# RRFW Riverwire – Applications Now Open for Grand Canyon 2014 Main Lottery



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

Wow, lots of bias and contempt in there.


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

Agreed johnryan! Case in point:

"River Runners for Wilderness continues to hear anecdotal reports of passengers who participate on two or more concessions river trips per year."

"Objection Your Honor...... Hearsay!"

"Sustained!"


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi John and GCGuide,

Tom's entitled to pursue his anti-Park, anti-commercial strategy here, within whatever limits the moderators establish.

We are entitled to carefully parse his sometimes useful posts, to separate fact from agenda.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## tanderson (Mar 26, 2010)

Thanks to Tom for posting this.

I vote for Toms agenda! Keep up the good work!


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

He IS absolutely entitled to his opinions! But, I should be allowed the same courtesy, I think.


----------



## coloradopaddler (Jun 16, 2005)

You're entitled to your opinion here too. Got any proof that that isn't happening?


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

Does anyone have proof that it is? And if it is happening, someone is paying out the wazoo to do trips. I think it would be a RARE occasion that that happens.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi GC Guide,

Being the good river citizen he is, if Tom has more than innuendo to go on, he'll surely give his information to the Park, so they can investigate.

And if the investigation results in a finding that some commercial passengers have made multiple trips in one year, we can be sure Tom will trumpet that as an established fact, not just a vague rumor.

We should be content to wait for a solid determination, rather than unsubstantiated accusations. 

And I suppose we also should wait for him to publicize the various private boater transgressions that are posted on the bulletin board at Lees Ferry. Oh wait -- that wouldn't fit the anti-Park, anti-commercial agenda he seeks to propagate.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

coloradopaddler said:


> You're entitled to your opinion here too. Got any proof that that isn't happening?


Prove that it isn't happening? How do you prove something not done?


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

> All self-guided river runners are required to show photo identification to law enforcement rangers at the start of their river trip. No such enforcement is required for concessions passengers. River Runners for Wilderness continues to hear anecdotal reports of passengers who participate on two or more concessions river trips per year.


It only seems fair that they check any and all passenger ID's.....no matter who they go down with. Who's to say that someone on a private trip....... hadn't already been down during the year on a commercial trip....or visa versa? 

I would like to see this rule changed back to where you can only be a TL once a year, but can go on other trips if asked.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

GC Guide, the passengers who are doing multiple trips do so with different companies. Your chances of seeing a repeat concessions passenger as they take their second or third trip with a second and then third concessionaire are very slim indeed. And if you did see it, would you say anything? I dunno you, and you indeed might be the whistleblower type. But if it it meant your last Grand trip as a concessions crewmember, would you do it? Yes, I have reported this to the NPS. But no one checks valid identification of river concessions passengers, so make up a name and you are good to go again and again. Meanwhile, the self-guided river runners look at a Sig Saur or Colt 45 as they try to get their river trip off the ramp and on the river.


And Rich Phillips, secretary of the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, your repeated spreading of copious quantities of miss-information on the internet continues unchecked, like the pre-dam Colorado River, wild and free-wheeling. Anti-Park and anti-commercial? Care to qualify that or are you making just another slanderous blanket accusation?


Oh... I know!! You mean I do not promote National Park Service onerous mismanagement of self guided (private) river runners like you do! And you mean I do not support commercial services in National Parks when they take first dibs on river access ahead of self guided private boaters and trash the Park’s wilderness character in doing so, something you have no qualms doing!


It’s really funny… River Runners for Wilderness worked with the NPS for years to allow a relaxation of the stringent trip requirements in the winter months, and the NPS agreed to make substantial changes to make it easier to get a winter river trip. When the NPS announced to Rich’s group what was going to happen, the GCPBA, along with the commercial river runners, objected to the change! A few years later, the GCPBA flip-flopped, and now supports relaxing the winter regs, but the NPS in the meantime flip-flopped back to making no changes. Thank you Rich, you are just a year late and 20 river trips short! 



You all have a great weekend and I hope you win the lottery... before you become too old to boat the river.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

Wow, Tom, sorry we upset you. 

I suppose it frustrates you that you can't temporarily ban me from the Buzz. You know, the way you did on the RRFW listserv last year, when I asked you repeatedly to provide specific evidence for your accusations of malfeasance on the part of GC River Office personnel. Accusations you never backed up. Maybe you should stop posting about this here -- the way you did more recently on your own listserv when participants started criticizing you for your unfounded inferences about the lost boater and some kind of Park coverup. 

Fact is, readers here and elsewhere on the internet know RRFW and GCPBA pursue somewhat different courses with regard to GC river management. Honest disagreements over important issues are not uncommon in the real world.

And folks who go back on the Buzz a ways also will remember our repeated, lengthy, and polite discourse over the CRMP -- you as Co-Director of RRFW, and me back in the day when I was GCPBA's Vice President. Nothing new other than my job description. 

You and I can re-visit those thrilling days of yesteryear, and duke it out ad nauseum over why RRFW did this, and why GCPBA did that. But I don't really see any benefit from that. So let's cut to the chase. 

Given your repeated legal and public forum attacks on the Park, its employees, and its policies, it hardly seems slanderous to tangentially mention them one more time, in order to give readers here some perspective. 

Tom, you're a smart, experienced, and very talented guy. You contribute a lot to the river community in a very positive way. The commentary here from me and others has a message -- the news releases you provide would be much more effective if they stuck to the facts.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## natepelton (Feb 24, 2011)

*Loosen Your Schedule*

Everyone having such a hard time getting on the river needs to loosen their life schedule a little bit. I am flexible when I can go and I have landed permits the last 3 years. In 2011 I won a permit for late August in a March followup and 2012 and 2013 I won permits in the Fall shoulder season in the primary lotteries. Same goes for Idaho lotteries. 

I know it is easier said than done, but if running rivers is a priority for you...


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

I really like the RRFW/GCPBA feud. This is like Tupac and Biggie.


----------



## Curtiso (May 18, 2011)

I really enjoyed the drama of this whole post. I wish I could get you people in a room, with a couple video camera and watch you fight over who has the best farmer's tan.


----------



## TriBri1 (Nov 15, 2011)

Boys, boys, boys... if you don't stop I will stop this raft right now in the middle of the river and go back and make you stop!

Remember we are all on the same team, just with our own ways of seeing the issues. I would love to see discussion about the proposed changes rather than bickering between organizations.

I'm not a fan of the Alternate trip leader program. I would happily add an alternate trip leader if that means they could also put in for a permit. Out of all the 2012 applications I would be curious to see how many of them went down the river as a trip leader or part of someone else's. I for one put in for permits with 6 other people. We all put in for the same dates so we all complete against ourselves and if one wins we all win. I would love to see a way to cut out the fluff.

Like in war, as long as I know the rules of engagement going in I am happy to follow them. Since the end of the waitlist system I have been invited on at least two trips a year. If my schedule permitted I could have run the river 6 times under current rules.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tri,

FYI, when GCPBA's Board sits down with the Park Service managers who actually are responsible for these policies, we raise exactly those kinds of topics. As recently as October, we've discussed the one trip a year rule, the PATL system, the number of unclaimed trips, firewood, beach/erosion problems, and a variety of other issues. 

We think that's the value of the way GCPBA operates -- having solid working relationships and ongoing (and often face-to-face) contacts with the folks who manage the GC river program. Rather than being confrontational, we believe there's great value in being able to learn the thinking that's going into river operations, as well as being able to directly convey boater concerns to river managers in a constructive context.

We know we're not going to be successful in every attempt to bring about our point of view. We know that the Park has to take into consideration various regulatory constructs, as well as the interests of other components of the GC river community. But we also know that incremental change can bring about positive results. That's witnessed by the many beneficial changes in the CRMP -- including what you've described about your own improved ability to get on the river. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

Tom Martin said:


> GC Guide, the passengers who are doing multiple trips do so with different companies. Your chances of seeing a repeat concessions passenger as they take their second or third trip with a second and then third concessionaire are very slim indeed. And if you did see it, would you say anything? I dunno you, and you indeed might be the whistleblower type. But if it it meant your last Grand trip as a concessions crewmember, would you do it? Yes, I have reported this to the NPS. But no one checks valid identification of river concessions passengers, so make up a name and you are good to go again and again. Meanwhile, the self-guided river runners look at a Sig Saur or Colt 45 as they try to get their river trip off the ramp and on the river.
> 
> 
> > Tom,
> > I too, am sorry to upset you. As Rich says, you have a valuable place here. You are a steward of all things Grand Canyon. However, Tom, I feel that you blaming a few (if any) commercial passengers for folks ability to get on private trips, is bordering on absurd. Certainly, that could not be anywhere near the top of the list as to what the problem with the system is. I have been in the lottery for years and have yet to do a private in GC. This is one reason I continue to guide, even though sometimes I hate it. I still love the PLACE! Please Tom, use your skills to better the place instead of trying to raise ire in folks with half truths and speculation. I agree with Rich again when he says that we would just like to hear the facts and not the hype.


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

BTW, we get greeted with the high caliber weaponry too!


----------



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

I don't think Tom can prove his accusations.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi GC Guide, yes, you get greeted "by the high caliber weaponry" but the concessions crews and their passengers do not have to prove who they are with photo-id. There-in lies the difference. 

Hi Tri, you make a great point that the PATL should be able to run their own lottery application as well. As the Lottery Riverwire pointed out, there are many ways the lottery is biased. 

Hi Nate, I am so glad you won repeatedly! Congrats! (Really!) It's just that the thousands who lost were not so lucky. It seems that awarding intent to go with extra points when you lose and not penalizing folks for going on other permit holders trips would be a "better" mousetrap. 

Hi Rich P, at least we are making folks laugh, aye? But since you asked, you know what I find upsetting? I find it upsetting that the self-guided river runners have had the back seat when it comes to access to America’s wild rivers. I find it upsetting that the commercialization of these rivers has impacted their wilderness character. And I find it upsetting that the self-guided community has so effectively been fractured by the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Trade Association. So much so that we are at each other’s throats. That, my friend, is what I find upsetting. 

Based on the rest of the folks replies, there really is no sense in posting yet another blistering reply to your flame-baiting twists. I apologize to the group for falling once again into your trap. And I didn't put you into the 30-day cool-down corner, one of the other more realistic moderators did that >) For all the gory facts you may have forgotten, you can review the posts at the Rafting_Grand_Canyon yahoogroup at Rafting_Grand_Canyon : Rafting Grand Canyon
As to the facts, we do our best to stick to them. I only wish you and your “others” would do the same. 

As always, all the best to you all, yours, tom


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

As guides we do, Tom. The companies "own" the user days anyway. The one guy that may have the ducats to do multiple commercial trips does not have any bearing on private trips.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

gc guide, in that sense the private trip TL "owns" those 16 spots and should be able to fill them as he/she pleases. I agree with you that who they bring has no effect on other trips, private or commercial. The only possible thing i can think of is impact on the canyon and that no one person needs to make impact more than once a year. I dont agree with this at all and think that if you are graced with a permit you ought to be able to invite your friends whether they have been this year or not. I am in the dilemma right now, and have been before, of deciding between a short trip in may with friends that i'd love to go with and a long trip in november with others i'd love to spend time with down there. There is a good chance i will never get to go with either of these guys again so im screwed either way. My spot on both trips will get filled, likely with someone who impacts the canyon more than i do. I dont get it. If there is one rule that needs to be changed, this is it.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

GC Guide, could you clarify what you mean by "own" the user days? I am just asking as my understanding is that user days are the National Park Service's to distribute as they see fit, and are considered a ceiling of use to each concessionaire, not an owned right to use. I could be wrong, so am asking...

Very well put Zach. Especially in the commercial-free season, the one trip per year rule makes no sense. It never did. And there is are very good arguments why that makes no sense in the summer either, especially given the NPS data released on the number of people who actually did repeat self guided trips. 

All the best, tom


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

Ok, Tom, they have an allocated number of user days that they may sell as they see fit. The companies are also under the scrutiny of the Park, and believe me, they don't want to jeopordize what they have by selling one passenger two trips in a year.


----------



## bigben (Oct 3, 2010)

hmm, didn't expect buzzards to be so grammatically correct in their on-line poo-flinging matches.


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

It's all about nomenclature BigBen!


----------



## bigben (Oct 3, 2010)

yeah i feel ya GC, just not used to all the big words.. 
personally i love tom. he puts more useful info on the buzz than just about anyone. if he wants to rant a little, let him have it. big words or not 
and no reason to get anyone's panties in a bunch in the first place, he was just sharing some useful info as usual


----------



## whitewaterjunkie (Feb 8, 2006)

Let us hark back to the original post, which started this infighting, this brouhaha. I think it's important to remember exactly what this document is: a RRFW "Riverwire." Clearly, like a press release from any private company, non-profit or public agency, this "riverwire" presents the agenda of the organization behind it. They are selectively chosen nuggets of information that serve to enhance the arguments made by RRFW. This sort of bias exists in varying degrees of scale and severity in everything written by a group with a goal, from the White House to chambers of commerce, from the smallest of non-profits to the tiniest of municipal governments and even my beloved NY Times.

As I read the "riverwire" I found myself nodding in agreement with Tom's slant and distaste for the current permitting system, but knowing that while statements of apparent fact, they are in fact presented and selected to provoke these emotions in folks like myself and other Buzzers who live to privately boat the Grand. There is obviously more to the story that is not presented in this "riverwire," but I know that, and so, I suspect, would most of the people who take the time to read it.

I also see value in giving the river a "rest" in the winter months, that it may not be such a terrible thing if some permits go unused. I see great value in enabling commercial passengers who otherwise would have no means to experience the Grand Canyon from the river. Some of those customers--and commercial operators--are our greatest allies in conservation and access. But I do think Tom's biased "riverwire" has great merit, that private boaters have in many ways been screwed by the new system. If any of what Tom has put forth here is in fact untrue, let's first unearth that (because there's no point in arguing facts--I learned that from the lawyer-boaters on my last Grand trip), and then we can discuss the merits of those facts.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

YAY! Thanks you guys! I sure appreciate your thoughts Ben and WWJunkie. The fresh air is wonderful! If you EVER see the little red, white and blue dory GEM on the water, please row/paddle over and let's change boats for a little while! All the best, tom


----------

