# Permit Honesty On Ruby/Horsethief



## Fuzzie (Jan 23, 2009)

"Oh I see you were supposed to launch yesterday and stay at Rattlesnake last night. No you can't launch today. I'll cancel your permit and free up the rest of your sweet camps for the next 4 nights. Now turn your rig around and leave, Goodbye" says the Ranger to the above mentioned situation. It wouldn't take long for the word to get around, and, for the most part, the problem would be solved.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

Yep. Unfortunately they either need to do as fuzzy mentioned or it needs to be limited to a two night maximum. Hate to see it but most people only do two nights anyway. If there really were 28 out of 34 camps being used as a place holder to snag permits early its become a real problem.


----------



## Roseldo (Aug 27, 2020)

I just finished reading a NYT article that sort of hit on some of the same themes as your post. That a "scam culture" has become more prevalent in America. The gist of it was that it is becoming seen as more ethically acceptable to do whatever you need to do to "get yours."

I think that posts like yours are valuable, because they serve as a reminder that sometimes the system sucks, but that it's not okay to game the system for your own convenience.

Thank you.









Opinion | Why We Need to Address Scam Culture


It’s not just about shady deals. It’s about the social fabric.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

Roseldo said:


> I just finished reading a NYT article that sort of hit on some of the same themes as your post. That a "scam culture" has become more prevalent in America. The gist of it was that it is becoming seen as more ethically acceptable to do whatever you need to do to "get yours."
> 
> I think that posts like yours are valuable, because they serve as a reminder that sometimes the system sucks, but that it's not okay to game the system for your own convenience.
> 
> ...


That’s very interesting…I see this issue massively with the youth today..I wonder where they get it from..


----------



## 83786 (Nov 11, 2020)

A volunteer river ranger program has been implemented by the Grand Junction BLM office. Rangers will be present in both the Loma ramp and river and will be checking permits largely for this issue. Launching on any day other than your launch dates will result in consequences.


----------



## cain (Dec 28, 2011)

I agree 100% with the camp abuse on Ruby/Horsetheif as I have watched it personally get worse over the last few years. Not sticking up for the ass hats but if Wrecked.gov didn't have the permit system on R/H so messed up it might help a little. As of right now Wrecked.gov won't let you modify your camping permit in 2 ways.
1) You can't change your launch day which would allow people to put dates back on the ticket if part of your party can't make the original launch day with out throwing all your days back out to the masses and hope you can stay awake 24 hours and get lucky enough to catch it popping back up. This permit isn't a lottery with only so many launches allowed each day. 
2) You can't even modify your group number up which is totally absurd since once you get the permit which is hard as hell these days you can't get your participants together. This can be done with the help of the fine rangers at the Grand Junction BLM office (Alex, Morgan and Iris) by calling and having them change it.
As stated above I don't approve of the camp wasting but when the system to get your permit pushes you to do stupid actions to float a river some people will play the game.


----------



## upacreek (Mar 17, 2021)

Every time I get one of those requests on Rec.gov for feedback, I list all these issues among others with river permitting and excoriate them for continuing to fail at ensuring proper administration/allocation at the expense of eroding public trust. But at the same time, its not constructive to keep perpetuating the idea that Rec.gov is the sole reason for these issues existing since there simply has to be some management system in place and painting it all as completely broken only emboldens unethical behavior further. In any case, I'm _really_ hoping its only a matter of time before serious penalties are instigated to stem the tide of abuse, and to me the recent adoption of cancellation penalties on Desolation is the first encouraging development towards policies disincentivizing bad behavior. On our end though as ultimately the competing end-users of these river permits, I feel there's responsibility to police ourselves to some degree, take notice and report wasted campsites on trips, and generally not tolerate this kind of exploitative behavior from those within our respective boating circles. Then again, I probably don't keep company with the special sort of jerk-offs that sees this all as a "if I can't beat them, I'll join them" scenario; so will perhaps suggest to any lurkers on here guilty of gaming this system..it's only a matter of time before you're identified and/or banned...in which case best of luck explaining this to your friends and fellow boaters.


----------



## LRBBCO (Aug 6, 2018)

I don't think we can really blame Rec for this particular problem. Some people really do 4 day trips through their. It's rare, but does occur. Some excellent hiking can be accomplished with a couple layovers. And Cain, they do allow you to modify group size up or down, there's just some timing restrictions which are in place for good reasons. And no section that I'm aware of allows you to modify launch date.
Upacreek, agreed. I've had the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" conversation with many west slope boaters in my large circle and we all agree that we'd rather enjoy other sections, take the less desirable camps, or do day trips, rather then join the ass-hats. Sounds like their time may be limited with what Krusty is saying. I emailed the FO to find out more about that plan. I'd enjoy joining that effort and back up my Buzz-Bitching...


----------



## cain (Dec 28, 2011)

What timing restrictions? Please elaborate. When I was on the phone with Alex she said it was a wrecked.gov mistake that they have been trying to get corrected. I'm not casting all the blame on wrecked.gov but they are a complete shit show operation alot of times and if you call them they don't sound like they could even spell river let alone know what one is. LOL


----------



## foreigner (10 mo ago)

This isn't a recreation.gov issue and I can't think of a good way to solve it without the help of a ranger on-the-ground enforcing launch dates.

Allowing people to cancel the early portion of their itinerary still allows people to game the system.

Calling it wreck.gov makes you look like a luddite.


----------



## cain (Dec 28, 2011)

Foreigner, Apparently you have know idea what a shit show getting river permits has become since WRECKED.GOV took over the river permitting system. Do some research before you start calling people names.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

foreigner said:


> Calling it wreck.gov makes you look like a luddite.


What's the matter with that?

Hell, I'd love to do a 3 - 4 day trip in RHT - set up and just hang out with nothing to do for a few days... But folks abusing it should certainly be penalized and turned away. I"m all for putting in a requirement that launch has to be on the day of reservation...


----------



## foreigner (10 mo ago)

Andy H. said:


> What's the matter with that?


On its own? Nothing. But continuously blaming the wrong party for your problems because you don't understand what is happening.. well... do I need to explain further?


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

One thing that really sucks is there isn't a ton of incentive for .gov to fix the problem. The scammers pay more money to the system with the extra res days and the actual user days go down since camps sit empty. More money and less impact on the river corridor. Hmmmm. I hate to have the two night maximium because there are those that do 4 day trips. Making it a launch on your launch day or no launch at all makes the most sense. There are zero trips where you dont have to launch on your launch day or its game over. That said, if Loma isn't staffed, there is no way to enforce it.


----------



## LRBBCO (Aug 6, 2018)

cain said:


> What timing restrictions? Please elaborate. When I was on the phone with Alex she said it was a wrecked.gov mistake that they have been trying to get corrected. I'm not casting all the blame on wrecked.gov but they are a complete shit show operation alot of times and if you call them they don't sound like they could even spell river let alone know what one is. LOL


The timing restrictions are, "Permits canceled eight or more days before the launch date will receive a refund for the camping fees. The $6 reservation fee is non-refundable. Permits cancelled seven days or less before the launch gives other boaters the opportunity to use the site, but no refund will be given."
I don't have any love for Rec.gov and interchange the spelling often. My biggest qualm is privatization of public land management and the website errors that are more annoying then getting the busy signal back in the call-in permit days.
This is a boots on the ground issue which stems from funding issues. Volunteers are a great solution. The next step will be enforcing the penalties, which will require Booz Allen programmers...


----------



## cain (Dec 28, 2011)

I fully understand everything you say. I tried to add people to my permit that is 6 weeks out and it says on the Wrecked.gov website when you try and modify your permit you can not add people only make your party smaller and can't change the launch date which I understand the gaming people are doing by reserving several days out when the 60 day hits so they can get the 2 or 3 days they want. But if the gamers could release the days they aren't going to use at least other people could use them. Agree whole heartedly that penalties need to be made and the launch needs to be staffed but have never seen a Ranger at the put in in 18 years. Maybe my timing was different than the Rangers. Met many down on the river and have had great interactions with them.


----------



## LRBBCO (Aug 6, 2018)

That's frustrating. Last week we added two spots for our dogs to an April 11 trip. Maybe you have one of the camps with a lower size limit. If not, you're getting wreck'ed.


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

cain said:


> Foreigner, Apparently you have know idea what a shit show getting river permits has become since WRECKED.GOV took over the river permitting system. Do some research before you start calling people names.


It's better. The old system was just a busy signal.


----------



## ArgoCat (May 14, 2007)

The reason why you cant change your launch date is to stop the ridiculousness that occurred on the ABC Section this year securing campsites. People booking out camps 14 days in advance to get the weekend date you want two weeks away. They cancel 13 of the days they do not want but keep the one Saturday and pay the $6.00 change fee. Basically, they get to jump in front of everyone waiting for the 4 month window to open up to get a Saturday. No Saturdays left by then. 

This is why R/HT says you cannot change your launch date. In theory, it is supposed to make you cancel your permit and throw it back if you do not want to launch on that date Personally, I never knew that people were reserving days and not using the assigned camps for the first one or two days...that is total bullshit and a waste of a valuable resource.


----------



## ArgoCat (May 14, 2007)

P.S. Launching on any other day other than your launch date should be only one consequence. Hello, Good Bye, don't let the door hit your as on the way out. No Launch and blackballed for at least a year.


----------



## angrysamoandude (Feb 22, 2019)

Just in case any of you haven't heard... It looks like they are doing something about it. They've started a volunteer river ranger program that'll hopefully have someone staffed there more days of the week. If there isn't a ranger present, we're required to sign in at the "check-in" kiosk.

We really can't blame rec.gov for all of the problems, most of it is probably people abusing the system or just simply not showing up. Hopefully with these new things in place, it'll start getting a little better.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

angrysamoandude said:


> Just in case any of you haven't heard... It looks like they are doing something about it. They've started a volunteer river ranger program that'll hopefully have someone staffed there more days of the week. If there isn't a ranger present, we're required to sign in at the "check-in" kiosk.
> 
> We really can't blame rec.gov for all of the problems, most of it is probably people abusing the system or just simply not showing up. Hopefully with these new things in place, it'll start getting a little better.
> View attachment 74416


Yep, this has been in the works for a while, the ranger there now was a Westwater Ranger before he moved upstream, he liked the volunteer program at Westwater so much he decided to implement one on RHT.


----------



## DoStep (Jun 26, 2012)

What ever happened to the concept of user fees going toward the resource? I'd be curious how much of the Rec.gov fees go back to the facilities and how much they put in their pocket. I mean c'mon, there still isn't even a vault toilet at the RHT ramp? 

There is no reason why anyone should expect to launch on a day other than the permit date. Only permanent staffing will solve that issue, but funding is always the issue. See first paragraph. I think I can expect when I pay fees for RHT that there is a dedicated portion going towards staffing and improvements.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

DoStep said:


> What ever happened to the concept of user fees going toward the resource? I'd be curious how much of the Rec.gov fees go back to the facilities and how much they put in their pocket. I mean c'mon, there still isn't even a vault toilet at the RHT ramp?


None of the rec.gov fees go to the resource, or the BLM for that matter. It all goes to rec.gov, a private for profit enterprise that federal agencies are mandated to use, and state agencies, such as Colorado Parks and Wildlife use as a matter of agency convenience. 

As for vault toilets, the land at the launch is Colorado State Parks, not BLM, and as it's PRIMARILY used as a launch, I'm betting they spend their money at more developed parks like James L Robb river park in Fruita. You DO have to have a fishing or small game license to access the area however. Interestingly enough, you can access the James L Robb state park for only the cost of entry, which is covered by an annual parks pass too. Only like 5 miles above Loma, and a much nicer facility, replete with toilets and running water, and a campground, which sadly is a wreck.gov managed area.


----------



## foreigner (10 mo ago)

All permit fees go to the managing agency. Just the administrative fees go to rec.gov. Rec.gov saves the government money. That's the whole point.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

foreigner said:


> All permit fees go to the managing agency. Just the administrative fees go to rec.gov. Rec.gov saves the government money. That's the whole point.


I guess I should have been clearer. Rec.gov fees to Rec.gov, permit fees, in the unlikely event you should actually get a permit, do go to the agency. Given the problems the agency deals with, I'm not sure it's actually saving the government any money though. In theory, but..


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

The state park ramp is much better and has better parking imho. Also more eyes so less likely your vehicle gets broken into.


----------



## Paco (Aug 3, 2007)

I once did 6 days on RHT. It was awesome.
I think the launch on your date or lose your permit change will help a ton with these issues. I just checked the rec.gov, and IF you click on the rules and regs link, it is in there, but I think they need a big "warning" that pops up even if you don't click on the regs, as I'm sure lots of folks don't bother.
I would also hope that the rest of the dates for the no show permits would immediately be made available.
But I wonder about...late arrivals. It's definitely reasonable to show up after 5 or even later with one of the early camps. I wonder how they will account for that.
And...as discussed above, there are other places to launch- the state park and Rim Rock. How will they account for those? Required to stop at Loma? What if I don't have a fishing licence?
I hope they get all the details worked out and minimize the system gaming and level the playing field.


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

Paco said:


> What if I don't have a fishing licence?


You don’t need one. You can buy a pass at the entrance. Either from the park ranger or the self service station. Stick it in your window and you’re good to go.

I know there’s good hiking over there but what do you do in ruby for six days…???


----------



## cain (Dec 28, 2011)

I know there’s good hiking over there but what do you do in ruby for six days…??? 
RELAX. LOL
As of a few years ago you are required to have a fishing license for each person in your group to launch at Loma. I have never seen it enforced but times are changing. 
Great questions Paco, I myself have launched in the Summer after 6pm with a close camp assignment.


----------



## Paco (Aug 3, 2007)

westwatercuban said:


> You don’t need one. You can buy a pass at the entrance. Either from the park ranger or the self service station. Stick it in your window and you’re good to go.
> 
> I know there’s good hiking over there but what do you do in ruby for six days…???


It's my understanding that DOW doesn't want you stepping foot on the ramp at loma without a license. So the BLM ranger waving you over to check you in could be problematic, at least in theory. 

As for the 6 day trip, with young kids the days just kind of fill themselves.


----------



## foreigner (10 mo ago)

I don't have the numbers but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the rec.gov contract doesn't cost substantially less than the available alternatives for managing 100k sites.

Rec.gov is a convenient scapegoat for land managers which is why a lot of end-users complain about it. As someone that works in technology, it's pretty obvious that most of these issues stem from poor planning by local land managers. Once the issues become obvious, they lack the budget to get these issues prioritized and fixed by rec.gov. That's very annoying for land managers and it's not like most have a background in software project management so you can't really fault them. The website actually works surprisingly well. There are some security issues and there are some bugs but they are pretty minimal overall.

A lot of people on the buzz are just pissed that they can't secure permits and they are looking for people to blame, and again, rec.gov (wreck.gov derp) is an easy target.


----------



## ccm1192 (May 8, 2018)

*~new Policy from the website~*
"You will now need to check in at the Loma Boat Launch. Please check in with a ranger, BLM Volunteer or at the sign in sheet. You must launch on your launch date. If you are not launching on your launch date, you may not be allowed to launch. "


----------



## foreigner (10 mo ago)

In terms of Ruby, Im guessing they will just bust the people not launching on their launch date, not actively make everyone check-in. 

Glad they're trying to fix the issue.


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

cain said:


> I know there’s good hiking over there but what do you do in ruby for six days…???
> RELAX. LOL
> As of a few years ago you are required to have a fishing license for each person in your group to launch at Loma. I have never seen it enforced but times are changing.
> Great questions Paco, I myself have launched in the Summer after 6pm with a close camp assignment.


It does make me cringe when people are taking that long of a stay on that stretch of river. As someone who likes to enjoy ruby and other runs, I too would like to travel it. I get we all want those week long trips, and it’s been harder to obtain them, but if we start turning ruby into a week long trip we are gonna have some major issues down the road. There was a thread not too long ago that had people talking about doing multiple permits in different peoples names so they can stay and camp longer. Sounds like another reason why there’s no permits available. So my opinion on six days doesn’t change. Share the resources with everyone. Or no one will ever get access again.

In regards to the boat ramp I miss understood. I thought that was in regards of the state park 5 miles above Loma. Makes sense now.


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

FFS can we not turn every thread into a referendum on whether rec.gov makes too much money?

westwatercuban, when you say "You don’t need one. You can buy a pass at the entrance. Either from the park ranger or the self service station. Stick it in your window and you’re good to go."

You're talking about the state park, not Loma, correct?


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

craven_morhead said:


> FFS can we not turn every thread into a referendum on whether rec.gov makes too much money?
> 
> westwatercuban, when you say "You don’t need one. You can buy a pass at the entrance. Either from the park ranger or the self service station. Stick it in your window and you’re good to go."
> 
> You're talking about the state park, not Loma, correct?


Correct, and for what it’s worth with the Loma ramp. I’ve never seen a cpw officer there, and I do not believe a cpw officer would ever cite someone for not having a fishing license. I’ve had a lot of interactions with cpw officers. They are the same layed back people you’d find on the river, hiking, camping etc. Unless you’re a complete ass hat, they’ll just give you a gentle “reminder” and go on their way.


----------



## Heywood (Apr 12, 2019)

Paco said:


> I once did 6 days on RHT. It was awesome.
> I think the launch on your date or lose your permit change will help a ton with these issues. I just checked the rec.gov, and IF you click on the rules and regs link, it is in there, but I think they need a big "warning" that pops up even if you don't click on the regs, as I'm sure lots of folks don't bother.
> I would also hope that the rest of the dates for the no show permits would immediately be made available.
> But I wonder about...late arrivals. It's definitely reasonable to show up after 5 or even later with one of the early camps. I wonder how they will account for that.
> ...


It seems like in this high tech world that it would not be too hard to install a smartphone check in system. It would only really require a smartphone/tablet in a secure box at the kiosk and a small solar charger. Your permit comes with a QR code and you have to scan it at one of three locations (or at just Loma so pull over for 5 minutes). If you dont scan on your launch date you are in violation of the rules, if you try and scan on a later date your on the list buddy. I am sure some people will scam because they drive out to loma and scan then put in later but really how many people will actually do that.


----------



## Bleugrass (Feb 5, 2018)

westwatercuban said:


> I know there’s good hiking over there but what do you do in ruby for six days…???


I've never done more than four days on Ruby, but I'd do six in a heartbeat. Full layover days to explore Rattlesnake, Mee, Knowles (and the one just across the river) and the canyon behind Black Rocks (Moore?) would be awesome.


----------



## Paco (Aug 3, 2007)

westwatercuban said:


> It does make me cringe when people are taking that long of a stay on that stretch of river. As someone who likes to enjoy ruby and other runs, I too would like to travel it. I get we all want those week long trips, and it’s been harder to obtain them, but if we start turning ruby into a week long trip we are gonna have some major issues down the road. There was a thread not too long ago that had people talking about doing multiple permits in different peoples names so they can stay and camp longer. Sounds like another reason why there’s no permits available. So my opinion on six days doesn’t change. Share the resources with everyone. Or no one will ever get access again..


Dude. Me taking a six day trip didn't keep you or anyone from enjoying the river. This thread is about people gaming the system and booking days they aren't using to get the (weekend) days at the sites they want. That's not what I did. I was there mostly mid week. I did the trip that people are pretending to do when they book. You can almost always piece together a mid week trip with open sites if you're not picky.
If you don't like my trip length, you can pound sand.


----------



## angrysamoandude (Feb 22, 2019)

Th


DoStep said:


> What ever happened to the concept of user fees going toward the resource? I'd be curious how much of the Rec.gov fees go back to the facilities and how much they put in their pocket. I mean c'mon, there still isn't even a vault toilet at the RHT ramp?
> 
> There is no reason why anyone should expect to launch on a day other than the permit date. Only permanent staffing will solve that issue, but funding is always the issue. See first paragraph. I think I can expect when I pay fees for RHT that there is a dedicated portion going towards staffing and improvements.


When’s the last time you were at the RHT boat ramp? There’s been a vault toilet there as long as I’ve been boating. 

As far as small game/hunting license being required while using that ramp, that is true. You’re required to have it if you are on any state wildlife areas, which the loma boat ramp is. BUT, as long as you have a camping permit for RHT, you are not required to have the hunting/fishing license.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

foreigner said:


> I don't have the numbers but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the rec.gov contract doesn't cost substantially less than the available alternatives for managing 100k sites.
> 
> Rec.gov is a convenient scapegoat for land managers which is why a lot of end-users complain about it. As someone that works in technology, it's pretty obvious that most of these issues stem from poor planning by local land managers. Once the issues become obvious, they lack the budget to get these issues prioritized and fixed by rec.gov. That's very annoying for land managers and it's not like most have a background in software project management so you can't really fault them. The website actually works surprisingly well. There are some security issues and there are some bugs but they are pretty minimal overall.
> 
> A lot of people on the buzz are just pissed that they can't secure permits and they are looking for people to blame, and again, rec.gov (wreck.gov derp) is an easy target.


Not sure what your reference to the Denver Employees Retirement Plan (derp) has to do with this, but whatever... The Denver Employees Retirement Plan - Denver Retirement Benefits

But back to the reply, for example, I'll use a permitted stretch of river in Utah I rangered as a volunteer at for over 20 years. One BLM employee using one phone, 4 hours a day, 5 days a week. That was the cost to the managing agency. It didn't go away, they still need that employee to complile statistics, and release cancellations to the system. i.e. someone still needs to manage the data in the software system, so no savings there.

Pre Rec.gov they (managing agency) had full control over how, when, why and to whom permits were issued, adding or subtracting people was a breeze and done on a regular basis. All one needed was a phone, and to call the river office starting at 0800 60 days out from their date. The worker controlled the online calendar, so cancellations were put back into the "well" so to speak immediately. She (they) also answered newbie questions about required gear, camping and facilities.

Most importantly, she "vetted" never evers that wanted to apply during high flows to make sure, as much as a person reasonably can, that someone with no more experience than 3 RHT trips, was fully aware of what the river was like at high water, which prevented people from coming to the ramp and finding out that the water level exceeded their skill level. Saved everyone headaches...

This prevented in many instances possible deaths on the water, and people HAVE died there at high water, a lot of people. They still have to have a ranger on duty to assign camps and check required equipment, as that simply can't be accomplished with Rec.gov, as due to the uniqueness of the river, and the varying size of camps, and the commercial outfitters, which are STILL managed by the 4 hour a day employee, it saves the agency nothing in this instance, and presents management headaches.

wreck.gov provides none of this. It's a constant frustration to managing agencies, the last I heard was on CAT which the NPS truly wished to go back to the way it was, in which one employee looked at emails daily and issued permits. wreck.gov is inflexible, was never designed to administer rivers, was designed to assign campsites, which is a whole different thing, and is totally unwilling to change what THEY (wreck.gov as a government contractor) think works, as it would have to be, according to them (wreck.gov) a global change to their software, impacting everything, not just rivers.

I'm betting that it saves the Colorado BLM very little if anything, and I know creates massive problems with never evers that are unfamiliar with things like camping etiquette, groovers, firepans etc. So a ranger at RHT is still necessary, and now a volunteer program.

Here lies the problem. They, if this is to be a workable situation, need to design a separate and unique piece of software specifically for rivers, and even then with the vast number of variables, I'm not sure that would be workable. It also should have an IP tracking feature to discourage the use of BOTS, but that still won't stop people gaming the system.

As for the State Parks and state trust lands, a state park is NOT a state trust land for purposes of access. State parks are assessed a entrance fee, like on the Arkansas, or the Fruita River Park, or the annual pass they are now tacking onto the vehicle registration fees of Colorado Registered vehicles. State trust lands, such as Loma, DO require a hunting or fishing license for anyone 16 years of age or older, and are NOT covered by the State Parks pass. The BLM permit is not a substitute for this, as the money for that goes to the BLM, and not state land trust, which uses the money to manage the state land trust lands. I'm sending an message to someone who would know for sure, but that's the last information I have on it. I'll post something when I find out definitively.

From the State Parks website
*A valid hunting or fishing license is required for everyone 16 or older accessing any State Trust Land. *SWA passes may not be used to access STLs leased by the Division due to current leasing agreements between CPW and the State Land Board. For more information, read the frequently asked questions. An annual hunting or annual fishing license can be purchased through CPW authorized sales agents, by phone (1-800-244-5613), or online at CPWShop.

Beginning fall 2021, the Public Access Program has been expanded to 973,000 acres. This expansion concludes a 3-year effort by Colorado Parks & Wildlife and the State Land Board to double the amount of accessible state trust land for hunting and fishing. For more information, see the Colorado Parks and Wildlife expands 'Public Access Program' news release.








Colorado Parks and Wildlife


Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...




cpw.state.co.us





Clear as mud, right ?

Now, and here's the kicker, CPW / SLT does NOT have the manpower to enforce this in all their holdings / leases. As it's a new requirement, IIRC only 2 years out of the gate, the rangers are using an information contact system instead of issuing tickets for non compliance. Once the powers that be decide the public has had enough time to be informed about the requirement, they will start writing tickets for non complicance. So take your chances, play stupid and uninformed for the time being, but eventually they will start ticketing people.

As is evidenced by the parks pass being tacked onto the registration fees, they are money hungry, and ticketing is a source of revenue.

As well, I have heard, but have no verifiable information at this point, that the rec.gov for profit corporation, assesses each agencies location a fee, paid by said managing agency, to administer the system on that particular resource at that particular location. This was chatter I overheard in a meeting when rec.gov was being discussed casually. If this is the case, the "savings" that was mentioned, IF there is any, would be lessened, but again, this was overheard chatter by agency managers, and nothing I can verify or point a link to. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that this is indeed fact.

My 2 cents, and FWIW.


----------



## angrysamoandude (Feb 22, 2019)

Everyone needs to remember that RHT is now one of the most popular stretches of rivers these days. I think we can partially thank Covid that most outdoor activities have seen a huge increase in visitors, rafting being one of those activities. And like in most outdoor spaces, the more people… the more problems. Yea, rec.gov kinda sucks to use, but it’s also kind of awesome. I’ll take finding out that I’m not getting a westwater permit in 4 seconds rather than continually calling the Moab field office for an hour and a half just to find out I’m not getting one. It simplified the process. But I guess it complicated it too haha.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

It would appear that as long as you have a camping permit for Ruby HT, you are not required to have the hunting or fishing license on the Loma Boat ramp..


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

Wait, where's the authority for the statement that a valid camping permit for RHT means you don't need a valid hunting/fishing license on the Loma ramp? Someone have a link?


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

craven_morhead said:


> Wait, where's the authority for the statement that a valid camping permit for RHT means you don't need a valid hunting/fishing license on the Loma ramp? Someone have a link?


I got it from a BLM ranger at RHT cause I couldn't find a link or any references to it anywhere..


----------



## missiongravity (Jun 10, 2007)

Convenient coming from an account that was created right around the time a thread expressing frustration with Rec.gov was started. You have a couple of other "posts" but the majority of your contributions have been focused on standing up for Rec.gov. What gives?

Yes, folks are upset. Yes Rec.gov is the immediate target. The bigger issue is tied up in who gets government contracts and why. But to address the IMMEDIATE concern Rec.gov is a good place to start. They are owned by another company that has contracts with many state parks and other camping and recreating facilities and those services are just a fraught with issues and mis-management.


----------



## RidgeLivin (Apr 25, 2019)

Posted in another thread too, but just received this email from "Ruby Horse-Thief." (I didn't realize that was a person). 🙃 

If they actually enforce this, it gets rid of the issue where people are booking days prior to their actual launch to secure the best campsites. 


Dear Ruby-Horsethief Boater,

The Spring boating season is here! 

As usual, in the off-season we have been making some tweaks to our system and we have a couple updates to share:

We have been receiving an increasing number of complaints about no-shows at campsites on week days as well as unavailability of sites to book on weekends for Friday or Saturday launches. We have also noticed people launching on weekends even though their launch date was scheduled for earlier in the week. 

Therefore, in order to improve your opportunity to reserve a campsite on Ruby-Horsethief we have added a stipulation to all permits that affirms the requirement that permit holders and their group launch on their scheduled launch date. In addition permit holders and their groups will be required to check in with a river ranger (or at sign in at the kiosk if a ranger is not available) at Loma Boat Launch prior to heading downstream. 

We hope these changes will result in more nights on the river for everyone.

Looking forward to seeing you!

Ruby-Horsethief 
McInnis Canyon National Conservation Area
Colorado
970-244-3000


----------



## jonseim (May 27, 2006)

Got an email from BLM today, was about to post what you just did, yippee!!


----------



## RidgeLivin (Apr 25, 2019)

I guarantee you there are groups planning to launch this weekend who have dates reserved prior to their actual launch date and now have elevated heart rates. I guess their only opton will be to drop their permit and try to snatch it back up as quickly as possible with their actual launch date.


----------



## foreigner (10 mo ago)

MNichols said:


> Not sure what your reference to the Denver Employees Retirement Plan (derp) has to do with this, but whatever... The Denver Employees Retirement Plan - Denver Retirement Benefits
> 
> But back to the reply, for example, I'll use a permitted stretch of river in Utah I rangered as a volunteer at for over 20 years. One BLM employee using one phone, 4 hours a day, 5 days a week. That was the cost to the managing agency. It didn't go away, they still need that employee to complile statistics, and release cancellations to the system. i.e. someone still needs to manage the data in the software system, so no savings there.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your perspective but saving a 1/2 employee (20 hrs a week) from answering phones is exactly what rec.gov was intended to do.


----------



## foreigner (10 mo ago)

-


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

foreigner said:


> I appreciate your perspective but saving a 1/2 employee (20 hrs a week) from answering phones is exactly what rec.gov was intended to do.


But if you read my post, it didn't save the managing agency even that, as the statistics still need to be compiled, and the commercial permitees still need to be managed as far as launches.


----------



## slickride33 (Jun 10, 2015)

Just got off RHT yesterday after a five day four night float. We chatted with the ranger at Loma (I hink his name was Allan) and they said they were aware of the "asshats" taking all the permits. Over our 5 days on the river, I would say we saw about 10 groups and most of them were on Saturday. We stayed at Rattlesnake, Mee1 (2 nights) and BR 8. There were two other groups at Mee on Sunday and then two new groups Monday night (raging wind and rain all night long Monday). When we were reserving our campsites there were only two spots, BR7 & BR8 open on a TUESDAY NIGHT. We were the ONLY ONES at black rocks on Tuesday. Allan said they are wanting to get some sort of penalty for the 'asshats'. That is what the issue is, the 'asshats'. This is not about the system, this discussion is about people who are working the system. When we mentioned the two year ban on Deso, Allan had said they don't want such a harsh for a punishment for not launching. It is MY OPION that a two year ban is not that bad of a consequence for being a jerk and maybe you should extend it for three years. If you are not going to follow rules there should be meaningful consequences that make you rethink your asshattieness ways! But this is the world we live in, no one will take accountability for their actions because there are no repercussions. 

I could totally do a 6 night float on RHT. There are so many cool hikes in that canyon! We had an amazing time!


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

God forbid we actually discipline anyone these days..

I say we start with a two year ban on all permitted rivers. If they mess up again we cut them off for life.


----------



## foreigner (10 mo ago)

We are all "the asshats" and we need a strong deterrent. It's a tragedy of the commons thing.


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

foreigner said:


> We are all "the asshats" and we need a strong deterrent. It's a tragedy of the commons thing.


Every time I go out I take two trash bags with me and pick up trash on my adventures. Always leave places better than I found them. Didn’t realize that made me an “asshat”.


----------



## foreigner (10 mo ago)

westwatercuban said:


> Every time I go out I take two trash bags with me and pick up trash on my adventures. Always leave places better than I found them. Didn’t realize that made me an “asshat”.


That's the problem with asshats. We have little self-awareness.


----------



## Roseldo (Aug 27, 2020)

foreigner said:


> We are all "the asshats" and we need a strong deterrent. It's a tragedy of the commons thing.


If we were just talking about the river being busy, or general permit madness, I could see this as a tragedy of the commons. But when people are deliberately cheating the system or abusing known loopholes, that's a "tragedy of being a dick."


----------



## foreigner (10 mo ago)

-


Roseldo said:


> If we were just talking about the river being busy, or general permit madness, I could see this as a tragedy of the commons. But when people are deliberately cheating the system or abusing known loopholes, that's a "tragedy of being a dick."


It's a tragedy of the commons because everyone thinks it's dickish to book a permit two days early in order to get a weekend trip, however everyone also fears/knows that other people are doing it, so it forces everyone to compete at that level and thereby reduces the total number of permits being used. Im not trying to offend anyone. Asshats are human. Humans are asshats. When resources are scarce, we humans often do dumb, but predictable things. Two bags of trash not withstanding.

Glad to hear it is being fixed though! Goodbye.


----------



## Roseldo (Aug 27, 2020)

foreigner said:


> -
> 
> 
> It's a tragedy of the commons because everyone thinks it's dickish to book a permit two days early in order to get a weekend trip, however everyone also fears/knows that other people are doing it, so it forces everyone to compete at that level and thereby reduces the total number of permits being used. Im not trying to offend anyone. Asshats are human. Humans are asshats. When resources are scarce, we humans often do dumb, but predictable things. Two bags of trash not withstanding.
> ...


Yeah…I guess it technically meets the definition, I just feel like there should be an asterisk when you’re manipulating the rules to participate in a TOC scenario.


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

foreigner said:


> -
> 
> 
> It's a tragedy of the commons because everyone thinks it's dickish to book a permit two days early in order to get a weekend trip, however everyone also fears/knows that other people are doing it, so it forces everyone to compete at that level and thereby reduces the total number of permits being used. Im not trying to offend anyone. Asshats are human. Humans are asshats. When resources are scarce, we humans often do dumb, but predictable things. Two bags of trash not withstanding.
> ...


Due to the overconsumption there is an issue with the tragedy of the commons. I’ll agree with you on that. 

Taking a six day trip in ruby contributes to that. Reserving days to get the weekend contributes to that. Doesn’t matter how one looks at it or uses a resource. (Whether there’s people there to use it or not). If everyone does an act in their apparent own best interest, it results in harmful overconsumption. Literally the definition.

However, not everyone contributes to this issue. So making a blanket statement saying we all do is incorrect. I know this, even though I may be apart of the minority, because I make sure I do my part to not contribute to the over consumption of our public resources. Not because it makes me feel better. Solely because I know what it’s like to either not be able to utilize the resource or to have the resource be damaged due to over/improper use.


----------



## Dangerfield (May 28, 2021)

This seems to be an issue the the Rogue River Black Cat Mafia could clean up. Make the "asshat's" feel un-welcome. Just make sure they don't move north to the 4-Rivers area.


----------



## Senor D (May 22, 2018)

If you want to spend 6 days on RH, and are able to book it and actually spend the time, I have no problem with it. If you're booking Monday-Sunday knowing that you're not planning to show up till Friday afternoon, that's bullshit. But it sounds like that was what you had to do if you wanted to get a chance to camp in that stretch. 
I hope the changes will nip that in the bud. I wonder how/when reservations booked this way will be released to Rec.gov? I wonder if they even will? Sounds like they are focused on stopping these folks from launching later, less so on how to offer those sites to the rest of us. 
I also think there should be some sort of no show penalty like they have instigated on Deso, Cancel a week or more out, get most of your money back. Less than that, lose your cash but no further consequences. No show, no permits for a year or more.


----------



## BreckenridgeBear (Jan 15, 2021)

1K deposit/CC hold. Fully refundable upon launch or cancellation within two weeks. Half refunded if canceled in a week.


----------



## FloatMaBoat (Jul 8, 2021)




----------



## mfinco (Oct 18, 2020)

I know not all problems are solvable with technology, but if rec.gov only allowed you to book 2 nights at a time, it could minimize some of the problem (I think). You wouldn’t be able to book Mon-Sat and launch on a Friday. Best you could do to game the system is book Thursday-Friday, but you’d be introducing some risk for yourself as you’d have to get back online two days later to book Saturday which might not be available. Would force you into either cancelling your trip or actually launching Thursday. And those who do actually want a weekend float are better off waiting to book Friday-Saturday together.


----------



## cheboater (Jun 6, 2014)

I'm glad to hear the launch date issue is being addressed and look forward to seeing if that makes sites more available. However, I feel like "no shows" are the biggest issue. Throughout last summer from RHT to every campground we went to I couldn't believe the number of sites that were vacant while rec.gov showed them as fully booked. I agree that there should be a no show charge or penalty. The sites opening up might be more last minute, but at least they would open up.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Looks like a bunch of camp sites opened over the past day!


----------



## Paco (Aug 3, 2007)

Looks like it's working. I just checked and you could still grab a Friday- Saturday trip for the weekend of June 4. That wouldn't have been the case before.


----------



## ccm1192 (May 8, 2018)

Paco said:


> Looks like it's working. I just checked and you could still grab a Friday- Saturday trip for the weekend of June 4. That wouldn't have been the case before.


Anddddddd they're gone.


----------



## MaryB (May 17, 2007)

LRBBCO said:


> This topic has been covered on the Buzz, but I feel a reminder is necessary for 2022. If you book late week camps on Ruby with no intent on using them, you're an ass-hat. Gaming the system to enjoy a Saturday night camp is keeping other people from enjoying a Thursday night camp. I motored down to May flats Thursday night (3/24) to get some extra water time before a Westy on Friday. We launched at 19:15 and did a starlight run, arriving at May Flats at 23:15. When I snagged the May Flats permit on 3/22 there were 3 available camps, out of the 34. 5 camps were occupied Thursday night. This means there were 28 ass-hats this weekend. I implore you to not join in on that game. Click refresh at 8 am MST 60 days in advance of the day you want like an honest boater. This ass-hat method has become the norm in the past two years. I really hope the BLM can implement a no-show penalty, I know they are aware of the problem and it frustrates the staff. I would pay a few more permit bucks to have a seasonal ranger at Loma checking in trips. Thank you to those honest boaters who still exist.


I just spoke to the BLM in GJ 2 days ago. They have now instituted a rule to require launching on the first day of your permit. If you put in upstream, stop at the Loma launch to check in. I truly hope this is enforced in a way that will stop most people from bogarting campsites and then not using them.


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

cheboater said:


> I'm glad to hear the launch date issue is being addressed and look forward to seeing if that makes sites more available. However, I feel like "no shows" are the biggest issue. Throughout last summer from RHT to every campground we went to I couldn't believe the number of sites that were vacant while rec.gov showed them as fully booked. I agree that there should be a no show charge or penalty. The sites opening up might be more last minute, but at least they would open up.


Did a fair amount of car camping the last few summers....(OK, actually in a 24' Flagstaff pop up); 90% of the campgrounds posted sites that became available
This information was posted both at the entrance to the campground and at the sites; which created some increased drive by lookers, but usually by the next morning, all the sites were filled


----------



## Quiggle (Nov 18, 2012)

I also agree no shows are a problem. I run ruby twice a year, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve woke up at blk rocks 5/6 and have only seen two other groups in black rocks on a Sunday morning.


----------



## MMclimbhigh (Jun 13, 2017)

I know the dead horse has been well beaten at this point, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents as well. For what it's worth, over the past 10 years I have seen many empty camps on this stretch on Fri/Sat nights even though the permit sights says the dreaded "R" on the dates...

These topics drive me bonkers. Be honest, use your permit appropriately, and let others enjoy the river. Let's hope the rangers wise up to this and check camps. Especially on Friday night. Fine those folks not using their camps and ban them from using the river corridor for the next two years ala the new regs at Deso. I'm the last one to wish for more policing on the river, but there is only one way to stop these karmically uncool people... bust'em and fine 'em!!

Last week on a Thursday launch, there was a volunteer ranger at the put in and we saw two river rangers in their Sotar out on the water. Good to see! Always say 'thanks' to these guys/gals when you get the chance!


----------



## cdcfly (Jul 28, 2013)

I haven't been able to keep up with this thread, but I was happy the BLM and NCA got this stipulation change implemented. I wrote a letter to the field office letting them know that folks are appreciative of their efforts. I felt I should give them props where props are due.


----------



## dpwater (Aug 2, 2011)

Was out there this week and observed the following:
There were many unused sites though they were shown as reserved online. There were few people on the water. There's a vault toilet at Loma. 

The CPW does check permits but it's not "staffed", at least not yet. The fishing licence is not a requirement with a Ruby HT permit. Though they haven't made that clear and from what I was told don't intend to... They want the revenue. And I did pay for a day license because of all the misinformation online. 

CPW wants to off load the Loma launch land to the BLM. That would help with management and enforcement. You do need to stop at Loma and sign or check in to help with the no shows. While I was there observed up stream launches stopping to sign in.


----------



## angrysamoandude (Feb 22, 2019)

missiongravity said:


> Convenient coming from an account that was created right around the time a thread expressing frustration with Rec.gov was started. You have a couple of other "posts" but the majority of your contributions have been focused on standing up for Rec.gov. What gives?
> 
> Yes, folks are upset. Yes Rec.gov is the immediate target. The bigger issue is tied up in who gets government contracts and why. But to address the IMMEDIATE concern Rec.gov is a good place to start. They are owned by another company that has contracts with many state parks and other camping and recreating facilities and those services are just a fraught with issues and mis-management.


Haha!! I'm a Rec.gov spy, prying in on these conversations to troll and cause mayhem.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

angrysamoandude said:


> Haha!! I'm a Rec.gov spy, prying in on these conversations to troll and cause mayhem.


Unlikely, rec.gov could care less what people think of it, as long as the government mandated gravy train lasts, they are happy raking in the big bucks, and doing nothing to fix the busted ass mess they run...


----------



## cdcfly (Jul 28, 2013)

MNichols said:


> Unlikely, rec.gov could care less what people think of it, as long as the government mandated gravy train lasts, they are happy raking in the big bucks, and doing nothing to fix the busted ass mess they run...


Nothing like gravy on mashers... YUM


----------



## Bleugrass (Feb 5, 2018)

The plot thickens... someone appears to have booked multiple sites (Mee 2, May Flats) for the entire month of June, then released them. They're now wide open.










I'm not sure what the objective of this kind of fuckery is supposed to be, but it explains so many camps being vacant for so many nights.


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

Bleugrass said:


> The plot thickens... someone appears to have booked multiple sites (Mee 2, May Flats) for the entire month of June, then released them. They're now wide open.
> 
> View attachment 76552
> 
> ...


If someone gets me there address, I’ll take care of the rest..


----------



## Paco (Aug 3, 2007)

Bleugrass said:


> The plot thickens... someone appears to have booked multiple sites (Mee 2, May Flats) for the entire month of June, then released them. They're now wide open.
> 
> I'm not sure what the objective of this kind of fuckery is supposed to be, but it explains so many camps being vacant for so many nights.


Yeah.....something else is going on there, I'm pretty sure. Those are NOT the sites folks will be bogarting. And holding May Flats doesn't help you get a good site below, since it's the last site. And...you can only book a week past the booking window.

Some kinda glitch.


----------



## Eagle Mapper (Mar 24, 2008)

I am heading RHT this weekend. I see that next weekend they are putting a fire ban in place. I do not see on the interwebz that there is one this weekend. What is my best resource to make sure that is accurate?
Thanks!


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

Eagle Mapper said:


> I am heading RHT this weekend. I see that next weekend they are putting a fire ban in place. I do not see on the interwebz that there is one this weekend. What is my best resource to make sure that is accurate?
> Thanks!


Call the grand junction blm office..


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

It's my understanding that the entire state is under a Red flag warning..


----------



## jonseim (May 27, 2006)

I would NOT want to have a fire right now as dry as things are and as windy as it’s been. Call, but I’d plan on no fire! For the summer! And maybe into the winter


----------



## jonseim (May 27, 2006)

MNichols said:


> It's my understanding that the entire state is under a Red flag warning..


Red flag warnings are not fire prohibitive, there’s no law to it. Fire Bans are usually started at county level I think and can go statewide or Forest wide.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

jonseim said:


> Red flag warnings are not fire prohibitive, there’s no law to it. Fire Bans are usually started at county level I think and can go statewide or Forest wide.


Correct, but the warning is there as fire danger is extreme.. County bans are enacted by sheriff's, the BLM and USFS can enact bans on the lands they manage as well. As you point out, now is not the time to have a fire..


----------



## cain (Dec 28, 2011)

Fires are not allowed on R/HT every year for the entire Summer. The dates are on the notice bar on Wrecked.gov for R/HT permits. I think they start the end of May through August but not completely sure.


----------



## ccm1192 (May 8, 2018)

cain said:


> Fires are not allowed on R/HT every year for the entire Summer. The dates are on the notice bar on Wrecked.gov for R/HT permits. I think they start the end of May through August but not completely sure.


I believe it's Memorial DW to Labor DW.


----------



## Eagle Mapper (Mar 24, 2008)

This is last weekend that you can have a fire before the ban starts next weekend. There is not a fire ban, so they are allowed.


----------



## Gremlin (Jun 24, 2010)

Back to the topic..
Overnighted Friday to Saturday and camped at Dog Island. Busy Loma ramp, no rangers, on the water by 11, ahead of most every other group. Very quiet on the river and passed a couple earlier launches having lunch. Good flow and in camp by 2:30. Winds at sunset but died down and and had a small fire. On the water by eleven and to the takeout by 2:30, again. Saw two groups below us to the ramp. Quiet. Did not see a single occupied site in Black Rocks. Either, nine other camps made it off the river before us or some shenanigans are still happening with reservered campsites. Kinda looked like you can have all of Black Rocks to yourself on a Friday night if you actually show up.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Such BS, what the hell is going on. I consistently try for a Friday permit and everything but the last two camps are taken pretty quickly 60 days out.


----------



## westwatercuban (May 19, 2021)

mr. compassionate said:


> Such BS, what the hell is going on. I consistently try for a Friday permit and everything but the last two camps are taken pretty quickly 60 days out.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

More like busted wreck.gov..


----------



## cain (Dec 28, 2011)

I was on R/HT a few weeks ago and the same thing. Everything had been booked but we saw very few groups on the river and when we went through Black Rocks Sunday morning not one camp had anyone in it. Something has got to change so we all can enjoy some type of float trips.


----------



## KlaustheK (Mar 20, 2021)

We floated the the junk run on Saturday and pulled out at Loma. There was a ranger there who spent most of the day at the ramp checking permits. They reported that they sent several people away who were trying to launch after their permitted launch day. 

Small victories and slow progress, but progress nonetheless.


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

We floated Friday through Sunday. The grand majority of camps were occupied when we floated past them.


----------



## ccm1192 (May 8, 2018)

wreck.gov did add a nice new notification to it.


You will now need to check in at the Loma Boat Launch. Please check in with a ranger, BLM Volunteer or at the sign in sheet. *You must launch on your launch date. If you are not launching on your launch date, you may not be allowed to launch. *


----------



## BreckenridgeBear (Jan 15, 2021)

We just got off of Ruby. Per the usual, although all the sites were booked, there were a lot of open spots. I spoke with a Ranger at Loma and he stated they are going to start "blackballing" people for a year who don't sign in at the registry. He said they are trying their best to get it under control.


----------



## Heywood (Apr 12, 2019)

Anyone know how to modify the camps on your reservation? I just booked some days and knowing that things are coming open I would like to be able to switch a camp if a better one comes open.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Heywood said:


> Anyone know how to modify the camps on your reservation? I just booked some days and knowing that things are coming open I would like to be able to switch a camp if a better one comes open.


I think that comes under the heading of wishful thinking, until the permit is abandoned, the camp is still reserved..


----------



## Heywood (Apr 12, 2019)

MNichols said:


> I think that comes under the heading of wishful thinking, until the permit is abandoned, the camp is still reserved..


Yes I understand that, I am asking for after a reservation is canceled. If a camp I want comes open can I change my existing reservation to add one camp and release another? Or do I have to cancel my permit and then pick up the new camp? It looks like the latter but I wanted to see if anyone had figured out how to do it.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Heywood said:


> Yes I understand that, I am asking for after a reservation is canceled. If a camp I want comes open can I change my existing reservation to add one camp and release another? Or do I have to cancel my permit and then pick up the new camp? It looks like the latter but I wanted to see if anyone had figured out how to do it.


Ah, I understand now. I do not believe that sort of flexibility is built into wreck.gov, but I don't know enough about it to be able to answer your question with any degree of certainty.. perhaps a call to the BLM office in Grand junction would shed some light on this


----------



## Aknoff (Aug 24, 2007)

I did this earlier this year and unfortunately the only way I could figure it out was to cancel and rebook.


----------



## Fuzzie (Jan 23, 2009)

You can change your camps but your launch day has to stay the same. I do not currently hold a reservation so I can't look to see the details. If my memory is correct, you click the "modify reservation" tab. and re-pick your camps from whatever is available.


----------

