# This Gig's Rigged



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

> Thank you for submitting a lottery application for a Grand Canyon noncommercial river permit. We regret to inform you that you were not a winner. We wish you better luck next time.


Fucking A! 8 years now on the list, full "extra chances," and still nothing.

So how many of you have been on the list forever and had no luck?

How many have pulled a permit within 2?

I know at least 4 or 5 who've gotten it first try and I'm starting to get pissed at the system here. I call bullshit on this fucking lottery system.


----------



## gapers (Feb 14, 2004)

I blame Bush.

Got rejected. Again.


----------



## Badazws6 (Mar 4, 2007)

So who is rigging it and how?


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

Shhh! You're not supposed to blow my cover of anger induced delusion. I'm just pissed at the man and it's gettin' me down.

But seriously, if I knew the answer to the first question I'd have already judo-chopped their ass and if I knew the answer to the second, I'd be floating and not typing right now.


----------



## sj (Aug 13, 2004)

Well for what it's worth. I have done it a bunch and would love nothing more than to do it again. But i keep my name off the list becuse of stories like yours. Better luck next year. sj


----------



## Badazws6 (Mar 4, 2007)

COUNT said:


> Shhh! You're not supposed to blow my cover of anger induced delusion. I'm just pissed at the man and it's gettin' me down.


Well I'll certainly agree with you it is rigged, I know how and who is doing it.

Politicians rigged it for the commercials for the sake of $$$.


----------



## skibuminwyo (Nov 8, 2005)

Badazws6 said:


> Well I'll certainly agree with you it is rigged, I know how and who is doing it.
> 
> Politicians rigged it for the commercials for the sake of $$$.



Really?!?  nooooo way.


----------



## lmaciag (Oct 10, 2003)

Sorry Derk. I lost too, but wasn't on the old system. Very surprised at how fast the results came. Closed at noon, e-mail by 2pm. At least they are quick at giving you the bad news...

Laurie


----------



## Badazws6 (Mar 4, 2007)

lmaciag said:


> Sorry Derk. I lost too, but wasn't on the old system. Very surprised at how fast the results came. Closed at noon, e-mail by 2pm. At least they are quick at giving you the bad news...
> 
> Laurie


Makes you wonder if you even had a chance if you submitted at 11:59...


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

I won. wow.


----------



## gapers (Feb 14, 2004)

FLOWTORCH said:


> I won. wow.


 
Aww,shiiit. Guess who's goin on the Grand next March!


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

sj said:


> Well for what it's worth. I have done it a bunch and would love nothing more than to do it again. But i keep my name off the list becuse of stories like yours. Better luck next year. sj


That's really damn cool of you. Thanks (I'm sure you don't get that nearly often enough for that kind of thankless gesture).

Since people are actually responding (this was really just for venting purposes, originally) I'll, say a little more. I think the lottery system is ultimately better than the idea of waitlist that eventually breaks 20 years. But it really blows for those of us that were on the list before and have just had rotten luck. In my opinion, they should have locked the waitlist and phased out all members before switching (yes, I realize everyone who wasn't on the list before would be pissed at this method; got any ideas that are more fair, though?).

It's total BS that commercials get more spots. While I personally feel that the commercial companies should have to go through the same process with the same chances as a private, at the very least, they could split the launches 50/50. There's nothing that pisses me off more than talking to somebody who runs it every year because they can afford to drop the cash for it. To me it's the same as saying "I have more money therefor I'm better than you and don't have to jump through all the same hoops."

(Can you tell I'm still a little pissed off?) 

So, for the winners, how long have you been trying for this permit?

COUNT


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

*7+5=10 ???*

I am pissed off as well. And apparently I can't do math. Please help explain...... You get one point for every year on the "old" wait list PLUS one point for every year you haven't gone (up to a max of 5). Right?

SO, I get the max points of 5 (for not going in 5 years), plus 5 points for paying $100 in 2001 for the old waitlist. That is 10. Great. But this is 2008, going for the 2009 lottery, so why is that just 5 for the old waitlist? We are talking 7 years on the old list, for a date 8 years from my entrance fee. I am so confused and frustrated. 

I think people on the old list were way better off having a chance to call in for a cancellation. It was very straight-forward, and almost even fair. Or we (on the old waitlist) should get 2 points for every year on the old list until we are all gone. It is just building up resentment. I especially like looking at the statistics page to see people winning my date with only 2 or 3 points. And how is this fair?  

jennifer


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Count,

I think the Park did the best it could in devising a transition that involved thousands of folks like yourself. Not a perfect system, but one that has put a lot of the waiting list folks on the river, while still allowing new people on via the lottery. 

And while it's no comfort to you as a non-selectee, it is worth noting that the user-day allocation between private and commercial sectors is almost exactly 50/50 now. There are seasonal and launch differentials, but the total use between the two has been shifted dramatically in the direction private boaters, as opposed to the old system. 

Rich Phillips (who just got his non-selected email as well)
VP, GCPBA 
gcpba.org


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Jennifer,

Here is the Park's explanation on the lottery point system, from the lottery FAQ.

***

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE FROM THE OLD WAITLIST SYSTEM?

What happened to the people from the old waitlist system?

While enacting the new system, we have tried to be fair to former waitlist members. Under the old system we released approximately 240 noncommercial trips per year, and around 50 of these were winter dates. People joined the waitlist to be in line to eventually get one of these dates. Before starting the transition process, we projected how long it would take for each of the 7,296 existing waitlist members to reach the top portion of the waitlist and schedule a launch under the old system, and we notified each member of our findings. Next, we released 240 launch dates per year from 2007 through 2011 to waitlist members (notice, this is the same number of launch dates as previously released each year through the old system). Finally, for the remaining waitlist members, we gave each a choice, they could leave the waitlist and take a full refund of the waitlist fees they had paid us, or they could leave the waitlist and accept extra chances in the lottery with some added assurance. These extra chances are non-transferable and are very much designed to ensure most former waitlist members “win” through the lottery as soon or sooner than they would have under the old system.

Explain this “added assurance.” How will the NPS step forward to help?
The "added assurance" is given solely to those individuals who transferred from the waitlist choosing extra chances (instead of a refund) and continue to have these extra chances. (Extra chances expire when the former waitlist member wins a trip through the lottery or participates on any part of a Grand Canyon Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek noncommercial or commercial river trip.) If any of these individuals do not win or participate on a trip (noncommercial or commercial) as soon or sooner than our prediction for them under the old waitlist system, we will step forward to help, giving the person a one time option to choose either 1) to have their extra chances tripled, or 2) to pre-schedule a trip ahead of the lottery by choosing from a limited number of launch dates.

As part of this process, in February through the April 2007, we contacted and worked with the 239 people who currently qualified for this assistance:

136 chose to pre-schedule
101 chose to have their extra chances tripled
2 chose refunds

In November and December 2007 we worked with the 92 people who qualified for assistance in 2008:
38 chose to pre-schedule
54 chose to have their extra chances tripled

The following chart has been updated to show the number of people that currently qualify for this assistance in future years. It should be noted that the total number of people who qualify for this help will decrease year after year as individuals participate on other trips and win trips through the lottery.

The chart and other information is found at

http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/River_and_Weighted_Lottery_FAQs.pdf

***

In reading this, it seems to me Count might want to look at the chart in the FAQ and if applicable, contact the River Office about the "triple points" option that's mentioned, which is one of the ways they're working to help folks in his situation.

Hope this helps.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA
gcpba.org


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

It's all in how you do the math........ I guess, Rich. They launch 6 trips to our 1 and 1/2 trips a day. they can put on 24 or 32 passengers while we are limited to 8 or 16. Their 50/50 is used in a 4 month period or so, compaired to us running in the winter and off season. It's all apples to oranges as far as I'm concerned. They use to not even count our winter season under the old plan. It's just another way to get to that 50/50 number your talking about. I'm just hoping that 7 years down the road we can fair this thing up a little better................but as long as money drives the grinding wheels........it could be doubtful............unless we all take a stand.


----------



## gapers (Feb 14, 2004)

COUNT said:


> There's nothing that pisses me off more than talking to somebody who runs it every year because they can afford to drop the cash for it. To me it's the same as saying "I have more money therefor I'm better than you and don't have to jump through all the same hoops."


 
But the majority of these lame tourists aren't running Lee's ferry to Diamond Creek,right? Which,IMO,isn't "rafting the grand." I take solace in that. 
F em. Grand in March 09,ladies!


----------



## sj (Aug 13, 2004)

Count I just put my name back on:twisted: . Got invited by a freind who got an early April Date. Put her name on in 01-93. Park did the best they could I guess. Everyone's thinking they got screwd. sj


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Caverdan,

Yup, there are a lot of different ways you can look at it. Launches are not equitable, but access has been greatly expanded in the Spring and Fall, when being in the Canyon is a tremendous experience. It was a compromise from the ideal, but we did get major gains. And as an aside, the old winter trips were a pilot project -- they weren't part of the regular allocation. 

Actually, one of the bigggest worries I had about the development of the CRMP was that the Park would conduct a public survey of interest in the various types of GC trips. Because the vast majority of the public (if they were interested at all in a GC trip) would select a commercial trip. And if that showed up in a survey, private boaters could never justify the allocation we now have.

There actually was a comment in the Administrative Record that I reviewed for the lawsuit, that illustrates this nicely. A woman said that she was sure that if you surveyed the US public anywhere outside of Flagstaff and Moab, the commercial trips would win out hands down. A survey that reflected raw public opinion would lose us the 50/50 we now have.

We tend not to think in these terms, at least in part because we operate in a sort of monoculture. Our interests and skills naturally lead to a private trip orientation for most of us. And we reinforce each other, and forget that there is a much wider world out there -- of people who want to see the Canyon but don't have the skills we do. Or the time we devote to our river interests. Or the specialized equipment. And those folks are far more numerous. 

But I absolutely agree that on the next CRMP planning cycle, we should be looking for ways to improve the river access situation for private boaters. The current system is not perfect, and GCPBA is going to actively track it and will be ready to propose further advances for the private boating community.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Big Tuna (Apr 13, 2004)

Flow,
Count me in, every group needs a dirty Jew. Just leave that thief "the puker" behind!
Wanted: Topless "loose hippy biatches" for the ride of their life; 14 ft of frothy heaven!


----------



## COLDFEAR (Apr 20, 2004)

I lost also!!!!! succckkkk..............


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich, thanks for your help. But I've read the rules 100 times, and I still don't understand why I only get 5 points for being on the old waitlist since 2001. It seems to me that 2008-2001=7 extra points from the old system. If I can't at least get a point for every year, how about triple my reduced points.


----------



## gapers (Feb 14, 2004)

therivertheriver said:


> Flow,
> Count me in, every group needs a dirty Jew. Just leave that thief "the puker" behind!
> Wanted: Topless "loose hippy biatches" for the ride of their life; 14 ft of frothy heaven!


 
Oooooo! Sick burn


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Jennifer,

There must be something about your situation that particularizes it. I'd suggest giving the River Office (800-959-9164 ) a call and asking for clarification on how the new rules apply to you.

Rich


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

I always enjoy your words of wisdom, Rich. I sure don't see why we can't get a little more use for us in the non commercial season when they are putting on so much use in their short season. A launch or two more a day in their off season would go huge for us private boaters. We might not even need a lottery and could look at a call in system like Westwater. Just a thought.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

derk what date(s) did you apply for? i think that makes a HUGE difference in odds - much more so than your points since i hardly had any and got first lottery win.


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Gotta admit I'm stoked on the new system. It's only my second time applying and I'll be going for a second time. Dont hate, dont hate. I've been waiting for this for 15 or so years, I just never applied before b/c it was a huge clusterfuk. I like the lottery system. It's the commercials we gotta hate 

And dates applied for is HuDge. Gotta go off season.


----------



## peak (Apr 7, 2006)

10 chances...nothing...feeling blue myself, like I've been bad or something...nice to know I'm not alone, but I am drinking alone tonight...

download and look at the stats: http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/noncommercial-riv-docs.htm
looks like most summer trips were taken by folks w/5 chances(probably first timers?)...I wonder if we'll see more winners w/fewer chances as those folks with mucho chances get their trips...and how does one get 44 chances? am I reading things wrong? gasp!..it IS rigged!!!


----------



## northfwestg (Feb 23, 2006)

*bullshit*

fuckem all, just show up and run it patriot act stylee


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

Yeah, I know season is a big deal. Unfortunately, I have this unmoving and unforgiving commitment for 9 months of the year and can't make it happen during Christmas because the resorts (business my family is in) is on a 110% schedule. So, yeah, I guess the dates I'm looking for are popular, but still, 5 years on the waitlist, and 3 years with 10 chances each year and nothing? And just like Jennifer says, the resentment only grows every year. I was cool with it for the first 5, realized the points system wasn't a guarantee so I was okay with years 6 and 7. But year 8, now with 3x10=30 chances, and I'm getting irked.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Caverdan,

The late fall/winter/early spring launch schedule (and particularly the small trip situation) seems ripe to me for some modest expansion. But that would be way down the line. 

We have to bear in mind that the EIS behind the CRMP did identify adverse impacts associated with the current level of use, albeit determining that they were acceptable. But at some point, additional user-days in the "off" season would bump up against some environmental concerns. GCRG and some other key folks very clearly think the Canyon already is over-allocated, so this is not a slam-dunk in any case.

As to how much use is too much, I don't know what that tipping point would be, or how its determinants would be quantified. GCPBA officers are meeting with the Park in a few weeks to talk about a number of issues, including use patterns and firewood concerns. I'll see if I can discern any budding problems that would shade the issue one way or another. 

But I can say that for now there is little or no probability of adding off-season launches, because the existing launch pattern accounts for all the user-days we have in the 50/50 allocation. That is beyond anything the Park can do with its adaptive management strategy.

And Count, I don't know what to say about your situation. The thread running on the Idaho list right now tells the sad story of people (just like me) who have been applying for the four rivers lottery for decades without a hit. Some of us are just snakebit, I guess. 

What I can say is that I've had numerous contacts personally, by phone, and by email over the last few years with Steve Sullivan in the River Office. 
I think he did a masterful job in finding a way to whittle down a totally out of control waiting list, while still allowing new boaters to get on the river. And I think he's totally committed to helping people any way he can within the parameters of the system. So I'd urge you to call him as well, and see if there is any other tweaking that can be done to be sure you're getting the full benefit of the system.

Gonna be on the road quite a bit for the next month with limited internet access. Hope this helps.

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA
gcpba.org


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Just checked the statistics. The winner of the spring date I was trying for only had 5 points to my 10 (which should be 12, as pointed out). Rich, I will call to inquire about that. Anyhow, I guess it is better than last time, when someone with 2 points beat me. 

Peak - you can get 44 points when a bunch of people on the old waitlist use each other as PATL's. Then you can add all the years for all the people on the old waitlist. I love this, because it actually seems to give the old waitlist folks a little edge, and takes a lot of folks OFF the old list. I tried this myself, but none of my friends have any points to add, since they win the lottery every year with 1 or 2 points. No help at all...... 

Seriously, Rich, I don't think just 1 (or less than 1) point extra for being on the old list is fair. Those people have showed a desire and paid money a long time ago for a chance to get a trip, and when passed up every year by people who had been waiting longer, it was understandable. I used to look at my old waitlist number, and be happy every year as the number got smaller and smaller. It gave me something to hope for. By now I would have a Wed. or maybe even Tues. call in date for cancellations, and stand a pretty good chance. Ok, I'll stop whinning now. Just had to vent a bit more.


----------



## ecjohnson (Nov 6, 2007)

*My thoughts*

I think the best way to mitigate impact is to continue what has been done to some camps. Camps like Soap Creek, Nanko, Hance and the scouting trail that was built. The wilderness proponents won't like that, as it is a manufactured feel. However, the Canyon is fully impacted by man at this point... large cement plug. The only way, without annual floods to rebuild beaches and mitigate impact is to make camps and areas susceptible to impact more durable. I'm excited for this year's GTS to find out what some plans are. Most of us are idealists - I would love a pristine canyon - but we need to see the reality of the situation and do our best to be responsible about the place we all love. 

When Kenton Grua started GCRG, the goal was to end the divisiveness in the commercial community, and it's working pretty well at this point. We aren't going to solve anything if we are constantly fighting eachother. There is a lot of potential to make things work for everyone, but nothing is going to be fixed instantaneously. It's a process. I think in the long run, the new system will be more fair. 

Maybe there should also be an effort to work on camps used most commonly by commercial's. Many TL's have a relatively set itinerary. Not that it's necessary, they've just been doing it so long that they know an itinerary that works well. Maybe that way, there could also be a list of camps preferred by commercial's so there is less fighting for camps. Just an idea. Not a reservation system, that would suck.

This has gotten a bit off topic, but my mind was rolling this morning.

Ethan 



richp said:


> As to how much use is too much, I don't know what that tipping point would be, or how its determinants would be quantified. GCPBA officers are meeting with the Park in a few weeks to talk about a number of issues, including use patterns and firewood concerns. I'll see if I can discern any budding problems that would shade the issue one way or another.
> 
> 
> Rich Phillips
> ...


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Hey Count- May I recommend lurking on some of the GC groups? I got on a trip coming up in 6 weeks. It seems like some details of the new rules will make it easier to find single/double openings on other people's trips. Some may not like the idea of going with people they don't know, but it seems pretty common and I think I got in with a really neat group of people.


----------



## Badazws6 (Mar 4, 2007)

richp said:


> Actually, one of the bigggest worries I had about the development of the CRMP was that the Park would conduct a public survey of interest in the various types of GC trips. Because the vast majority of the public (if they were interested at all in a GC trip) would select a commercial trip. And if that showed up in a survey, private boaters could never justify the allocation we now have.
> 
> There actually was a comment in the Administrative Record that I reviewed for the lawsuit, that illustrates this nicely. A woman said that she was sure that if you surveyed the US public anywhere outside of Flagstaff and Moab, the commercial trips would win out hands down. A survey that reflected raw public opinion would lose us the 50/50 we now have.


Wow, this comment really hit home for me and caused me to rethink things. I would be interested in more conversation around this. Specifically:

Is it really fair?

Is the general public really getting "screwed" by having to pay more money to do it?

Is it really more expensive for commerical users when you count the lottery fees people pay on a yearly basis, expecially when you hear story's like Counts?

What exactly is the level of demand for commercial trips?

Anything else anyone can come up with...


----------



## oarbender (Feb 3, 2007)

I lost too. again.

I think the trick to getting on a trip is to be able to go last minute. I mean like, in a week. I have a couple of friends that play this every year, and have been for 10 plus years. neither have had a bad trip yet.

just a thought


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

Yeah, I lurked on the other forums for a while looking for openings and people to team up with. The problem I ended up with on all of these was that I had made enough progress on the waitlist that, like jennifer said, I was starting to get good numbers for cancellations. I figured within a couple years my number'd be good enough that I'd have a solid chance at getting a date I wanted. As a result, I started planning the trip. Which means that I ended up with 7 or 8 good friends who were definitely in and I promised them a spot. I'd feel pretty shitty if I left them high and dry and jumped on some random person's permit with one spot. Guess the being prepared and planning ahead kind of bit me in the ass on that one.

Matt, I'm not sure, but I believe that former waitlisters do not have to pay the lottery fee every time. I paid $100 initially to get on the waitlist and then $25 for that first lottery. When I filled it out this time around, it said I had to pay but then after I put in all the CC info, it said I already had a $25 credit. So maybe they did something right after all .

Increasing the launches to almost 50/50 is definitely progress. Albeit those increases are hidden in the off-season. Ideally, I think it would be great if the launches were 50/50 year-round (as in private boaters and commercials both get X launches in the summer, y launches in the fall, winter, etc.).

Rich, I hope you don't take this personally. You and Steve (and Tom, too) have all been doing an excellent job with this. I think the decades long waitlist is definitely a system to avoid and I think the weighted lottery is generally a good system. I just wish that those of us who put in their time already got permits before those guys who just started. I'm really just pissed at the system and my luck. I feel for ya on the 4-Rivers lottery system. Those are tough to get. Guess maybe I used up all my good luck in getting my MFS permit first time through.

COUNT


----------



## raftus (Jul 20, 2005)

Badazws6 said:


> Wow, this comment really hit home for me and caused me to rethink things. I would be interested in more conversation around this. Specifically:
> 
> Is it really fair?
> 
> ...


Commercial Grand Canyon (GC) trips cost more than private trips by a long shot, even if you get a full package from Moenkopi, PRO or REO - 16 days is about $1000-1200 per person including permits. Even if you add in 20 years of $25 lottery fees, thats only $500, not even close to making up the price difference. OARS charges $4700 for a 16 day trip Lees to Diamond. 

If you could legally hire 4 private guides for say $175 each a day, and pay their way, it would cost you 16x4x175 = $11,200, plus 4 people at $1,000 each, is $15,200. Divided by the remaining 12 people on the trip is $1,267 each, plus their own cost of $1,000, plus 1/12 of $500 equals $2,367-$2,567. About half what OARS charges, so maybe the public gets screwed by not being able to hire private guides. But this dosen't really answer if the public/private allocation is fair. 

Trips on Cataract cost less per day, by anywhere from $50 to $130 less than most GC trips. And if you look at multi-day trip prices across the US the GC price per day is generally a fair bit higher. But how does that compare in terms of fairness to private river runners waiting an average of 10 years? I don't have a good answer. You could compare how much more it costs to get a commercial GC trip as opposed to other trips and then compare that difference to the difference in private waiting times for various multi-day trips. That would answer if the private vs commercial price vs. wait time differential is vaguely equal. 

--------------------------------------
Something else to chew on:
There has been a proposal that everyone, commercial client or private person, apply in a lottery for all launch dates. Then whoever wins decides if they want to hire an outfitter or go private. This *might* be the fairest way to do allocation. But it might be bad for private trips.

Last year something like 17,000 commercial passengers went down the grand. 2300 private people applied for permits resulting in 7000 private people going down the GC. This results in a ratio of about 3 people per permit application actually going. User days were split 50/50. Number of participants was 70/30 for commercial people. Trips launches was about 55/45 for commercials. 

If the ratio of 3 people per application stuck for commercial passengers one might guess that there would be about 5,800 commercial passengers applying for permits. Of course if the national lottery for all GC trips got a lot of publicity everyone and their brother might decide to join in, then again they might not. Anyway if 5,800 extra people joined the lottery, added to the 2,300 private boaters we would have 8,100 applicants. There is a total of 1,101 permitted launches available. Private boaters would then be expected to get 28% of launches instead of the current 45%. Your odds of getting a permit (commercial or private) would be about 13%, for a projected wait of 7.5 years for a permit. With the current system, the average wait (my calculations) is about 12 years. After the wait list is extinguished your wait would be about 4.5 years with the current system. 

However if the commercial rafting public finds out if takes 7 years to get a permit, a lot more people will probably apply - after all whats $25 if you are willing to spend $4,700 per person for the trip? And then private boaters odds of winning a permit will be reduced. Wait times could balloon significantly, 20,000 lottery applicants would mean 18 years average time to win, 40,000 would mean 35 years to win. And remember these are averages, some people would still win the first time, others might die before winning.


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

Cheeseandrice, Sean, did you have the day off or something?



raftus said:


> Commercial Grand Canyon (GC) trips cost more than private trips by a long shot, even if you get a full package from Moenkopi, PRO or REO - 16 days is about $1000-1200 per person including permits. Even if you add in 20 years of $25 lottery fees, thats only $500, not even close to making up the price difference. OARS charges $4700 for a 16 day trip Lees to Diamond.
> 
> If you could legally hire 4 private guides for say $175 each a day, and pay their way, it would cost you 16x4x175 = $11,200, plus 4 people at $1,000 each, is $15,200. Divided by the remaining 12 people on the trip is $1,267 each, plus their own cost of $1,000, plus 1/12 of $500 equals $2,367-$2,567. About half what OARS charges, so maybe the public gets screwed by not being able to hire private guides. But this dosen't really answer if the public/private allocation is fair.
> 
> ...


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

Who would PAY for private guides anyway? There's usually boatmen and boatwomen willing to kill for shot at the grand, even during winter...

Maybe if you're really ugly and smell bad you have to go with the rent-a-friend approach... Shit, for 175 bucks a day, I'd even row Ted Haggard down the ditch.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Although it is very admirable for you to not want to leave your friends high and dry, you don't have control over whether you EVER get a permit. You might wait years and years. Jumping on someone else's trip would get rid of your extra chances, but it's all a crapshoot anyways. Keep putting in, and have your friends who are committed put in also. In the meantime, go if you can, you might even find a trip with a couple of open spots. Remember, some of those people who are committed will have to back out just because things happen. I don't think you are stiffing your friends by jumping on another trip. If they really want to go, have them continue to put in and take advantage of their 5 chances. 



COUNT said:


> Yeah, I lurked on the other forums for a while looking for openings and people to team up with. The problem I ended up with on all of these was that I had made enough progress on the waitlist that, like jennifer said, I was starting to get good numbers for cancellations. I figured within a couple years my number'd be good enough that I'd have a solid chance at getting a date I wanted. As a result, I started planning the trip. Which means that I ended up with 7 or 8 good friends who were definitely in and I promised them a spot. I'd feel pretty shitty if I left them high and dry and jumped on some random person's permit with one spot. Guess the being prepared and planning ahead kind of bit me in the ass on that one.
> 
> COUNT


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I find the comments about private allocation during the spring/fall/winter somewhat odd. People keep dissing the solution as private boaters getting pushed into the "off" season. 

My personal take is that in the summer season the grand is hot as hell, and just about every river west of the mississippi is running. I'd rather be high up in the mountains of colorado than begging for shade in 110F+ heat. 

In the spring/fall/winter, not much is running in the west and the temps in the grand are managable. Thats the perfect time to head to the grand.

My $0.02 on the new lottery is that its WAY better to have a chance to get on every year than no chance for the next 20 years.


----------



## gapers (Feb 14, 2004)

deepsouthpaddler said:


> I find the comments about private allocation during the spring/fall/winter somewhat odd. People keep dissing the solution as private boaters getting pushed into the "off" season.
> 
> My personal take is that in the summer season the grand is hot as hell, and just about every river west of the mississippi is running. I'd rather be high up in the mountains of colorado than begging for shade in 110F+ heat.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed. That's why i'll be doing it in a year and two days


----------

