# BLM floats possible fee to Ruby/Horse



## Hey Zeus (Mar 19, 2007)

riverdoghenry said:


> FYI, BLM floats possible fee to Ruby/Horse:
> 
> BLM floats fee to ride river rapids


 
I'm surprised they waited so long.....


----------



## Geezer (Oct 14, 2003)

Me too but remember it's a fee not a tax...


----------



## WestSlopeWW (Jun 26, 2008)

Their "fees" are just a nice way of saying "permit system". This is just the beginning...


----------



## spankey (Jul 22, 2008)

riverdoghenry said:


> FYI, BLM floats possible fee to Ruby/Horse:
> 
> BLM floats fee to ride river rapids


I don't want to sound stupid but are you referring to fees for Ruby Ranch to Horsethief (Mineral Bottoms) on the Green River in Utah or something else. Your post was kind of vague. Is that a one day run?


Sorry I didn't see the clickable text. I am now clear so don't flame me.


----------



## dgosn (Sep 8, 2006)

This should be no surprise to anyone.

Piles of shit and tp near camps, burned/ripped trees. Ashes/fire debris everywhere. 

I did a solo trip last week for 3 days, I filled up 2 ammo cans with butts, cans, bottles, and all kinds of stuff from beaches and camps. Cleaned 2 campfire rings, one on river bank and one in the willows where I camped due to hurricane winds. Neither one of these were at 'recognized' campsites.

Last summer I was floatin down and a ranger floated up to me. Asked to see firepan, groover, etc.. He said I was the only person that day that had all the required stuff. That particular trip only people I saw were folks that had rented gear/boats. I know Rimrock make people take a groover when they rent gear for RH, and I think the other outfitters do as well. 

Ironically near westwater putin I came across a group that had duckies and 2 homemade vessels (pallets/barrels) they had a groover and something from the junkyard for a firepan. I was blown away that out of all the people they actually cared enought to contain the shit and fire.

I think having an easy flatwater float next to a larger town is the downfall of Ruby. I hate the man, hate permits, but hate people that destroy the wilderness even more. It wouldnt hurt my feelings to see a volunteer ranger at the put in on saturdays occasionaly. The only other option is for everyone that knows better to step up and call bullshit when they see people screwing things up. I think many people dont understand the inpacts that poopin and burnin causes in a small area. 

I also think part of the problem may lay with people and powerboat hunting and fishing in the fall, I see these folks out for overnights with nothing more than case of bud light and a sleepingbag.


scott


----------



## Hey Zeus (Mar 19, 2007)

Well, part of the issue with volunteering is they have no real power. My father does this for the Poudre Wilderness areas. He just makes suggestions and tells them the laws. I suppose people who care about that area could work with the BLM to form a crew. And BTW, not all hunters are that way. When I go hunting, I always take my river groover. If "things" happen away from camp, I bury and attempt to leave no trace. I'm just saying, not all hunters are complete tools.


----------



## WestSlopeWW (Jun 26, 2008)

Instead of fees for everyone to put their boat in the water, why not just impose big fines for anyone who is on the river without the proper gear? You really think charging someone $7 to put his homemade vessel in the water at Loma is going to keep him from taking a shit on the beach?

The BLM already has a ranger patrolling the river on most weekend days during the peak river season. If he were to write three of four $200 citations per day to the dumbasses that are breaking the rules, that would generate more revenue than charging everyone to use our public river. If he cannot find anything to write citations for, then the problem is solved anyways, and he doesnt need to be there. But unfortunately, revenue is what this is all about anyways...


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

WestSlopeWW said:


> But unfortunately, revenue is what this is all about anyways...


That's bullshit. If revenue was all the BLM cared about, there would have been a fee/permit system in place years ago. While it's nice to have an option like RH that you can float anytime you want without a permit, the land managers (and the boating community) shouldn't sit idly by and watch the river corridor be trashed by overuse and blatant abuse. 

Protection of the resource should be the first priority. Otherwise, if the current trend in use/impact continues very few will want to float that stretch in a matter of years anyway. Not to mention the campsite cluster fuck that happens EVERY time on that river. No one adheres to the voluntary campsite sign up at the put-in. I've been scooped by some drunk assholes more times on that stretch than I care to count. 

Compare permitted rivers to RH and tell me there's not a difference in the overall resource conditions. I've seen more impact - human waste, toilet paper, bombed out firerings, trash, live trees and branches hacked off, etc. between Loma and Salt Creek than along the entire stretch of Lodore, the Main Salmon, the Green...


----------



## dgosn (Sep 8, 2006)

WWW,

I completely agree, I would way rather have offenders pay than a blanket fee for all users. I don't believe the ranger I ran into (volunteer?) had the ability to write tickets. I have only seen a ranger once down there. I also generally avoid RH on summer weekend due to the mayhem and knowing that what ever camp I sign up for will likely be taken by someone who did not sign up.

I am pretty anti-government and would like to see all fees for public lands be abolished (double taxation), but as an avid user of public lands I have to weigh preservation of resources with freedom. 

Another option would be for the Westwater ranger to perform a cursory check of required equipment at the RH takeout. I usually keep floating to cisco, so by default I am checked. I am not sure that the rangers there really ask people about required equip if they are taking out.

One other option is what the BLM did at Indian Creek (utah), there was a huge problem with huma waste at the major camping areas. They was talk of fees, established campground, etc... Luckily friends of Indian Creek stepped up and got donations to buy Wag Bag type bags to freely give away at the entrance to Bridger Jack and Cottonwood camp areas. This has seemed to work well.

I would rather donate $ every year for waste bags and better signage than pay a 'fee'. I am sure that if someone organized a similar program in GJ it might work out well. At present I try to take as much trash out every time I float just so the perception of river runners is less tainted, I also know a lot of other people that do the same thing.

Interesting debate. I love RH because there is NO permit and I can go for a day trip, or take several days to hike, play horseshoes, swim, etc.... Whatever happens we all should do what we can to keep it unpermitted at the very least, and free is possible.


Scott


----------



## WestSlopeWW (Jun 26, 2008)

JBL said:


> I've seen more impact - human waste, toilet paper, bombed out firerings, trash, live trees and branches hacked off, etc. between Loma and Salt Creek than along the entire stretch of Lodore, the Main Salmon, the Green...


Tell me how charging everyone $7 to run the river is going to stop this. It isnt.

I do agree, a limited permit system is probably the only way to completely stop the overuse of the canyon, but is that what we really want? How about we just get the bastards off the river who dont follow the rules, including the ones who do not sign up for a camp and take the sites that are already reserved?


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

The problem on Ruby/Horsetheif is:

1. a flawed campsite reservation system (the sign up is a joke)
2. users not taking groovers and firepans

Why not have a permit system like Westwater, but with more launches per day since there are more campgrounds available. One ranger could check people in quickly and assign campgrounds based on group size and next available. I wouldn't mind paying a couple bucks per head to fund a ranger and possibly an administrator. Maybe have a call in system like Westy, but also allow vacant slots to go first come, first show on slower days. Maybe just do this system on the weekends to save more $$$.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

I've had occasion to spend time talking with Moab and GJ BLM personnel about this from time to time. Their first and major concern is the current, ongoing degradation of the resource -- everything from feces and TP, to fires and fireworks, to campsite usage. The problems of congestion, parking and personal conduct, at both Loma and Westwater, were also issues. 

While permitting and fees came up as some of the options for solution, I never got the idea that GJ BLM was really wanting to impose a Westwater-like solution. And there seemed to be a healthy understanding of the rather unique place this stretch of river has in the overall scheme of things -- a beautiful, fun run that families and other groups can do without having a lot of specialized boating skills. 

These little chats took place over the last several years. Perhaps with a higher funding levels for Interior under the new administration there would be additional resources to set up a permitting/fee scheme. But my recollection was they didn't have the personnel to do it, and at any rate really would prefer a minimally-intrusive, lowest-possible-bureaucracy solution to what everyone acknowledged was a real problem.

So my bet is that if they go to permits and fees, it's because continued abuse drove them to it -- not a lust for revenue or power. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
gulchradio.com


----------



## stillkicken (Nov 30, 2003)

richp said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've had occasion to spend time talking with Moab and GJ BLM personnel about this from time to time. Their first and major concern is the current, ongoing degradation of the resource -- everything from feces and TP, to fires and fireworks, to campsite usage. The problems of congestion, parking and personal conduct, at both Loma and Westwater, were also issues.
> 
> ...


+1
People who think the BLM river offices are out to take away their rights and "double tax" them are dead wrong. RH has long been abused not because the BLM has _allowed _it to be a free for all on the assumption that citizens will treat the resource with respect. I've talked to lots of river rangers and front office people over the years and they would love to not have to resort to permits, fees and restrictions, but unfortunately, it's what they have to do to protect the river coridoors. While most river runners - at least the ones I do trips with do follow LNT ethics, there are enough who without direct supervision who don't and they will back the BLM into a corner where the only solution is some kind of permit system.


----------



## ric (Apr 12, 2004)

*Permit it !!!*

Yes, I never thought I'd say this but I think it should happen.
To many out there abusing the canyon, it's getting trashed!
I'm not sure who's doing it but there's a issue every week in there, remember the guy who made his dog swim the whole way!
And the fire that got started in there by recreation equiptment? Still never heard the whole story on that?
The camp sign up system is a joke too!
Whats up with all the motors?
Lets start at $5


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

WestSlopeWW said:


> How about we just get the bastards off the river who dont follow the rules, including the ones who do not sign up for a camp and take the sites that are already reserved?


In lieu of a permit system, how exactly, do you propose to do this? This is the obvious goal - getting the asshats, fucktards, etc. off the river - but there's no realistic solution other than some kind of permit system. Most folks who actually apply for permits generally aren't the ones creating the impact, hence the suggestion/support for tightening up the system on RH.


----------



## WestSlopeWW (Jun 26, 2008)

JBL said:


> In lieu of a permit system, how exactly, do you propose to do this? This is the obvious goal - getting the asshats, fucktards, etc. off the river - but there's no realistic solution other than some kind of permit system. Most folks who actually apply for permits generally aren't the ones creating the impact, hence the suggestion/support for tightening up the system on RH.


 
I agree that probably a limited permit system is the only way. But the article in the GJSentinel talks only about charging a fee, not a permit system. Do you think that just because people are paying to be there, people are going to be more respectful of the river?


----------



## twmartin (Apr 3, 2007)

I think we need to keep in mind that 75% of FEES stay in the local area for use by the local BLM office. The $7 per person launch fee wouldn't come close to paying for a ranger to check people in at the launch site on a daily basis, but it could cover the overtime to schedule 5-6 more river patrols each season. Fines stay in the federal court system and might help correct bad behavior, but even a collection box without a ranger could collect enough to make a serious difference. 

Permits might only be needed on certain weekends of the year.


----------



## yarmonymatoid (Nov 5, 2008)

The biggest trouble makers I've seen down there are the locals(only some of you). Primarily the non-river (renters) people. Assholes that think RH is there back yard and they own it because their from GJ. I've also had more problems with the john boat/motor types than I have ever had with the actual rafters. Inexperienced family groups that rent their gear are the ones causing the mess (toilet paper, no fire ring). I've had the unfortunate luck of camping next to a group that rented everything. They destroyed the place. My wife and I hung out the day they left and cleaned up their disgusting BS. 

The only time I like that place is in February. I get tired of arriving at my camp after 4 hours of pushing into high winds only to find some ******* in a john boat or flat back canoe in my "reserved" spot. 

One fantastic day, I pulled up to my reserved campsite with my daughter, son & wife only to find one of these groups. 3 people in a johnboat, one really drunk guy passed out on the beach with his ass hanging out. I get out of the boat to scope out the situation and find the other dude bangin' this ugly toothless bitch doggy style around the corner on a rock. They were so messed up they didn't even know we were there.

So we move on down river and take another site only to argue with another group that wanted to camp alone at the site they reserved. WTF do you do about this... I don't know. Permit, might be the only thing you can do.


----------



## Di (Apr 26, 2006)

I live in GJ and have quit running RH because it has gotten so trashed by the ignorant and/or don't-give-crap bubbas. A permit system is, unfortunately, the only effective way I know of to protect the resource and return it to being the beautiful, relaxing float it used to be. If it were an beginner run, but in an out-of-the-way place with challenging logistics like Labyrinth-Stillwater, it would not be such a problem, but RH's easy access for every yahoo on the western slope has been a disaster. Between the burned-out cottonwood groves, poop, garbage, not to mention getting to deal with drunk white trash crashing your "registered" camp site - I won't go back until there IS a permit system....


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

yarmonymatoid said:


> I get out of the boat to scope out the situation and find the other dude bangin' this ugly toothless bitch doggy style around the corner on a rock. They were so messed up they didn't even know we were there.


BLM should just make a full set of teeth "required" equipment, violators of which are punished by dragging their trailer to the dump. That would clear out the riffraff!

I'm not a big fan of permits and fees either, but its to the point where its needed.


----------



## whare (Apr 24, 2009)

1) The proposed fee is just that, not a permit. If the BLM simply wanted to generate revenue - and what would the purpose of that be? - the BLM would have imposed a fee many years ago. It is not free to fund either rangers, maintainence, or even volunteers. It all cost money. Ruby Horsethief is tremendously popular and hence requires an increased level of attention which cost money. Volunteers are the lowest cost option, so instead of writing on Mountain Buzz, feel free to volunteer, as some writers have.
2) Generally, the BLM does what the public wants and not just what some BLM'er wants. Much input has been solicited about what users want. The BLM actually values your input and has several options for you. These social networking sites are interesting, but aren't generally used for input from the public. Have you filled out the comment card at the take out with intelligent, thoughtful input? Have you called, written, attended public meetings or joined the advisory group? If you want a permit system, have you thought about enforcment and the associated cost of additional rangers, boats, equipment, and vehicles? Have you thought about not getting your Ruby Horsethief permit? A very high percentage of users want to keep the river spontaneous and free from a permit system. The easiest thing for the BLM to do would simply to have instituted a permit system. Right now they are still trying education and information - because right now that is what most users still want.
3) For the last 2 years the BLM has funded increased levels of staffing and has at least one ranger on the river at least both weekend days. The camping system works better than it used to and most users are following fire and sanitation regs. The sytem works if you use it, and it doesn't work if you don't use it. This year an additional ranger will be at the Loma launch on weekends, all weekend long. 
4) The rangers at Westwater are already extremely busy handling their users who have actually paid to be on the river. They really do not have the time to handle RH users who are using the same facilities at Westwater for free.
5) "Keep the bastards off." This is America. How, exactly, do you propose to do that without a permit system?
6) Having said all of that, with the increase in use, ultimately the only way to keep the experience pleasant and the resource healthy will be an eventual permit system.


----------



## ric (Apr 12, 2004)

*Ruby Horsethief?*

Why do you all call it that?
It's Horsethief Ruby canyons!

The fees being Floated, are to cover the upgrades over the past years, which are great.
Thats how it works, they put in the improvements then there throw in the fees, so there's no argument!

They'll need to pay for the new boat ramp at take out some day also.

And why are motors even allowed in there,I thought the left bank was Wilderness area?

Blm does it they're way, soon you'll be paying to camp out at 18 1/2 road too.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

I guess I don't understand the big deal, it's three to seven bucks right? Just pay it! If it works out at all like Pumphouse I'm all for it. Pumphouse is nice and clean with picnic tables and designated campsites.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

the problem is, pumphouse doesnt have a large metropolitan area with 20,000 people in it, all less than 20 minutes from the river. that kind of user base living that close to the river, and it wont just "work out". theres a big difference between being too cheap to pay your money, and keeping 1000 dumbasses off the river who shouldnt be there in the first place.

factor in places like the sports authority, which make people feel far better at things (like boating) than they actually are, as well as folks who dont have or could care less about proper river etiquette and youve got a bad mix.

like what was said earlier, if it had complex logistics or was not near anything else such as a city (like pumphouse is) then that alone would cut down on the users. but as it is, its a shitty situation, and other than a rare late-season (september or october) trip, i avoid Ruby Horsethief like the plague.

Grand Junction is kind of a shitty place for easy raft floats. deal with the homeless folks on the day run, deal with the white trash yahoos on RH, or get your car broken into at the whitewater takeout. sounds like win/win all the way around.


----------



## whare (Apr 24, 2009)

What Jensjustdukie said...it's 5 to 7 bucks! Cheap entertainment. Its called Ruby Horsethief because that's its traditional name. The river itself is the jurisdiction of the state, not the BLM. And the wilderness starts about a half mile in from the water. Why would you think that you have a right to the river and motor boaters don't? And yes, fees at 18 road will allow the BLM to hire more staff for the 1.2 million acres managed by just a handful of folks so that YOU get clean toilets and a campground with no or fewer illegal campers all over the place going potty between camp sites or tearing out live juniper trees. Still a pretty good deal. Or...you can volunteer to go out there a couple times a week and scrub toilets.


----------



## alanbol (Jun 3, 2005)

*Bring it on!*

We only go down RH in March and April anymore. It used to be that May was OK - not anymore. I'd much rather endure a spring storm than the summer hordes. 

Permits would take away some of the spontaneity of a RH trip, though. I think a lot of people would snarf them up "just in case" making it harder to get on the rio than it really ought to be. And then there's that idea that "if it's permitted, it must be special" that will attract more people. 

But overall, I think the place is getting so trashed that they have to do something. Maybe the current crash in oil and gas prices will thin out th eoil patch and take care of the crowds. Here's hoping.


----------



## jonas_f (May 31, 2007)

ric said:


> And why are motors even allowed in there,I thought the left bank was Wilderness area?


The Grand Canyon is managed as a wilderness area, yet one is permitted (for the time being) to motor one's ass down the ditch. 

Now what we have here is a concrete example of the concept of "tragedy of the commons". The BLM is short on funding and resources to manage the area effectively. Because there is no oversight, there are no percieved consequences of being a inconsiderate slob, people treat it as they would anything that is free and without social or moral ramifications, as a result, sustainable recreation becomes a race to the bottom, because the lowest common denominator becomes a standard by which everything is based. The only way to reverse the ongoing trend is to "force" a value for taking care of the resource by imposing a fee. I think it ought to be more than $7 bucks, until we as a collective user group and prove that it needs to be less.

That being said, is there a local group / 501 3-c (to volunteer or donate money to) that is currently coordinating and spearheading an effort to educate, and partner with the GJ field office to manage these areas?


----------



## striker (Aug 22, 2007)

I ran Ruby last weekend and when our group got to the camp we signed up for there where already people there. Luckily they were nice folks and we found a way to share the camp. They were simply unaware of the registration situation. I feel that a sign on the way down to the ramp would at least help people that are already trying to do the right thing. When you get to the boat ramp you have to walk over to the board to find out about the registration system, and even when you do it is not made obvious that you need to register. A sign would at least be a start in helping the camp registration system. I would hate to see a fee put in place on this streach. I feel that paying to use public lands amounts to double taxation. The BLM is charged with protecting these lands and receive taxpayer money to do so. I feel that a permit is nessisary if the river is overused, but if the the situation is abuse as oppose to overcrowded then enforcment is nessisary, not permiting. I agree with Jonas-f as well and feel that a non-profit, donation based river user group would be the best solution to the problem, and I would be interested in helping to form one. If we help to take care of the resourses then permits and fees will not be nessisary.


----------



## waynehare (Jun 30, 2008)

jonas_f said:


> is there a local group / 501 3-c (to volunteer or donate money to) that is currently coordinating and spearheading an effort to educate, and partner with the GJ field office to manage these areas?


Actually, yes. Ruby Horsethief is entirely within the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area. There is a non-profit, Friends of McInnis. At this point they have largely, but not entirely, focused on the land areas more than the river, but would welcome a sort of River Division for Ruby Horsethief. They can be contacted through their site at Friends of McInnis Canyons Every year they do organize a river cleanup and on really busy holiday weekends try to provide volunteers at the launch to inform and educate about river etiquette and the camping system. 

Incidently, re lack of signs directing folks to register for a camp site: There's a large, prominent sign on the ramp down to the river. At the Kiosk is a registration box that says "Registration" on it in large letters. On top of this box is a laminated sign instructing users to register for their site. In front of this box is a huge map and in both the upper left and lower right are instructions to register for your site. And the kiosk panel to your right is a huge information panel that is ONLY about camping along Ruby Horsethief and - of course - includes instructions about registering. 

Anyway, contact Friends of McInnis. User involvement is always the key and even more useful than simply blaming the BLM on a social site they don't even monitor.


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

*Need Some Accountability*

Obviously, something needs to be done about this section of river. Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as voluntarily approaching (on your own) a group of drunken trailer trash and giving them an education as suggested above. Over the years, I’ve seen permitted rivers and other high use outdoor areas of other interests greatly improve through permits or regulations.

On the other hand, I’ve seen Federal Land Management Agencies target many different specific user groups for fees over the years with the explanation that the fees are to improve access and the overall quality of use by these targeted groups. In some of these cases and years later nothing more than a few signs have been put up and nothing has improved. The money/fees were not used to improve things for the original targeted user groups and their areas of interest, but funneled off somewhere completely different.

Please pay attention to what Tom Kleinschnitz is saying to the paper in this article, “*I don’t know what they intend to use the fee for. That is the core of the problem here*,” Kleinschnitz said. “Many times users are picked on a bit with these fee schemes. ... They seem in my opinion to be very much abused in these situations.”

If fees or even a fee/permit combination is the only thing that will cleanup and preserve this sections of river for future generations, I’m very open to considering and investigating it. I won’t simply jump on a band wagon supporting a fee system that is only vague about where the money/fees are going to be allocated and specifically what is going to be done with it. I’ve seen this similar cross road of past problems improve things and not improve anything but double taxing a specific user group. 

The BLM needs to assure us that the specifics of X, Y, and Z is going to be done with the fees to improve this river corridor and that the money is only going to be spent on area used by the targeted user group and not be funneled off somewhere else! We need to be asking for specifics details from the BLM.


----------



## dfoushee (May 2, 2009)

*Friends of McInnis Canyons*

I am the manager for "Friends of McInnis Canyons NCA", the local non-profit group that partners with the BLM to try to help with these areas. We can always use more financial support and volunteers for our activities and projects. Check out our website at www.mcinniscanyons.org

We have just initiated a new program called the "Cottonwood Club"... Due to wildfires over the last few years (caused by people who didn't put out their campfires along the river), several mature stands of cottonwoods were burned to the ground. We're trying to replace those lost trees. 



jonas_f said:


> That being said, is there a local group / 501 3-c (to volunteer or donate money to) that is currently coordinating and spearheading an effort to educate, and partner with the GJ field office to manage these areas?


----------

