# RRFW Riverwire – Hualapai Nation River Trip Camping Permit Fee Increased



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

You were suckered in and you've been played, Mr. Grand Canyon.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Mr. Ryan, Great to hear from you. Thank you so much for that stick in my eye.

Yes, I agree that while the low cost program was in place, about 90 do-it-yourself river trips achieved over a $100,000 savings. 

I apologize for not paying as much attention to this as I should. Working with Glen Canyon to get some better camps in lower Cataract Canyon, rolling out the Ark Guide, doing oral histories to preserve DIY paddling history, writing Congress folks about the latest private tour business attempt to pull yet more river access to them, and seeking clarification on some Grand Canyon river running issues have kept me hopping. Oh. Then there is the writing about river history... the behind the scenes management stories never before published are amazing.

So how have you been? Besides another stick in my eye, what else have you been doing?

Hope all's well, Cordially yours, Tom


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

Hi Tom,

Keep doing what you do for all of us private boaters.

Ignore the stick tossers !

david reid


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

Interesting that their fees are such a roller-coaster.


Any insight as to why?


(and yes, I acknowledge that they're a sovereign nation and it's their right to do so, just interested in the why's if they are known)


----------



## trevko (Jul 7, 2008)

johnryan said:


> You were suckered in and you've been played, Mr. Grand Canyon.


I've known Tom for going on 25 years. I don't always see eye to eye with him and sometimes question his approach - but not many have done more for The Canyon. Really, what have you done for The Canyon, for river runners, for increasing non-commercial access....


----------



## matt man (Dec 23, 2011)

Yes, ignore the stick tossers!
Appreciate all the work you do for private boaters, and the Grand Canyon, such as helping spear head the fight against the tram.

I am still happy to give the benefit of the doubt, and stay off the disputed land, until the dispute is resolved. I see no reason to inflame things, when there is still a lot of great camping on the opposite side of the river. 

Anyway, thanks for letting us know, Tom!


----------



## waterdude (Apr 20, 2017)

Let's not tar and feather the messenger here, let alone ignore Tom's tireless advocacy for river access. It's important to also acknowledge this reasoned response to the tribal decision, made not more than a few months _ after _ the GCPBA was unethically inflaming things by outright rcommending river runners trespass on their lands as well as questioning their territorial claims with junk science.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

waterdude said:


> Let's not tar and feather the messenger here, let alone ignore Tom's tireless advocacy for river access. It's important to also acknowledge this reasoned response to the tribal decision, made not more than a few months _ after _ the GCPBA was unethically inflaming things by outright rcommending river runners trespass on their lands as well as questioning their territorial claims with junk science.


 Couldn't of said it better myself. Thanks Tom for doing what you do.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

The tribal lands are what they ended up with after non native Americans and/or Europeans came along with a lot more military power than spears and arrows. So be it.

As a private rafter and long retired business person, my take on this camp fee issues and also the ridiculous diamond Creek take out facilities and fees charged to private boaters who use the Grand Canyon for recreation and support it with our tax dollars is just do not use the tribal camp areas or diamond creek. The Grand Canyon is a benefit we got from nature but the US taxpayers make the Grand Canyon the recreational jewel it is today. Without the US Park Service, my bet is the Grand Canyon area would be a trash dump.

as a business person, my theory is build and maintain facilities that the purchasing public will want to use and charge a reasonable fee to maintain, improve facilities to the point a profit can be made and prices are still attractive to the public.

Do not use the tribal facilities especially Diamond Creek and with all the loss of income, my bet is the tribe (s) will feel the loss of income and do what is reasonable.

My opinion as a person who has used diamond creek take out is that take out is about the most unfriendly place a boater could use. We boaters pay big money to endure a painful experience. The tribe does maintain a road that most vehicles either cannot use or else a few trips tear up the vehicle. The ramp is as basic as it gets and there is nothing there to make the unloading process a bit more easier. I could give a bunch of really easy improvements to diamond creek access that would cost very little to the tribe but generate more income for them.

It appears to me all the tribe is doing is ripping off boaters who use diamond creek.

It is the right of the tribe (s) to set fees for use of their land and I support that right.

It is also the right of the public who pay taxes to make a Grand Canyon float the awesome experience that the float is to bypass tribal land and float on down to a US Tax payer funded take out. If people want to pay a ripoff fee to the tribes for diamond creek access or camp on a few sites the tribe (s) own that is their choice.

There is a rule of thumb idea for retail that states do not price your product to the point it cannot be afforded and another one that states give the customer a quality product for the price. The tribal authorities have violated these concepts about as much as they can be violated.

Again I support the tribe (s) right to maintain and price tribal lands. I also support the right of Grand Canyon floaters to choose to float by tribal facilities to use public facilities that are much more boater friendly and reasonably priced.


----------



## jeffinredlodge (Jun 16, 2017)

imho. the land is in dispute and as written i think is national park land. there will be another fight with the indians. it will be between boaters and so called tribal authority. i do not support trump by the way so dont label me that way. i do not respect tribal law when they feel they can just claim what they want because of something that happened a hundred yrs ago. let the haters comment.....


----------



## td (Apr 7, 2005)

It was the tribe's land hundreds of years ago and by almost all legal definitions is still theirs today (save the wacknut theory the high water mark is hundreds of feet higher than any human being in the history of mankind has ever seen). If they want to charge a ton of money for people to visit, that's their right just like it's my right to charge anyone that wants to come on my land. If no one chooses to pay what they charge that's their deal, and maybe that's what they want. I think the collective we (US government/citizens) have taken enough away from the Native Americans that were here long before us, maybe we should quit trying to take more so we can recreate cheaply on our multi thousand dollar rafting rigs.


----------



## jeffinredlodge (Jun 16, 2017)

td,
you are correct. "hundreds" of years ago. so what. a lot of cultures had lands"hundreds of years ago" i had land ten yrs ago and entered into a contract that made it not mine anymore. so did the indians. a fair amount of our tax dollars go to the BIA. I live next to a reservation and my family settled on the reservation four generations ago. indians have every oppurtunity to better themselves and the tribe. you just wish you had even the chance at a free education. a few have takin advantage and have excelled exceptionally. i feel the tribe is just trying to make an easy buck with (of course ) no effort.


----------



## trevko (Jul 7, 2008)

I have a trip in June and will not pay this fee. I would have paid the $100 for the trip, even though I think the boundary is the high water line. The assertion that maybe they raised it to $100 per person because they don't won't people there is laughable and beyond belief.


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

I just ran the GC, 21 day trip and it was awesome. We were told by the ranger at the put in orientation that the "traditional" high water level on river left IS part of the GC park and thus is open to camp on.
It is NOT a "wacknut" theory, it is and has been part of the Grand Canyon management practice for about a 100 years or so.
I will continue to camp on the left side until this is resolved. IMO the Hualapai's have gotten enough of my money (rightly so) for taking out at Diamond.
I don't begrudge the tribe fair and legal fees but it seems they are becoming a tad greedy.


----------



## jeffinredlodge (Jun 16, 2017)

wavester...copy that amigo.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Wavester, you might be interested to know that Jeff Ingram worked with all the players involved to expand the boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park in 1975. Here are his thoughts on the latest notice by Grand Canyon National Park to river runners who are asking the NPS about the boundary issue between the Hualapai Tribe and the National Park Service:

The late Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona must be roiling in his final resting place at the latest foolishness by Park Service bureaucrats in Grand Canyon National Park's administrative warrens. 

Were he still around, Im sure Goldwater would agree with George Orwell's great quote:

"It is ridiculous to get angry, BUT there is a stupid malignity in these things which does try one's patience" (my emphases).

When Goldwater was putting together the legislation that became the 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act, he took great pains 1) NOT to intrude on the rights of the Navajo, Hualapai, and Havasupai, and 2) to encourage governmental actions that would respect and serve the interests of those peoples while increasing protection of the Grand Canyon.

The Park Service has never understood the fine line that legislation walked, and has failed to follow the guidelines that the Senator and the Congress set down to encourage the federal government's positive actions toward the other three owners of the Canyon's South side.

Once again, as in previous times since 1975, local South Rim officials, lacking principled understanding and historical knowledge of the laws that govern their work, have contravened the language and intent of the 1975 Act.

An unsigned Park administration email is floating about, purporting to be the U.S. government position on the boundary of the Park where it abuts the northern edge of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. 

The full text, as it has come to me, is reproduced at the end of this entry, but here is the (rotten) meat of the matter:

Along that shared boundary, the federal government's position places all camping beaches, by definition, within the management authority of the National Park Service and not within the Hualapai reservation.
AND
Based upon the federal government's determination of the boundary between the park and the reservation, the Tribe cannot require camping fees for camping on river left downstream of river mile 166.

Notice, please that it is the federal government's "position" and "determination". What lovely bureaucratic euphemisms for the word "opinion". Unfortunately for the writer of the email, cloaking itself in euphemism does not alter the wording and intent of the two controlling documents in this matter: a Presidential Proclamation and an Act of Congress. 

I have written extensively about the history and law of the boundaries of the Reservation and the Park. I will simply sum up here by saying that the land on the south bank along the Reservation is part of that Reservation, the boundary of which runs to and along the river. The Park Service has jurisdiction only over river traffic when it is on the water. The Park Service has no "management authority" on what the email calls the "camping beaches". The Hualapai can charge fees, just as they can and do at Diamond Creek.

If the email is correct -- and its benign language belies decades of Hualapai-NPS relations -- about the current stance of the Hualapai, then there may well be even more trouble ahead than is envisioned by those who have correctly warned that using the Hualapai land on the south bank of their Reservation without permission may well, at any point, find trespassers in court and worse.

Full text of email"
"Grand Canyon National Park staff continue to focus on collective objectives of resource preservation and education with the Hualapai Tribe and will work
collaboratively to develop strategies for shared stewardship and mutual respect of each others responsibilities and authorities.
Grand Canyon National Park and the Hualapai Tribe share a common boundary along 108 miles of the Colorado River. Along that shared boundary, the federal government's position places all camping beaches, by definition, within the management authority of the National Park Service and not within the Hualapai reservation.
The park and tribe are coordinating on preparation of electronic and other informational materials that provide river users and the general public with the history of the Hualapai Tribe, their relationship to the river and Grand
Canyon landscape, and the relationship between the tribe and park. The outlets for these materials are being considered and may include the park and tribal websites, distribution to our river concessionaires and their
clients, and possibly in-service training with our staff's.
The tribe is developing a new website for river users to pay a tribal 'access/permit fee.' The park will provide a link to that site. It is our understanding that the tribe will allow hiking on the reservation, with appropriate permit and associated fees, and will identify any specific
locations that are off limits. Based upon the federal government's determination of the boundary between the park and the reservation, the Tribe cannot require camping fees for camping on river left downstream of river mile 166 (National Canyon)."


----------

