protest this!!! I have never lost before in my life and I am NOT about to lose in this endeavor!!! I want it to be fair heck I even pee sitting down in the river to show my solidarity with the ladies on the trip! Everything should be fair!


----------



## SwimmerPirateJoe241 (Apr 13, 2017)

Kylerberry99 my female life partner just said to quit your mansplaining and get off this thread! Dean thanks for showing me this thread let's just hope they don't start something like this on the Green!!! The Gates of Lodore doesn't need this garbage!


----------



## Mopdog (Apr 24, 2014)

Why not just offer cancelations to the next person in line that applied for that date but didnt get the permit? If they decline then offer to the next person and so on. If nobody who originally wanted that date wants it then release it as they do now.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Mopdog said:


> Why not just offer cancelations to the next person in line that applied for that date but didnt get the permit? If they decline then offer to the next person and so on. If nobody who originally wanted that date wants it then release it as they do now.


Like^^^


----------



## natepelton (Feb 24, 2011)

*Excellent Idea*



Mopdog said:


> Why not just offer cancelations to the next person in line that applied for that date but didnt get the permit? If they decline then offer to the next person and so on. If nobody who originally wanted that date wants it then release it as they do now.


I have been following both of these threads and this is a great idea Mopdog.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Its an interesting idea but i am not sure the current lottery structure produces a "next in line". How would that work given the fact that people have weeks after winning to decide to accept or cancel? I know its possible but I think they would have to restructure their system s.
I know some states do that for once in a lifetime big game tags if they are cancelled but those are weighted lotteries so they can at least look to number of points.


----------



## windriver (Mar 26, 2009)

Wow the Mountainmobbers have gone wild on this one.

At the risk of someone pulling my drain plug before I drop into the next rapid, I have to chime in here before the conspiracy theory gets more out of hand than it already is. I am a friend of the RiverNerd and was somewhat in the loop during the development of this unpardonable sin. I also spoke with him on the phone this evening regarding the threats he's been receiving. 

Overall, despite the personal attacks, this thread has brought out some great ideas on changes that need to be made (I like MopDog's the best). Here are some facts I can share that will hopefully guide the conversation in a more productive and accurate manner.

#1 RiverNerd has 0 customers and has made $0 dollars.
#2 Those who tested the software in beta did not reserve any of the permits.
#3 It was clear to us, and as others have said, that people are already utilizing the same technology. RiverNerd took it a step further and made the technology available to the public (for a fee). 
#4 RiverNerd anticipated the service would be welcomed by those who wanted to level the playing field but did not want to go to the hassle of setting up their own monitoring software. 
#5 RiverNerd would be as happy as anyone if the forest service would mass email notifications; the whole idea was spawned from the disgust of checking the rec.gov website hourly and knowing that people were already utilizing monitoring software. 

My own thoughts:

For the dozen or so of you hating on this guy give it a rest. He publicly advertised the service, it wasn't some hidden scheme. He developed a technology to increase efficiency; happens every day. Ever taken a ride via Uber? 

The real problem here is the mismanagement of the permit system. I think it's fantastic that people are calling into the forest service and expressing their concerns and ideas. A (more) fair system needs to be developed that cannot be manipulated by all the ways mentioned in this thread. (Again, MopDog's sounds the best so far). Perhaps all the posters here can form a nonprofit advocacy group called "Friends of the 4 Rivers" or something like that and be the voice of the boating public to work with the forest service. 

The other problem that has not been mentioned is management of commercial outfitters. Hundreds of unfilled commercial spots go unused every year. In the aggregate, we could have several dozen more private boater groups use these unfilled spots. For example, if a rule was put in place that required outfitters to release vacant spots back to the forest service two months prior to launch, those spots could be aggregated into additional private launches. However, the real greedy folks who have profited wildly of of these rivers want to be able to book trips up until the last moment. Ethics? Private boaters have a 1/100 chance of drawing a prime MFS permit yet someone of wealth can plunk down several thousand dollars and purchase a guaranteed trip through an outfitter pretty much anytime. The resource needs to be shared more equitably meaning more private launches and less commercial. Why this isn't a hot topic causing the masses to make phone calls is beyond me. 

Meanwhile we'll fight amongst ourselves for the scraps like dogs while commercial users roll into Boundary Creek in their air conditioned tour busses and pity us for the fools we are.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Mopdog, that is absolutely the best idea I've heard yet!!! At least for the initial round of cancellations (AKA, non-confirmation cancellations) your idea would work perfectly: Just run the lottery as normal, but rather than just notifying the winners, notify a Runner-Up and 2nd Runner-Up. If the initial winners do not confirm their permits in the normally allotted time-frame (a few weeks), then notify the Runner-Up that he just won a permit. And, if that person doesn't want it, then notify the next person in line.

The additional costs of such a system would be absolutely minimal and would be entirely fair, provided the lottery is operating fairly, which is another issue given what RiverdogHenry reportedly heard from the FS.

These non-confirmation cancellations are also the most "valuable" cancellations, since the people who win them have months of time to prepare for the trip. (That's also what makes them more valuable to commercial outfitters, since the outfitter has plenty of time to plan and sell the trip.)

I can't tell you how much I like this idea. Thanks!

Windriver: Yes, the reasoning used to divvy up permits between private boaters and commercial outfitters also needs to be re-evaluated. Tom Martin made some good comments about this on the other thread. To me, this issue is just as important as making sure that private permits are distributed fairly, but both issues need to be pursued.


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

The mopdog idea is a good one, but it does involve basically running an entire second lottery process within the first lottery, because there will often be several people who are "next in line" with the same first choice date, not one, and it confuses the purpose of the second and third choices. Honestly, it seems to me far easier to run the first lottery in the time-honored 3 or 4 choice manner, assign EVERY paid lottery participant a number. 

People that receive a number and no lottery offer are then able to access a second round. This second round could be another lottery, or better, in my opinion, just a normal reservation process open to that much smaller set of people that applied to the original lottery. 

After that open period, and additional spots could be open to everyone else.

Yes, it favors people that get on it and apply during the Dec-Jan lottery period. 

There are several ways to do this that easily resolve the bot-notification issue.


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

OK, I think I understand the problem you've identified. The scenario would go something like this: Joe's 1st choice in the Selway lottery is July 4. Bob's 1st choice in the Selway lottery is June 29. Neither Joe or Bob win their first choice dates. HOWEVER, they both listed July 5 as their second choice. The initial winner of the July 5 permit cancels, so who gets the July 5 permit, Joe or Bob?

If this happened, why couldn't the computer just randomly choose from the small group that would be eligible? Everything is still random, but it doesn't incur the added expense of running a whole new lottery.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

At the risk of taking RiverNerd's place as number 1 public enemy here I have to make some comments about the idea of taking unused commercial days and converting them to private permits. The suggestion was, to take these days 2 months before the launch date, and that got my attention.
Here's the thing.
Commercial outfitters do indeed struggle at times to fill permits; I know, because at one point in my young and dumb days, I sold trips and know how difficult it can be to fully fill trips; it was not unusual to book a trip even a week prior to launch, causing all kinds of excitement in headquarters. Day trips are often sold up to the day of launch, although I did not have much to do with what I considered to be "order taking" sales; I sold almost exclusively multi day trips.
The commercial outfitters face all the struggles of private groups putting together trips, with the added problem of actually having to, at the end of the day, showing a profit (gasp!) and dealing with all sorts of other hassles, like Liability insurance, banks, marketing, and so forth.

However; back in the day an outfitter worked under the "use it or loose it" system; if we didn't fill our quota one year we were at risk of loosing it the next year. It might be a workable system to take unused commercial days and convert them to private permits, but any outfitter can have good reasons why they can't fully use their quota and should not loose their days; very low water years, bad economy, or just plain poor sales are examples. Perhaps a multi year look at an outfitters use, with a view of taking their quota down if they miss their mark two years in a row would work.

I do agree though; it is sinful to have permits go unused. Permit holders who just let them go should be firmly abused in multiple ways, whether they are a commercial or private permit holder.

I don't know the rules now, but back in the day we occasionally "sold" our unused launch days to private groups looking for a way to get on a river section. Don't know if that could be done now, but I'm sure that could be another alternative to solving the issue.


----------



## Mopdog (Apr 24, 2014)

I have never met RiverNerd but it seems to me that he has committed more of a political and marketing flub than anything here. Hear me out. I was at a gear swap last spring and met a group of guys, all friends, who were talking about how excited they were for the summer. They each had a middle fork launch and some other less desirable but still good permits. I asked how they got so lucky and they told me that they were all cancellation permits and about the monitoring software that was out there. It is apparently not a huge secret at this point. Had RiverNerd posted a thread about the "secret" software and said that he was going to offer a version of it, for a fee, to level the playing fielld he would likely been far better recieved despite having done the same thing. The truth is we dont all have the same access to the river. I prefer to go on non commercial trips, I like them better. That said, if $7000 meant nothing to me then my Son and I would be on a prime date Middle Fork with an Outfitter every year that I didnt have a permit.


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

landslide said:


> OK, I think I understand the problem you've identified. The scenario would go ........... a whole new lottery.


I don't think think this is how the lottery works. Rec.gov draws a name. Is their first choice available? If yes, assign a permit. If no, look at their second choice. Repeat for all four choices. Draw another name and so on. There are no ties.


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

landslide said:


> OK, I think I understand the problem you've identified. The scenario would go something like this: Joe's 1st choice in the Selway lottery is July 4. Bob's 1st choice in the Selway lottery is June 29. Neither Joe or Bob win their first choice dates. HOWEVER, they both listed July 5 as their second choice. The initial winner of the July 5 permit cancels, so who gets the July 5 permit, Joe or Bob?
> 
> If this happened, why couldn't the computer just randomly choose from the small group that would be eligible? Everything is still random, but it doesn't incur the added expense of running a whole new lottery.


Well, that's what I mean as added complication. There's ANOTHER series of random selections (lotteries), and it wouldn't just be the second choices, it would presumably include all the other people that listed "July 5" as a FIRST choice and didn't get it. 

For every cancellation date, there'd effectively be a mini lottery for everyone that had originally selected that date as a first choice and didn't get it, and possibly as a second, third, or fourth choice and didn't get it. Except that some number of those folks may have been offered one of their second, third, or fourth choices in the origial run, so the "computer" would have to have a way to screen those people out. For every cancellation date, the system would need to create a line of aspirants for that date, based on a lottery submission that was made when all dates were open. 

Not saying it couldn't be done, but that is WAY more complex than the way the original lotteries are run, where the first application is picked and compared to open dates (in order of the application's date ranking), the second application is picked and compared to open dates, the third is picked and compared, and so on until the calendar is full or all the applications are checked. (Consider: it is theoretically possible to be the fifth selected application and get no lottery offer IF the first four applications hit all four of your date selections - unlucky!). I'm pretty sure this is how the lotteries are managed but I will say there is not much info out there on those mechanics. 

To me, it makes a lot more sense to run a separate round or rounds, either by lottery or reservation, based on lottery participants vying for actual dates that are available that round.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Windriver, 

Commerce is fine. But it doesn't belong here. Not regarding fair access to permits. 

RiverNerd chose to exploit the currant cancelation disaster for personal gain. His business model was not presented to the public as a solution that levels the playing field for all. Instead, his business model offers a service that loads the dice in one’s favor for profit. His site clearly states that for an exorbitant and exploitive fee, “you have a great chance” of being the first person to obtain permits.

This is not leveling the field!

Many of us in the river community were already aware that some individuals were using technology that allowed an unfair advantage and we were openly and collectively trying to find a solution. 

Before now, You and your buddy have never expressed your concerns or publicly shared your ideas on here. Furthermore, your statement “Perhaps all the posters here can form a nonprofit advocacy group called "Friends of the 4 Rivers" or something like that and be the voice of the boating public to work with the forest service.”, excludes you and your buddy. 

With this statement and previous actions, it’s comes across that you and your buddy only wish to contribute to the solution if it’s profitable. In other words, you’re just deflecting blame on the rest of us for not having yet figuring out a non-profit solution or that we’re still struggling to get enough folks concerned to the point the Forest Service decides it needs to stop being complacent and do something about this problem.

Perhaps you and your buddy could have contributed to the solution by publicly getting involved and proposing to everyone a potential software solution that everyone could utilize for free, to level the playing field or suggested we consider forming a non-profit "Friends of the 4 Rivers" to open-source this software.

*RiverNerd can still be solution to leveling the playing field against the other greedy individuals who are already utilizing the same technology by making it available to everyone for free. I understand that that there is probably some overhead cost to run the notification system, but that can easily be handled by forming a transparent non-profit and through donations. 

Not everyone can or will donate. And that's fine. But I believe enough people will decide to give*.

To be honest, I absolutely don’t like the idea of going to a notification system, but don’t see any other immediate solution in the short them.* If RiverNerd will open his software to everyone for free, I pledge to donate $100. Again, I believe enough people will decide to give what they can afford.*

I believe many folks would be very forgiving and grateful if RiverNerd did the right thing here. We’ve all made mistakes and didn’t think things through.

Sincerely, RDH


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Wadeinthewater said:


> I don't think think this is how the lottery works. Rec.gov draws a name. Is their first choice available? If yes, assign a permit. If no, look at their second choice. Repeat for all four choices. Draw another name and so on. There are no ties.


Right. That's how the initial lottery works. What we're talking about is if it would be possible to use the data from the initial lottery to select "winners" for non-confirmation cancellations. Every time you run a new lottery, whether it's the initial lottery or a follow up lottery, it costs money. I'm trying to figure out a way to put the initial lottery data to further use.

mark husbands- I have to run, but will check back in later to give your recent post some consideration.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

It seems to me that, given we're in 2017 and we have advanced algorithmic computer software, we could easily figure a lottery out which creates a ranking of applicants for each date... 1 through however many applied for each date. 

Each permit on each date simply organizes all of the names who applied for those dates (whether 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice) on a priority basis. If you were successful for a permit, your name is stricken from all other dates you applied for. 

So Joe Smith applies for the Middle Fork, with choices of June 30, July 01, July 15, and July 20. Joe Smith's name is selected, and he is given his 3rd choice of July 15. So he no longer is in the ranking for the other three dates. 

Alice Jones applies for June 22, July 15, July 20, and July 24. She is not selected, so she is placed in the priority-ranked queue for her 4 dates. She just happens to be ranked No. 2 in line for July 15, but is informed she did not win a permit and that she will be notified if there are any cancellations for her selected dates. 

Joe Smith decides he can't make the trip happen, and cancels. Rather than release the permit to the public at large, Alice Jones is notified of the July 15 permit has been cancelled, and she is the next person "in line." She accepts, and the system works. 

This would work easily for cancellations or non-acceptances before March. For those who hold on to a trip and cancel sometime after March, even up to the day of the trip, its a little trickier, but it can still work. 

Create another deadline 1 month or 3 weeks out, and if the trip is cancelled by that date, use the scenario above (until someone "in line" accepts the permit). You could probably still use the scenario described above until someone accepts, and if no one does, then release it to the public.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

As for WindRiver and RiverNerd... 

Dude created a product and entered the "market." With that comes all criticism, publicity, penalty, liability, profit, loss, and otherwise. I don't feel sorry for him for any of the above that he receives. That's the risk he takes. Fair game. 

Now, given that he's not doing anything illegal or outside of the bounds of the rules/regulations, he should do whatever he wants to do. Bully for him. He can decide for himself if he wants the notoriety, attention, ridicule, and karma that comes with what he's doing. That's for him to decide. But I'm not going to feel bad for him nor will I "give it a rest." I think he's an asshat for what he's doing, and that's my prerogative to believe that.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

Only made it to page 8. Apologize if this has been proposed.
Disrupters going to disrupt. It is up to us to keep rivers accessible to those willing to play by the rules. (Submit applications, pay fees, etc.) Old enough to remember the phone system.... redial, redial, redial. And so angry at the corporate types whose phones would auto redial...
Recreation.gov could create its own bot that does the same thing as Rivernuts. Make it free and available to everyone that applies for a permit. (Lottery or not) Select dates and rivers you are interested in. Get notified if/when there is a cancellation. Bot would operate within the Recreation.gov site, might make it less of a choke point. Gotta be cheaper than $100. 
Maybe limit the number of dates/rivers you can get pinged about just like the limited number of days/rivers you can request on original permit. Also specify when your window might close. I.e. you don't want a ping 2 days before launch, or maybe you do.
And if this is somehow not in the Recreation.gov operating rules, change the rules.


----------



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

I have nothing to add to what has been said about River Nerd. 

To the other guys who got permits I didn't get by playing fair with the system, I'm bummed I didn't get your Yampa permit but can't really criticize your industry and ingenuity too much. After all, it seems to be legal and you took a capitalistic chance while I bitched on MB. Well done but hope it doesn't last. 

To Rec.gov. Get your act together, close the loopholes, create a better cancellation system and level the playing field. (There, I think that might be enough cliches). 

Jon


----------



## cmharris (Apr 30, 2013)

Yes of course. I also think rec.gov can easily fix this and are very motivated to make it right. Their business depends on it. I'm sure they already have a solution in hand or are aggressively seeking one since currently it doesn't appear like they are providing the service the Forest Service is paying them to perform. If I'm shopping for a service to handle a lottery, I want to know that it can't be hacked, creating problems for my clients in the future. But to make a change they need direction from the Forest Service asking them to stop the auto pinging.


----------



## Kylerberry99 (Apr 12, 2017)

Lol........


----------



## landslide (Dec 20, 2014)

Honestly, I am very happy that Rivernerd created his "Pay to Play" notification service, because up until now, a lot of people on this forum were skeptical that the permit system could be gamed. Now that it's out in the open, more and more people are finally waking up. And that's a good thing.

Is rec.gov "motivated" to fix these problems? I'm not so sure about that. I believe they were awarded a 10-year contract by the government, much to the dismay of other private "reservation systems" like Expedia and Trivago and kayak.com who also wanted to be able to provide this service. Sometimes when a company has what amounts to a monopoly due to a long-term contract, they aren't exactly in a rush to make improvements, because that will cost them money.

But in fairness to rec.gov, they do not have the authority to change how the permit system is designed; that's up to the governmental agencies. Complaining to rec.gov about their ability to block "auto-ping" programs will likely get you nowhere. It's better to focus your input on the federal and state agencies in charge of the permit systems.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

*We need to be demanding a timeline.*

For the 2017 cancelation season, the house is on fire right now, but we have folks worrying about how to remodel the kitchen in 2018, when we need to put out the 2017 house fire now. I’m not saying there aren’t some great ideas for the next lottery season. 

The Forest Service has been aware of this and other issues with the permit system for a while and even years on a few of the other issues. Season after season, we’ve been told they’re actively working on improvements for the following season, but they never actually do so. 

It’s time that we demand that they address this problem now, not next year. In about 2 to 3 weeks, the cancelations will begin to become available on a more regular basis. *We need to demand a deadline of 3-weeks from now to have a notification system available to us.*
*
If they are not able to have a system in 3-weeks, they need to setup and interim emergency protocol and divert the remainder of the 2017 cancelations to the old call-in system. *

I understand that this is a pain in the ass, but under the immediate circumstance, it’s the only fair solution that is simple and low-tech.

We need to be demanding an immediate timeline.


----------



## LJPurvis (Apr 12, 2017)

There are several things wrong here and not all of them a function of the RiverNerd.

1. How many code heads are on this thread? This could easily be fixed by the web site developer for recreation.gov. The problem is that they expose the availability of a permit on the client side. For those of you that don't know, just right click on the web page, select view source, and (if you know what you are looking for) you can see where it shows the date and if it is reserved or available. A semi-decent web programmer can make all of this server side; not expose the availability as HTML, text, etc. A simple picture using the same file name could show the R/A and the only link would be to select the date below. Bots would not be able to scan for the "Reserved" or "Available'. Fix the website and you would not have this issue.
2. Unfair advantage? I know there are people that either don't work or work part time that spend hours upon hours in front of the computer to get the cancellations. I work and travel; I cannot do that. I say they have an "unfair" advantage. There is no "fair" advantage in this.
3. His website cannot guarantee a permit; just that it can notify the person a permit is available. If that person cannot get to the website fast enough then they will not get the permit.
4. How many people have their log in, their wife's log in, and a relative's or friend's log in to recreation.gov so that they can "grab" another permit? Also note that recreation.gov doesn't actually care what your name is, it only uses your email address. How many people have multiple logins using different emails? Beat up RiverNerd all you want but there are many people that are cheating the system.

My thoughts, fix the website and the database that manages the data. Do not allow the same name/address combination and require ID when you go to the launch (which has always been the case for Hells and the MF). Also, I believe the permit entry should not be $6/river. Be more like the GC and make it $25/river. Too many people put in for permits that may or may not even take them because they are not serious about it.

Those of you that state they have talked with the folks at Recreation.gov should try talking to the folks at the launch sites. Last year Hells Canyon had so many "no shows" it was crazy. It makes them mad. They WANT people to be on the river. It is too easy to drop $6 and not show up. Make it hurt, make them drop $25 or more. Or, make the permit cost be $6 but if you do not cancel within one month of your launch date then you are required to pay $100. Something to make it so that those of us that want the permits have more access.


----------



## Mopdog (Apr 24, 2014)

I would have to guess that most of us on here have organized a good sized multi day trip. If you take the total budget of a 6 or 8 boat trip with 15 or 20 people on it and add up the cost $100 isnt going to be a large percentage of it. Especially if there is rental boats and shuttles in the armada for said trip. As negative as it seems, in an unplanned way, RiverNerd has helped us. If it really isnt against the rules, it is just part of the process now whether we like it or not. If it is against the rules I wont use it. I wont give RiverNerd the $100 but I will likely ask around to see if any of the computer people I know can figure out how it works. At Disneyland I bought a fast pass, I would rather be at the front of the line focused on fun than at the back of the line bitching with the folks who swear a fast pass is cheating. While the Lower Salmon is a really cool place, Id rather be on the Middle Fork. Same deal to me.


----------



## Mopdog (Apr 24, 2014)

Confirming a permit after a successful draw should also require a substantial non refundable deposit if you do not launch.


----------



## LJPurvis (Apr 12, 2017)

Mopdog said:


> Confirming a permit after a successful draw should also require a substantial non refundable deposit if you do not launch.


I LIKE it! Confirming the GC requires $400. And I will be the first to admit that I have grabbed an available permit knowing I might cancel it a day or two later after confirming with friends. It is cheap and easy to do. Make it harder.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

riverdoghenry said:


> For the 2017 cancelation season, the house is on fire right now, but we have folks worrying about how to remodel the kitchen in 2018, when we need to put out the 2017 house fire now. I’m not saying there aren’t some great ideas for the next lottery season.
> 
> The Forest Service has been aware of this and other issues with the permit system for a while and even years on a few of the other issues. Season after season, we’ve been told they’re actively working on improvements for the following season, but they never actually do so.
> 
> ...


I am not sure the house is burning down nor do I think we are limited to such a narrow definition of "fair". Sadly, any of the choices they make will come with structural inequities. I for one prefer the internet option over the time intensive and often intrusive process of making non-stop calls to a river office. Your preference is different, but its clearly a subjective preference.

Glad folks are calling. Glad the agencies are responding. I hope they are able to find a solution that serves the community best without causing any further problems.

Ultimately, individuals from the river community will score this year's cancellations. I hope they enjoy their trip.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

restrac2000 said:


> I am not sure the house is burning down nor do I think we are limited to such a narrow definition of "fair". Sadly, any of the choices they make will come with structural inequities. I for one prefer the internet option over the time intensive and often intrusive process of making non-stop calls to a river office. Your preference is different, but its clearly a subjective preference.



I also preferred the internet option over the old process of making non-stop calls to a river office, but circumstances have changed that. However, you seem to keep conveying all is well and everyone should just move along. It's starting to appear that you like the current system a little too much and why is that?

It would be great if you could contribute your intelligence to finding a solution, instead of condescendingly poking of your itty-bitty stick at other people’s thoughts and ideas.


----------



## kwagunt2001 (Jun 9, 2008)

*Message on rec.gov 4 rivers lotto site*

From the Selway home page

"Note: Recreation.gov is aware of a service provided by an independent third party which notifies its paying customers when a river permit is cancelled. We are looking into remedies that maintain equal access to this information for all of our customers."


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

kwagunt2001 said:


> From the Selway home page
> 
> "Note: Recreation.gov is aware of a service provided by an independent third party which notifies its paying customers when a river permit is cancelled. We are looking into remedies that maintain equal access to this information for all of our customers."


Thanks! I aslo just noticed that the same message is on all of the 4 River pages. However, the other rivers (Deso, Dino, & Etc) don't have this message, but the problem here also affects these permits as well.


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

More on river nerd. 

Venture College entrepreneur is making waves with river rafters – Idaho Business Review

Always awesome to try to figure out who you should trust...I've been following rivernerd's Facebook page and there was a post that stated: "two of the users were able to pull two cancellation permits today". The post has since been edited and you won't see that anyone took advantage of his services. I should have screenshot it. 



windriver said:


> Wow the Mountainmobbers have gone wild on this one.
> 
> At the risk of someone pulling my drain plug before I drop into the next rapid, I have to chime in here before the conspiracy theory gets more out of hand than it already is. I am a friend of the RiverNerd and was somewhat in the loop during the development of this unpardonable sin. I also spoke with him on the phone this evening regarding the threats he's been receiving.
> 
> ...


I don't know Billy Bateman nor windriver and will keep my opinion to myself regarding his software but when you say your users snagged two permits, shit blows up, then you edit your page to hide that people are using it, not sure I'm ready to lend an empathetic ear.


----------



## Mopdog (Apr 24, 2014)

I wonder if the message means notifications for everyone or they will be blocking the secret software.


----------



## DoStep (Jun 26, 2012)

Can't blame the dude for doing it, but it's just irritating. But I'd also likely slap him on the back and say 'nice job, thanks!' while accepting his invite. The GC follow-up lotto system would solve it, it seems more and more like the fairest system out there, this case study strengthening that argument. The age of the bots has changed the concept of first-come first-served. I hope recdotguv figures it out by the next lotto season.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

riverdoghenry said:


> I also preferred the internet option over the old process of making non-stop calls to a river office, but circumstances have changed that. However, you seem to keep conveying all is well and everyone should just move along. It's starting to appear that you like the current system a little too much and why is that?
> 
> It would be great if you could contribute your intelligence to finding a solution, instead of condescendingly poking of your itty-bitty stick at other people’s thoughts and ideas.


Quite the contrary. I fully support recreation.gov addressing the ability to be pinged by these scripts, if the solution is compliant with the law. I support them doing their best to create better systems as tech savy users find ways to gain advantage. I have mentioned short term solutions like Captcha and I support stop gaps like the one LJPurvis described. I have stated that in other comments. I actually think a follow-up lottery like the GC is the best solution in the long run and have said as much. 

I don't support black and white exclamations whose confidence isn't supported by fact or evidence. I support your ability to call the forest service and advocate on your behalf. But you have consistently exaggerated claims and made them seem like the only choice. You have admitted to seeing red right now and it shows in a consistent lack of nuance or even an understanding of how these resources are regulated (you falsely accused RiverNerd of illegal activity and advocated him and his customers being banned from the river). 

You deal heavily in innuendo. Just look at your quoted comment above. Having worked in resource management in the past I have seen this strategy employed with consistent failure. Its hard to watch people you often share similar goals with attack a problem in a manner which erodes trust and progress for an entire community. You assume the worst in others who employ different tactics (just look at the type of attacks you have lodged at RiverNerd) and have different goals. I have seen this in wildlife and recreation management. No matter how much we wish it wasn't true agencies like the BLM and Forest Service are designed for multiple use which includes commercial activity. That means they have to see the nuance and complexity where you see just black and white (or in this case, red). 

The worst part is the attitude that you direct at the agencies and organizations that manage these resources. You have advocated and condoned a hostile tone and tactic to wear them down (_"However, their phone ringing non-stop with pissed off river runners for a few weeks will get exhausting real fast for them."_) Its been clear that these employees, agencies and individuals care about the permitting as we have them seen them respond in relatively short time. I am grateful for people like CarveDog (I don't always need to agree with him to learn from his knowledge or respect his experience) who seem to know how to navigate these issues well. 

I also think you crossed a line when you doxxed the owner of the site. Exposing an individuals non-business information and social media accounts over the internet is an extreme tactic no matter how much you disagree with them. It often leads to either threats or acts of physical violence. No one outright called for violence here but it was joked about by others (_"then one day I started to get punched regularly in the street by random people I didn't know. Not that I'm condoning violence."_). We can disagree, even passionately at moments, on the internet without making it less safe for others. I think that is a fair goal.

The solution the agencies and rec.gov may align with your expectations or they may not. I know I don't have much direct control over those outcomes at the moment. Best of luck, riverdog.


----------



## LSB (Mar 23, 2004)

Simple Fix....
It seems like it would be pretty easy for Rec.Gov to put a captcha on a landing page that would prevent bots from seeing what dates come up. A user would have to type in the captcha every time they wanted to check for updated availability.


----------



## deadlizard (Mar 10, 2008)

*Admit my searches have not been exhaustive.*



restrac2000 said:


> I don't support black and white exclamations whose confidence isn't supported by fact or evidence.


But I've yet to see a documented case of a bot successfully grabbing a river permit. This thread proceeds as if that is a given, and happening right now.

In an earlier reply, I stated my opinion of why this is not such a trivial task to accomplish as some believe. Also mentioned how I would approach the problem, and why that approach would probably end of being financially unrewarding. 

Until some undisputed evidence to the contrary surfaces, I'm thinking why I cannot get a permit is because 1000 other boaters want it at the same time I do. Not that a "ping attack" (have to laugh every time I hear that) got it.

Follow-up lotteries on a known schedule, that's my vote.


----------



## deadlizard (Mar 10, 2008)

*Googles newest Captcha api is pretty cool*



LSB said:


> Simple Fix....
> It seems like it would be pretty easy for Rec.Gov to put a captcha on a landing page that would prevent bots from seeing what dates come up. A user would have to type in the captcha every time they wanted to check for updated availability.


You don't even see it on the form. It invisibly monitors how you handle the entry fields and decides if human or bot. I've implemented their previous version/api several times and had mixed results. That is the one which can automatically check the "I'm not a robot" box, or have you manually enter the captcha. It caught the obvious stuff such as filling in the data instantly, but sometimes failed some timed javascript fill-in-the-blanks in-a-random-order tests I wrote.

But just having it there meant most bots didn't even try. The time spent could be better used elsewhere.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

deadlizard said:


> You don't even see it on the form. It invisibly monitors how you handle the entry fields and decides if human or bot. I've implemented their previous version/api several times and had mixed results. That is the one which can automatically check the "I'm not a robot" box, or have you manually enter the captcha. It caught the obvious stuff such as filling in the data instantly, but sometimes failed some timed javascript fill-in-the-blanks in-a-random-order tests I wrote.
> 
> But just having it there meant most bots didn't even try. The time spent could be better used elsewhere.


Yeah, the new generation of Captcha is intriguing from the user end. I misunderstood from the reports in March and thought they were discontinuing the service. It turns out they have just refined it to the point that most human users will never see the portal again. 

I am guessing that the new technology makes it possible to put the Captcha service into places that would have been too cumbersome in the past. I "tolerated" the process (like I had a choice) in the past because it was normally limited to important tasks and not every webpage. But if the intelligence behind the service now makes it invisible to the average user there is no reason it can't be there for every page refresh. Correct? Or does that start to bog the server/system down?

I can imagine the IT field of dealing with bots and scripts is a never ending cat and mouse game. They are such an eloquent technology that can provide alot of service for little cost. It sucks for us right now but the implications from the past election on the way they can be used to sway public opinion are pretty profound. And that was an inundation of Twitter, a well-funded giant of the social media industry.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

restrac2000 said:


> Quite the contrary. I fully support recreation.gov addressing the ability to be pinged by these scripts, if the solution is compliant with the law. I support them doing their best to create better systems as tech savy users find ways to gain advantage. I have mentioned short term solutions like Captcha and I support stop gaps like the one LJPurvis described. I have stated that in other comments. I actually think a follow-up lottery like the GC is the best solution in the long run and have said as much.
> 
> I don't support black and white exclamations whose confidence isn't supported by fact or evidence. I support your ability to call the forest service and advocate on your behalf. But you have consistently exaggerated claims and made them seem like the only choice. You have admitted to seeing red right now and it shows in a consistent lack of nuance or even an understanding of how these resources are regulated (you falsely accused RiverNerd of illegal activity and advocated him and his customers being banned from the river).
> 
> ...


Phillip, I have no regrets in starting this thread. The river community had a right to know and a right to respond however they saw fit. 

I have not accused RiverNerd of illegal activity or advocated the banishment of him and his customers. In fact, in a direct response to both you and carvedog, I stated it was “just unethical”, but that post was conveniently excluded by you. The post in question, was written as a what-if-scenario response to Koffler’s post, “yeah, its illegal, but how ya gonna catch that person”, in demonstrating how easily such persons could be caught and harsh, if the government wanted to pursue it as an illegal issue. In fact, I never mention RiverNerd in this post. Sorry, if that was not written clear enough or misunderstood. 

Please consider this single post as misunderstanding, considering that none of my other posts even mention illegal activity.

Your “hostile” accusation is a bit two-faced, coming from you of all people. You’ve advocate in multiple Buzz threads that you “support non-violent civil disobedience” (Feelings about D. Trump & etc.). On the other hand, my civil disobedient approach of suggesting that we start utilizing the telephone to finally get the Forest Service’s attention and contact RiverNerd to expressed our dissatisfaction with the pay-to-play issue, is a far stretch from being “hostile” or an “attack”!

Yeah, I’m pissed off at the current state of the cancelation system, but I’ve had polite and constructive conversations with the river offices.

I’ve done my due diligence of writing emails to the various river office, in which I always get a generic copy & paste response, informing me the problem is just more and more demand and there are safeguards in place. For them, emails are conveniently ignored and whitewashed on their part. It became apparent, it was time to try the civil disobedient approach.

In the spirit of civil disobedience, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and our squeaky wheel is the phone. Even you’ve expressed displeasure is using the phone. Today, people sit around and anxiously wait for a text rather than pick up the phone and call someone.

Despite your disdain for my squeaky wheel approach, it appears to have finally gotten the Forest Service and rec.gov doing something about this problem.

The only information and social media accounts I posted, were those actively being used by the owner to promote and push RiverNerd. Sorry, but he chose to utilize social media in his personal name as a method to advertise and push traffic towards the RiverNerd site. Sharing the social media that he was utilizing to promote his business is not doxing. I didn’t dig through the internet to find his private email & phone number. I just copied and pasted it directly from RiverNerd’s contact page. He made those public in his promotional media. However, he removed the phone number from the contact page later. I thought you only except “fact or evidence”? Fact, his media page indicates his intention to expand the service beyond the 4 River system. 

Contact - River Nerd

Your attempt to imply that my starting this thread is now less safe for others or has the potential for violence is just a distorted and exaggerated attempt vilify me. A lot people are rightfully pissed off that someone has potentially taken away their fair chance of obtaining a cancelation and doing so for profit. There have been zero indications of actual violence.

Sorry for the previous low-blow comment yesterday. In the previous 4 River thread, I indicated that I believed that it was likely some individuals were using computer programs to gain access to cancelations and you condescendingly implied I was _“largely tilting at windmills and could harm our credibility. Especially given the reality that we all know how many people fail to win launches each year…”_ In other words, I was off my rocker and just need to accept the reality most people fail to obtain permits.

You also stated, if I was truly concerned about my hypothesis it would be prudent I query the agency or rec.gov. However, I had already contacted them, but got the same generic response that safeguards were in place and I just need to accept the reality most people fail to obtain permits.

Then with your flippant and disdainful comments towards my posts on this this thread, I finally had a what the hell is his problem with me response yesterday. Again, sorry for taking the low-blow. Sorry you don’t approve of the starting of this thread, but it here to stay. I believe we should move on from our issues and attempt to work together for a better understanding and solution to the problem.

Sincerely, RDH


----------



## hcooke (Sep 17, 2009)

Media report on Friday a.m.:




http://idahobusinessreview.com/2017...repreneur-is-making-waves-with-river-rafters/


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

What's up with the moderating on MB? Typed up a long post regarding the topic and it said it needed moderator approval and then it was never posted. Anyways... Here's some more info on River Nerd. I took it from his public Facebook page so definitely not trying to cause trouble. Also noticed on his page which he since edited out that some of his users were able to snag to MF cancellations. Then you have his buddy a few pages back here saying he has no paying customers and none of his users have been able to get permits yet. Seems a little fishy. Maybe they don't like the heat from the FS.

Venture College entrepreneur is making waves with river rafters – Idaho Business Review


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Per moderation..posts have recently been caught up in an automated process that seems really vigilant on hyperlinks. There is no automated notification for the moderators so please let us know if there are any we have not manually approved.

Sorry for the inconvenience as its something we are currently trying to address.


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

Go ahead and delete the long one I typed prior to this. I think I got my point across.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

RDH,

First, I don't think I ever made a statement about the existence of this thread. I participate because I think the conversation matters and often think its these types of disagreements that lead to better change. This is part of group development and it's better for it to happen here then later in the process in front of the agencies, imho. I think that is especially true when a notion of only one fair option is being presented despite diverse opinions within our community. 

Two, from what I can tell he only linked a River Nerd email and a phone number. Exposing his full name, personal facebook, instagram and LinkedIn account is a step beyond what was associated with his business endeavor. The fact he removed his phone number supports my concern. You may find it acceptable but I stand by it being unsafe and there are plenty of examples of how that can quickly go wrong. Can't stop you but I can publicly critique the choice. He's part of our community whether you like it or not so I think it does us a disservice to make it less safe for him to participate. 

I definitely support the right of civil disobedience. It can be a powerful tool. I support active citizenry and phone calls. They can work as we have seen. I critique your style and the tone you direct at others. That is not mutually exclusive with supporting others rights to engage how they deem appropriate. They messy truth is I can do both and think its fair game to criticize such passionate public statements. If you had a polite conversation with the agency then more power to you. The way you described the approach of calling them was the focus of my criticism. Ultimately civil servants will do what is right but its because most of them want to find solutions and care about the resource. I don't know if you have ever been on the other side of the line of a mob of "pissed off" constituents but its counter productive to direct any such tone or hostility at the middlemen. Take it to the person at the top. You seem to agree so maybe your calls for action can better reflect that in the future? 

I take your personal preference seriously but have no problem describing your 7 year old link that had no support or evidence as tilting at windmills. I find that fair and accurate given your claim of a "smoking gun". I try my best to scale my response to the content. Given how quickly falsehoods spread on the internet I have found it critical of members of any community to self-regulate. When leveling such major allegations the onus is on you to have matching evidence. You eventually found some evidence to support your claim but it was after my initial response. And I think I actually suppported further research. But take a look at the title of this thread, its a prime example of how the passion gets ahead of the facts. There is no scalping and that exuberant claim has led people to think RiverNerd's service affected the initial release of cancellations. It did not and structurally could not. 

Sorry for the imprecise use of illegal though several us obviously read it that way. The term you used in this thread was "violate", specifically in regards to for profit activity like his. I thought illegal was an appropriate synonym for such a claim about federal policy. I will be more careful. I will say its difficult not to see your "hypothetical" scenario as anything but directed at RiverNerd and his customers. I don't think that is a leap at all.

To the general hostility...I don't think naming content and comments and criticising them is hostile. I believe engaging in innuendo to undermine others and ad hominem attacks (like calling RiverNerd a greedy SOB) are hostile. And it snowballs, just look at the hate directed at dingdong. 

I have made plenty of missteps on this forum. I assume I will again. Sorry we miscommunicate and I do my best to focus on specific comments and their implications. I do my best to separate the person from the ideas but can always improve.


----------



## LSB (Mar 23, 2004)

deadlizard said:


> But just having it there meant most bots didn't even try. The time spent could be better used elsewhere.


So is keeping it under the hood is good or bad? I dont know enough about coding or security but I can say from experience that my banks' pages require everything but a DNA sample to let me in sometimes.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

LSB said:


> So is keeping it under the hood is good or bad? I dont know enough about coding or security but I can say from experience that my banks' pages require everything but a DNA sample to let me in sometimes.


Rec.gov needs to address the problem of folks creating numerous sock puppet accounts on rec.gov with just any email account. In an afternoon and a $200 on a prepaid credit card, it’s possible to have 30 chances of winning the lottery (Salmon 1:29). Fixing this problem will likely require they start requiring everything like an online bank does.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

> It didn’t cost much to set up the service. He paid a *software developer in Russia* to write the script that monitors the website, and he got help from peers at the Venture College in finding a site developer and setting up his business.


So does this guy also work for Team Trump too? Yeeesh.


----------



## deadlizard (Mar 10, 2008)

*Do not know much about banks.*



LSB said:


> So is keeping it under the hood is good or bad? I dont know enough about coding or security but I can say from experience that my banks' pages require everything but a DNA sample to let me in sometimes.


But my guess is they are more concerned about data validation than about some time-based hack. Probably does not matter if you code-fill, auto-fill, or manually type in your username/password and then press submit.

They are only going to give you 3-4 attempts before suspending the login and then you are going to have to know the email address/cell number blah blah required to get back in. I'm sure they are quite good about encrypting connection info such as database names, servers, etc.

I'm a bit surprised that gov.com will allow multiple concurrent sessions with a single user account. What I did not test was to see if each of those login sessions mapped all transactions back to a unique session key. Otherwise they just let a single user/single account have as many sessions as they could scrape together. If an attempt had 500 bots poised to press the enter key, the least you could do was force them to have 500 valid user accounts. That takes some work. Not so much to have 1 hacked account that 500 bots can launch from.

Another item I would look into is to see who rec.gov is using for their timeserver. It would not hurt to be on the same time down to a millisecond as their servers.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

So are you a moderator restrac? God I'm ignorant, but I do try.


----------



## Rockgizmo (May 21, 2009)

So the Selway has a permit for May 16th available, didn't anyone get the text


----------

