# Ladies and Gentlemen: Your Upper Colorado River Corridor Plan:



## MountainmanPete (Jun 7, 2014)

Speak now or forever hold your peace: 

"Before analyzing the preliminary alternatives in detail through an environmental assessment, the BLM wants to the public to have a chance to review and provide comments. "

https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/33853/

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front...me=dispatchToPatternPage&currentPageId=115740

Let the shitshow commence. I guess I am glad I got to see it before it was regulated.


----------



## robemega (Feb 24, 2013)

So what's wrong with regulating usage? I see plenty of benefits to guidelines for camping and day use.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

Whats wrong?? I guess that depends. Seems like one plan mostly regulates boaters. So, the 3 plans kinda pit boaters against hikers. And developers against traditionalist folk. From what I gather regulation is a coming. That means development and more people to camp grounds and more complications for boater permits. So as the boating community, do we just say quite to let hikers rome freely. Or do we force the issue and make everyone be regulated???


----------



## MountainmanPete (Jun 7, 2014)

Lets face it. The Upper C has become a urban float. It is the most easily accessible stretch of floatable water within reach of the states largest population density. Change is inevitable. What is important is that the actual users that know the area and what is going on should make their voices heard otherwise don't complain about the changes after they happen. 

0.02


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

Pete did you read the 3 options?


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

dirtbagkayaker said:


> Whats wrong?? I guess that depends. Seems like one plan mostly regulates boaters. So, the 3 plans kinda pit boaters against hikers. And developers against traditionalist folk. From what I gather regulation is a coming. That means development and more people to camp grounds and more complications for boater permits. So as the boating community, do we just say quite to let hikers rome freely. Or do we force the issue and make everyone be regulated???


I don't understand your response. Plan A leaves things as is. Plans B only requires overnight permits, hence the focus on boaters but explicitly prohibits campsite usage along the river by hikers. It also affects motorized routes. Plan C requires permits for all with all the same parameters of Plan B.

How do any of the plans pit boaters against hikers? 

What do you mean by forcing the issue to regulate everyone (ie Plan C?) 

I clearly don't understand that logic. I think plans like this benefit from public comments that acknowledge the existing impact to the resource and the visitor experience and offer up support for plans that attempt to solve them or better the situation. Recommending Plan C would require an explanation of why permits for day use would benefit the area since Plan B already prohibits campsite competition from hikers. What is solved by requiring day use permits for everyone, besides raising funds if there is a fee associated?


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

I think we can all agree that plan A anit happening. 

I think this is the biggest difference between plan B and plan C

_"Day use permits would be required for all users (hikers, wade fishing, floatboaters, warm spring users) in RMZs 2, 3, and 5. "_

I'm just typing the thought that (plan B = plan C) if youre a boater. But if youre a hiker plan C is much more restrictive than plan B. So, if boaters are happy and quiet then Hikers get to run free across the lands. Our only other option is to cry about whatever until they pass the restrictions on to hikers because plan A aint going down.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

dirtbagkayaker said:


> I think we can all agree that plan A anit happening.
> 
> I think this is the biggest difference between plan B and plan C
> 
> ...


Are the number or behaviors of hikers causing problems in the corridor under consideration? Have their numbers doubled in the same amount of time? I just don't see how the last two sentences are relevant unless the answers to that question are yes. If so, then recommend Plan C with real justification and how it solves those problems. If not, then I see no benefit to wanting to require them place restrictions on another user group.

Plan A is an option if enough people can show it is better for the river experience and the environment than the stated alternatives. I personally doubt that is likely given the comments I have read here through the years and the spike in usage the report has cited. Insightful, well-supported, non-inflammatory comments can go a long way in these public comment periods. Only consider a form letter if the explicit theme, they normally group it by one per letter, is exactly what you support. Often unique, personal letters can carry more weight but are harder to solicit because of the time involved.

Another example of "loving it to death"?


----------



## jalthage (May 11, 2006)

I've been on that stretch for 12 years and I don't think I've EVER seen a campsite taken by hikers with the exception of windy point and I'm pretty sure those folks drove there... 
Is hiking really that big of an issue? Truly asking, not trying to be a jerk.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

I like full on wilderness designation. But thats not on the table. It looks like people here like B. I'll bet on plan C happening no matter what people say. This is a development project to study the impact and we cant do that if we don't collect verifiable data on hikers too. The sooner we collect data, the better our records will be. 

Rec you just said what I said but in your words. You do not believe A too. You agree that B or C will win. Hikers are not going to come out for more regulation. The only group that would support C are???? People who want real data! Garbage in - Garbage out. Permits and regulation can give integrity to data for future discussions. Just saying...


----------



## jbolson (Apr 6, 2005)

The only place hikers are impactful, in my experience, is at the hot springs.

On the plan, assuming regulation is coming, I would question the development of RV sites at pumphouse. I think pumphouse should be dedicated for river runners and not opened to the RV community.


----------



## Eagle Mapper (Mar 24, 2008)

I have also used this area for years and have never seen or had interactions with hikers other than the hot springs. I am for Alt B, this cleans up the camping situation brings a different level of thoughtful boater into these areas b/c of the level of planning and required equipment that would be needed. I do not like the idea of not being able to just float a section of the river without a permit. I think their needs to be regulations on wearing PFD's and the type of vessels that are allowed. If Alt B or Alt C happen, which I think they will, it will only put more stress on sections below SB which is already happening. Maybe this getting out on the river fad will just fade away....haha


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I agree that a permit on the upper stretch will likely push more users to the lower run. 

How are pfd's managed in CO? 

I would recommend anyone who has comments about RVs in campgrounds to note that explicitly. You can actually send multiple responses to many of these plans which allows you to dedicate each letter to a specific issue. Granted, it would help to have a plan you consistently recommend if you want one in particular to be the alternative chosen. 

Doesn't sound like hikers are a big issue or impact from comments so far. Seems like recommending a trailhead kiosk and yearly surveys could help collect data. Using a cooperation based approach like that is often better relationship wise if resource degradation isn't happening. Requiring permits, ie compliance based management, is often taken as unnecessary escalation by the parties affected. I have seen long term resentment and tensions after such means have been implemented when its only justified by data collection. Kiosks can also be supplemented with trail cameras and sensors to get better counts than the logs people voluntarily choose to sign.

Hope the region finds a viable solution.


----------



## Treswright3 (May 20, 2013)

I have already wrote my comments into the BLm folks, but I thought I would share the highlights. 

Im not opposed to camping permits, I camp on this stretch a lot and its great that I can do it at the drop of a hat its also difficult to plan where to camp since its first come first serve. I usually have other friends joining me and without cell service it can be difficult to meet up at times. I am Very Strongly opposed to any day use permit and I cannot imagine that they would introduce one, seeing the popularity of the river and the fact that there is not really another river section that boaters can use outside of runoff season. 

I also just cannot believe that with so much camping in the area that there is no official rules on Groovers. There is shit all over the place up there and that is unacceptable.

The first thing they need to do is close off access to the hot springs to anyone except boaters. This may sound wrong to say that I can use it but someone else can't but the fact is that the hot springs are simply overrun and the situation there is out of control. There is nothing wrong with a big party there but I routinely stop and pick up many many beer cans and other trash. I have seen with my own eyes that the large majority of this trash is left by the trashy people that hike in to the springs. Id like to think that if someone owns a raft they should at least have some respect or experience in keeping the rivers clean. Also the camping at the top of the cliffs above the springs has turned into a festival like scene up there. A couple weeks ago i saw over 50 people camping and partying up there. Its just gotten ridiculous and I blame the hike in/drive in folks for most of it. 

Also, how come this river never has any river rangers? The Ark does, and those guys are great. They are not the law enforcement type looking to crash a good time either, they are simply there to educate and help people have a good time. If your camping in Browns canyon your likely to have them pull up and ask if you brought a Groover and fire pan, just the simple act of being there increases proper use of the area. 

I hope this area continues to be a place I can enjoy on the weekends and I hope they dont ruin it with unneeded rules, however I do believe that the management plan needs to be tweaked a little to better protect the area and increase the user experience.


----------



## cdcfly (Jul 28, 2013)

Today's the last day - email comments are still possible.


----------

