# RRFW Mission Statement?



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

Six days later and nobody can answer this. Interesting that nobody knows.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Been kind of wondering myself. Tom doesn't usually miss an opportunity to tell folks about his organization.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## CoBoater (Jan 27, 2007)

How about "Promoting a no-compromise no-motors agenda that sounds really good to lots of private boaters but will be dead on arrival in any real world stakeholder discussions and will make an outfitter-guided GC trip impossible for anyone that can't pony up $10,000/person and take 3 weeks off work."


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

water wizard said:


> So, here's my question - If RRFW was in charge of all river running activity in the GC what would it look like today? What place would commercial rafting in the GC have today?



Tom's group submitted a proposed management plan scenario that would have 2 private and 2 commercial oar powered launches daily every day of the year. If all trips were filled, this would result in about a half million user days yearly - many more than the current plan allows and many in the winter season. It would also result in many more rowing trips being in sight of each other for hours which would violate the management plan criteria for group to group contacts and may cause the NPS to throttle back the number of launches allowed. 

So you'd either be in sight of other groups much of the day, or you'd be competing for a much smaller number of launches than currently given.

-AH


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi all, I have been away, and am heading out to hike in Grand Canyon again for a few weeks. Looks like some folks out to take shots at volunteers trying their best to get timely information out to river runners.

It's simple really. RRFW does not decide anything. We base our advocacy on what the mission says. 

We don't do secret deals, and we don't make decisions and advocate for those decisions without telling our membership while asking for yearly membership dues. 


Andy, four rowing trips a day leave Lee's Ferry in the summertime along with other motorized trips. It would work, but is only one option. I am sorry you don't like it, but it would actually be within the guidelines of the Colorado River Management Plan, even with all those user days...

You all have a Great Holiday and wonderful 2014.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

So we see here a sort of typical TM interchange.

1. Someone asks what appears to be a straighforward question.

2. Tom evades a direct answer.

3. Tom then diverts by taking a shot at un-named river organization that everyone knows is GCPBA.

4. Tom adds final tangential information that further distracts from thrust of original question.

How ironic that the most persistent complaints about the way GPCBA is run are from a former GPCBA president who couldn't find support for his own views on his own Board (selected by the methods he now decries), quit, and who now is the self-appointed head of a river organization that has no representational structure, no paid membership, no annual meetings, and no useful working relationship with the Park – an organization that effectively takes its direction from the mind of just one person. 

But I digress. Anyone who would like to know how to obtain and use their own secret decoder ring in order to gain access to privileged GCPBA information, feel free to contact me off-list.

Have a great Christmas!!

Rich Phillips


----------



## water wizard (Nov 30, 2011)

Thanks Tom for your reply and really do appreciate your passion for the GC.... not trying to take a shot at anyone. My adult daughter has CP and hope someday to take her on a GC river trip which would necessitate a shorter motorized trip. Hell, I may need a motorized trip pretty soon myself! P.S. Personally I think the NPS is doing a great job managing the GC and they probably don't hear that enough.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Water, Thanks for your post. Have you heard about Jumping Mouse and the history of individuals with all kinds of disabilities doing motor-free river trips in Grand Canyon? Not sure CP is a requirement for the use of motorized watercraft in Grand Canyon, but I certainly have no idea of the level of disability your family member has. It is possible that they would be very uncomfortable on Day 2 no matter what type of river journey the would take, and it is possible they would be fine on an oar trip.

It might help to keep in mind that only 30,000 people get to go through Grand Canyon by watercraft each year. At 30,000 folks a year, 1/10 of 1% of the population of the USA will make a Grand Canyon river trip in 100 years. Given the small numbers, one would assume all concessions trips would carry nothing but physically challenged folks. 

All the best to you and yours, tom

Ps: Hey Rich, as you serve on the GCPBA Board, sorry my post has upset you.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

FYI, since you've continued to maintain your life membership in GCPBA, your original decoder ring is active, and the secret password you issued yourself in 1996 should still be valid.

My advice, put this all behind you, use some different synapses while you're having a good long hike, and stay safe.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, 

Gee, I thought Andy had answered Water’s original question, and I was replying to your latter comment…. 

Ah irony… You noted “Anyone who would like to know how to obtain and use their own secret decoder ring in order to gain access to privileged GCPBA information, feel free to contact me off-list.”

How ironic when you note “that the most persistent complaints about the way GPCBA is run are from a former GPCBA president”

It might just be that I keep asking questions of you Board. 

Just few weeks ago I asked you a direct off list question. Your reply was that you didn’t handle the simple “stuff” I was asking you and you sent my query on to the GCPBA president, who kindly let me know what the rest of the GCPBA membership didn’t know. It turned out none of the GCPBA Board were able to tell the GCPBA membership when you made the decision to support what the NPS was planning back in 2008. And I’m the fall guy for taking that info to the members… that’s indeed irony. 

One has to wonder what else your secretiveness is hiding… 

Since you seem to know nothing about RRFW, there are 6 of us volunteers who work on this project of Living Rivers. We distribute facts and post to our members the correspondence we are having with the NPS, so our members can make up their own minds…

It’s too bad you seem so distressed by the RRFW structure. RRFW’s over 2,000 members do not pay dues. Get over it. If they like what we are doing, they donate as THEY see fit. It’s the National Public Radio model… and it has worked well enough to date…

Thank you for the great laugh when you noted RRFW has “no useful working relationship with the Park” 

That’s so funny. If I may be so bold, you mean to say the GCPBA relationship with its members comes second to the GCPBA “yes sir” relationship with the NPS. We have noted that, as have others…. 

You note RRFW is “an organization that effectively takes its direction from the mind of just one person.” Yes, I am mostly the spokesperson for RRFW, but you are otherwise factually incorrect. 

Finally, I encourage all river runners to *avoid* paying dues or donating, but *pay attention* and get the river data about what river managers are doing, make up your own minds, and then write the agency and cc your congressional reps. If you leave it to a dues paying organization who makes secret deals "on your behalf" but never tells you about them and is an agency yes-man, or if you leave it to another organization without an organizational structure, things may just not turn out the way you want.


Thanks Rich for your kind regards, and, yes, I am looking forward to another pilgrimage in the Grandest of Canyons…


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom,

As most Buzzards know, our differing views on all that have been aired here for years. 

More to the point though, you still never really answered the original questions in any useful detail.

"If RRFW was in charge of all river running activity in the GC what would it look like today?"

"What place would commercial rafting in the GC have today?"

Those questions were posed in what seems to be an honest inquiry. I'm betting folks would be a lot more interested in that information, rather than you taking all that time composing yet more bitter anti-GCPBA comments. 

Rich Phillips


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Peace on earth. Goodwill to (all) men...


----------



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

Tom's schtick does get old and tiring. A lot of bashing and not much else.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Yes indeed, A Merry Christmas to you all... and all the best for 2014 and beyond...

Rich, there is a plan on the RRFW web site, and all this 'What would your organization do if you were in charge...' is nonsense as those of us that volunteer for RRFW know we do not operate in a vacuum. 

JohnRyan, Bashing? Really? Please… facts are facts my friend. 

It’s clear that while RRFW continues to work for equitable access for self guided river runners, alerting river runners to issues they can comment on and clearly care about, the GCPBA keeps their members in the dark until revealed, and the “Private Boater” is the worse for the wear.

I really hope the NPS does not shorten the spring trips by 30 days, and I hope the NPS makes winter trips more attractive. The loss of 151 river trips in the last 5 years, mostly in the winter because the access bar has been set too high, is so sad. These facts need all our attention and we all need to be informing the NPS and our congressional staff about our thoughts on this. 

Time to put my home on my back and once again journey on a Grand Canyon pilgrimage to be inspired by the natural world and the beauty of Grand Canyon. 


All the best to you all, tom


----------



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

Facts are facts until they become lies to suit your own agenda and prejudice. Lots of talk and no proof. I hope you won't be an example of "The more I say it the more people will believe it."


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Is water wizard a GBCA plant to start the fight so people can bash Tom yet again? I have no skin in the game but when one group repeats over and over negative comments they start to sound like the problem. I know there is a lot going on in the background and history between the parties, but if you read these as an outsider (as I do) Phil and Andy you guys seem to be on the attack, repeatedly. It is Christmas for crying out loud!!!!


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

lhowemt said:


> Is water wizard a GBCA plant to start the fight so people can bash Tom yet again? I have no skin in the game but when one group repeats over and over negative comments they start to sound like the problem. I know there is a lot going on in the background and history between the parties, but if you read these as an outsider (as I do) Phil and Andy you guys seem to be on the attack, repeatedly. It is Christmas for crying out loud!!!!


I think you meant Rich, not Phil. This Phil's contribution tried to call attention to the season...


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Phil U. said:


> I think you meant Rich, not Phil. This Phil's contribution tried to call attention to the season...


Yes yes, thank you


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

Reading the threads and back and forth posts it seems the GCPBA has commercial interests and NPS interests too. I am glad for the discussion Tom contributes and questions he raises, Tom seems to have private boaters in mind more so than the GCPBA. 
It seems like richp could be part of the GCCBA.


----------



## moetown (May 8, 2007)

*The Three Wise Men, and the DOO DOO Parable*

2000+ years ago 3 wise men traveled from far away lands to experience a once in a lifetime event. Birth of a messiah through a virgin mother! It was a miracle event. The wise men dug deep into their pockets to each bring a gift to the newborn King. For half a year they traveled. One brought Gold of the highest quality, the other brought frankincense that which only kings could see, and myrrh the best in all of the land. To a manger they traveled and to a poor family they visited Jesus the King of Kings was born. The three wise men met Mary, soon to be famous in her own right, and Joseph a simple man of the wood. And last but not least Jesus. Upon Jesus they laid their gifts and had the most peaceful night in a manger. Throughout the years they returned to Jesus, and spoke with him often. The first wise man said, "So Jesus, what did you think of the Gold? Sweet huh? I mined it myself! Frankincense and Myrrh? ? Come on! Your God's son? You need the best!" Jesus straight faced, said nothing. The second wise man said, "Jesus, how about that frankincense? Golds for material boobs, and myrrh? Pretty easy to get. But Frankincense is fit for the Gods! Your my best friend Jesus straight faced said nothing. The third wise man said, "Jesus, myrrh's the shit huh? I bled that myself. Ohh the time it took... I did it all for you. Gold ahh people are making gold out of all sorts of stuff now, and frankincense is for poor folks. You deserve the best" Jesus straight faced said nothing.
For the 13th year of all these visits Jesus asked all wise men to visit him on the same day. So in they came, one at a time approaching Jesus with a little wink and a nod as if to say, "Jesus I am here, I'll be over there next to the two boobs if you need me" 
Jesus sighed when they were all there. Wise men, you know I love you! Jesus said! Every year you come and you give me a hug and then you show me a little turd in your pocket you call the other 2. Wise man number 1 shows me the turd he calls wise man #2, and #3, right there he keeps it in his pocket. Wise man #2 shows me his turd(#1, and #3), and Wise man #3 shows me his turd. When you see me straight faced and as of recently smile the last few years... do you know what I am thinking? huh?
Well I was reallying thinking....
Jesus exclaimed, "WOW! These guys have been carrying around those Turds in their pockets since I was born   Jajajaja
There not so wise after all  ! ! Jajajaja
And the three wise men busted out in laughter and emptied the turds out of their pockets forever!!!!! I love you guys") said Jesus.
For we are all in this together. And truth is, we have about as much power as those 13 year old turds. So we best stay together and muster as much turd power as weez got, huh?


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Laura, Tom and I have traded viewpoints here and elsewhere for years. You're right, they do stem from a very lengthy history between Tom and GCPBA -- an organization he helped found, but which he left when his own Board would not support his anti-motor, anti-Park agenda. And I'm sure his adverse feelings intensified when GCPBA fought hard to defeat RRFW's lawuit, which tried to nullify the CRMP.

Tom and I both seem to have a personality trait that compels us to keep trying to get our point across. I take exception to some things he writes, and he does likewise. Yes, I get aggravated when he says things I feel are a distortion; I'm sure he feels the same when I point out something that doesn't fit his narrative. But I think a fair reading of this and past threads is that Tom and I have managed to keep things pretty civil, notwithstanding regular exchanges of both hard facts and obviously arguable assertions. 

Lately though, I've been coming to suspect we're engaged in a rather futile battle over just a handful of people who haven't already made up their minds about motors and the Park. 

Treemanji, it's a matter record -- and has been for years -- that I'm a former GCPBA Vice President, and now I'm its Secretary. My posts here are not official GCPBA statements, but they certainly represent GCPBA's position on issues, to the best of my ability. 

I have to add something about these assertions that GCPBA is somehow in the Park's pocket. 

GCPBA is the group that sued the Park to get it to resume the CRMP process. 

GCPBA forced the Park to come to grips with a stalemated river access program that greatly disadvantaged private boaters relative to commercial boaters. And after we won that case, we negotiated key provisions that made their way into the CRMP -- provisions that resulted in many gains for private boaters. 

But rather than stay in a adversarial mode, once that was done we began to work cooperatively with the Park on a wide range of issues, starting with implementation of the CRMP. Doing things cooperatively isn't a "sellout" -- we advocate things they don't like, and argue against things they propose. But we think the posture we've adopted is a sensible way to keep up a useful flow of information, and to influence the direction of Park decisions. 

To be clear, GCPBA has no "commercial interests." Commercial outfitters are another part of the GC boating community, and from time to time we talk to them, just like we talk to guides, canyoneers, the folks who outfit private trips, and other GC-related organizations. That's because we see all of those parties as legitimate co-stakeholders in GC boating. It makes sense to us to exchange information on subjects of mutual interest. But neither the Board nor CGPBA as an organization receive any benefit from, nor do we operate in behalf of, any commercial interest. 

Finally, we know we can't represent the individual desires and preferences of every private boater. The GC boating community is too diverse. We work on an ongoing flow of issues that arise from email input from boaters, actions of outside parties, from our own initiative, and from the Park itself. And we continue to do this -- day, by day, week by week, throughout the year. As an all-volunteer Board, we do our best to sort out the important things we can address within our limited resources, and to make the best, most balanced decisions we can.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

treemanji said:


> Reading the threads and back and forth posts it seems the GCPBA has commercial interests and NPS interests too. I am glad for the discussion Tom contributes and questions he raises, Tom seems to have private boaters in mind more so than the GCPBA.
> It seems like richp could be part of the GCCBA.


I feel the same way and have seen the same thing for many years now.


----------



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

Exactly my point about Tom, thank you! Constant negative comments and bash, bash, bash, over and over again. It's no wonder he can't work with NPS and other river groups.

No skin in my game, either. Just a guy looking at the situation.



lhowemt said:


> Is water wizard a GBCA plant to start the fight so people can bash Tom yet again? I have no skin in the game but when one group repeats over and over negative comments they start to sound like the problem. I know there is a lot going on in the background and history between the parties, but if you read these as an outsider (as I do) Phil and Andy you guys seem to be on the attack, repeatedly. It is Christmas for crying out loud!!!!


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

*Hard Info Available*

Hi,

It's sort of sad that now -- years after the events -- we're still batting around those old accusations and myths. And for some reason, nobody ever asks for facts to back the assertion that GCPBA “sold out” to the commercials. So the rest of this post is for anyone who cares for some actual information, rather than innuendo.

A bit of research uncovers a neat little summary of the Park’s preferred Alternative H, from which the final CRMP launch management plan was developed, and which GCPBA supported in large part. (For the actual document, see http://gcpba.org/2010/08/30/final-crmp-eis/ and scroll to the PDF link at the bottom.) 

Extracting from it, one finds that GCPBA supported the final version of a plan that proposed to:

* Decrease the number of launches from nine a day to six – all of which reduction came from commercial outfitter activity.

* Decrease the length of the commercial motor season.

* Reduce commercial motor group sizes to 32 people in the summer and 24 people during the rest of the year -- down from 43. 

* Reduce commercial oar trip sizes to 32 people in the summer and 24 people during the rest of the year -- down from 39.

* Reduce the maximum trip length for commercial motor trips to 10 days in the summer and 12 days in the shoulder seasons -- down from 18.

* Reduce maximum trip length for commercial oar trips from 18 to 16 days in the summer, and from 21 to 18 days in the shoulder seasons. 

* Completely ban winter commercial oar trips. 

Yes, the final plan differed in some detail. And there were features we protested – most notably a trip length reduction for private boaters. But indisputably, every one of the above items took away from the bottom line of the commercial outfitters. 

Does any of that sound like a sellout? And if it still does, please let me know what GCPBA got in return -- other than doubled access for private boaters, an improved permit system, and many other benefits for privates. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

*Another important acronym*

I’d like to clarify some things Rich has stated up above.

First the acronyms he’s throwing around, then a little history.

GCPBA = Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association – the group that filed a July 2000 lawsuit against the National Park Service (NPS) after the NPS released a management plan that would have left the 20+ year waitlist in place along with about 2/3 of the Grand Canyon user day allocation remaining with the commercial outfitters.

CRMP = Colorado River Management Plan – the plan under which river trips occur in the Grand Canyon and which dictates launch allocation, trip lengths, etc. 

For the history, there's one other acronym that’s very important: AW

American Whitewater joined GCPBA, along with the American Canoe Association (ACA) and National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) in the July 2000 lawsuit.

Once the lawsuit was settled and CRMP planning restarted, AW (with Jason Robertson doing much of AW’s heavy lifting on the issue) was a full partner with GCPBA and other parties developing the improvements to private boater access Rich lists above.

Where I have a strong disagreement with Tom is his notion that by sitting down at the table with the outfitters, the park, and other user groups, and hammering out an agreement that has greatly increased access for private boaters (raise your hand if you've been down the Grand in the last 5 years), GCPBA and AW are somehow shills for the commercial outfitters and have sold out private boaters.

-AH


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

Thanks richp and Andy H. for the posts. Is the proposed plan in effect?


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

treemanji said:


> Is the proposed plan in effect?


Yes, the proposed plan has been in effect about 7 years. About 5 years were required to clear out all the people that had been on the waitlist. This means the NPS has only been able to collect about 2 years of data on how the CRMP is truly being implemented and what the usage and the demand are without previously scheduled waitlist launches decreasing the number of available launches in the lottery. Part of the CRMP is a 10-year review to determine whether and what modifications will be needed. 

That's one reason that GCPBA has held the position it's too early for making changes to the plan, filing lawsuits attempting to change the plan, etc. Another major reason GCPBA has not been advocating publicly for any changes to the plan is that all the parties also agreed not to try to change things until the 10 year review. My understanding is while there may be some minor tweaks to the CRMP if NPS deems necessary (ban on firewood gathering, changing some trip lengths in spring with an equalizing offset in fall) we shouldn't expect anything substantial until the plan is up for review.

Tom has often accused the GCPBA of being in bed with the outfitters, citing things like the fact GCPBA opposed his group's lawsuit a couple of years ago to nullify the CRMP. However _the GCPBA was *obligated* to defend the current plan as part of the agreement_. Just as the commercial outfitters' group would be obligated to defend the plan against one of their own who filed suit to extend the motor season further into spring or fall or to get a higher allocation of commercial launches.

And for those who say they don't have any "skin in the game," that's only true if you don't ever plan to take a trip down the Grand Canyon. If you've been down the GC in the last few years, have a trip scheduled, or want to go down the Canyon one day, you've benefitted from the increased private boater allocation gained by GCPBA and AW in the compromise plan.

Hopefully this helps clear some things up.

-AH


----------

