# Motors, Rivers, Wilderness, and Access



## semievolved (Nov 12, 2011)

there's lots good to say about motor trips. on a selfish side, they have given us ice, wine, beers, etc. they add to the safety of all our trips because they all have sat phones and can transport somebody out if need be or get word out way faster. one year at deer creek we found these crazy flyboys and girls from carson air force base who had hiked in from the north gotten disoriented and dehydrated and were literally lying around in 100+ degree direct sun waiting to die. we couldn't get a sat call out but a couple motor rigs came along and together we carried them down and it was the motor boats that had the resources to save their lives. 

almost all the motorists are super considerate on river giving as much room as possible when they pass, slowing down, even trimming the motor. 

i think the motor boaters are good people. but, i think when we go down there we should take responsibility for ourselves and our needs.

no offense to the motors and no reflection on their character, but i too would like to see/hear/smell no motors down there. i'd love to see the whole area turned into wilderness although i doubt that's feasible.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Good points about the resources the motor trips bring to the corridor, particularly the safety resources - though an oar trip with a Sat phone, helicopter rescue awareness, and good medical preparedness is probably unlikely to _need_ these resources. I would chose to sacrifice this, and certainly the ice, etc.

On a lighter note, I once had a motor rig pass me rowing hard on Mead Reservoir, 25 days or so into a Canyon trip. They tossed me an ice cold beer - which landed in my boat. As I bent down to grab it from the foot well the second beer they had thrown slammed me in the head! Fortunately it was a light beer! (True story, except for the punchline - which I can't resist!)


----------



## asleep.at.the.oars (May 6, 2006)

I think motors should be allowed, but the dams should be removed. Cat is often only a few thousand cfs by the end of the summer. Good luck with a J-rig on that! Georgie used to put in in Green River, WY and run the flood waters down to Mead. Even with an outboard, that still seems like more of a wilderness trip than our hyper-regulated oar trips. I think the reason motors are annoying in the canyon is the number of them. I dislike his approach, but Tom Martin trying to decrease the number of commercial launches would result in the motors not being so incessant.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I applaud moving the comments to a different thread, good on ya' Randaddy.

On the personal side....I use to hate the concept of motors on rivers. My first Grand trip was in the winter and I thought one of the best benefits was the motorless aspect. But when I did my May trip last year the motor rigs didn't bother me one bit. To me the worst problem was crowding and that was just as bad, if not worse for me, with the dozen oar rigs that show up for a group compared to the 1-2 J-Rigs. After several Main trips now the jetboats don't remotely bother me.

On the policy side....the Grand Canyon is the prime example of why the Wilderness Act (WA) is flawed. Its a hell of thing to say on its 50th anniversary but I think many of the founding voices of the concept would be ashamed of what it has done to the idea of wildness. The WA has not furthered wildness in the United States very well. What it has done is pitted its established proponents against the broader population that people like Zahniser, Marshall and Leopold tried to educate. The political nature of a congressional act and the movement of American's into entrenched camps with battle mentalities has stalled the conversation and impacts of experiencing wild places. The designated wilderness we experience and discuss now so rarely holds the wild characteristics that once defined the conversation, and that is much the fault of the people who think roads/motors should be everywhere as those who think wilderness should be designated wherever they prefer. American ideology and politics have fragmented wilderness and its inherent experiences as much our diverse land use.

So to motors on our rivers.....I don't know and I am not sure I care anymore. Places like the Grand and the Main have multiple stakeholders that all seem to have some rightful claim and history of use (though the degree of where that compromise happens does matter). Its hard not see the non-motorized who want to ban motors and designate wilderness as a colonizing force at moments when motors were used for ages before our ideology existed. And when we still want to have our safety nets and conveniences that fly in the face of the foundation of wildness (helicopter rescue is not consistent with "untrammeled" which meant "not being subject to human controls and manipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces") than I have a hard time being a spirited player in a political fight. Both sides honestly want their cake and eat it too.

I will always be an advocate and educator of experiencing wild places but my approach has changed over the years. To me its less about the place and more about showing those who currently don't know the powerful experience that is wildness that it exists and can be transformative. And I don't see that happening by political fights or condemning entire groups of stakeholders. I am more focused on the spirit of it myself and will let others fight over designations and motor versus non-motor debates. 

Phillip


----------



## beware209 (May 15, 2010)

Randaddy said:


> Again, sorry if I've been a dick. I hate motors, but my ears are now open to hear from those that use them.


Randaddy, thanks for opening your mind. I'll play. In an effort to have a substantive conversation about the issues I think we all need to separate truth from the "straw man" arguments... such as:

Motors make a lot of noise
Motor rigs make a wake
Motors smell
Motors pollute
Motor operators are careless spilling oil and gasoline in the river
Motor rigs run over me in the rapids

Does that cover all of the objections?

I'll address this first two with video evidence. Please pay close attention to the wake and the noise of the motor.

Whitewater RV runs Hance - YouTube

Collectively, the readers here must have millions of photos and thousands of videos from their respective GC trips. I'd appreciate you sharing any evidence of wakes and noise so the impacts can be quantified.

I'll go into the other objections in subsequent posts.


----------



## ridecats (Aug 8, 2009)

On one point here, we disagree. In my opinion you are engaging in a false equivalency. The fault of which you speak clearly lies much more with those who assert entitlement to make roads everywhere and ride their motorized toys there.

"The designated wilderness we experience and discuss now so rarely holds the wild characteristics that once defined the conversation, and that is much the fault of the people who think roads/motors should be everywhere as those who think wilderness should be designated wherever they prefer."


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Beware209, I disagree on the first two points. My problem with the noise and wake is rarely during the turmoil of the rapids on a river, it's when a big, noisy rig passes me while I'm rowing on a flat stretch. When a motor rig passes, an oar rig rocks back and forth in the wake and is noticeable disturbed. When the motor boat passes in a tranquil canyon it changes quiet peace into noisy chaos. It's not pleasant for those of us seeking that wild, quiet experience. Of course the wake and noise get drowned out by the chaos of Hance - but the majority of the Grand Canyon is flat, quiet, and peaceful until the motors pass by!


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

ridecats said:


> On one point here, we disagree. In my opinion you are engaging in a false equivalency. The fault of which you speak clearly lies much more with those who assert entitlement to make roads everywhere and ride their motorized toys there.
> 
> "The designated wilderness we experience and discuss now so rarely holds the wild characteristics that once defined the conversation, and that is much the fault of the people who think roads/motors should be everywhere as those who think wilderness should be designated wherever they prefer."


In the context here I firmly disagree. Motors on the Grand and Main existed before the laws went into affect and the ethic, as we consider it today, became so established and entrenched. Hence why motor use was grandfathered into both places. 

There are some places in which the equivalency would be false but the net cast in that direction by the most ardent defenders of wilderness designation are far too broad to be accurate. 

And my personal experiences in wilderness, a political definition which I purposefully differentiate from wildness, have been significantly impacted by both sides. When we are constantly fed this mentality of diminishing resources, as far as wild places, is has an affect in the very experiences those places were assumed to provide. In the Grand Canyon I have seen it take the first couple days of interacting with motor crowds to actually get past the preconceived notions of conflict and develop a relationship with the boatmen that often, not always, leads to a quality experience on par with non-motorized boatmen. It became appearant rather quickly that the motor trips on my Grand trips rarely competed for camps nor impacted our soundscape or visual experience. 

And as I have said before, if anything, I have experienced greater harm to my experience of wildness from large (# of rafts) non-motorized groups compared to the rather short interactions I have had with motorized groups. For example, crowding of oar rigs in 2-3 different spots impacted multiple elements of what is classically considered wild and wilderness. But the classic, simplified argument outside the place I recreate continues to center on an us-versus-them conversation against motors and their relevant users. Hence why I no longer see the benefit to that dichotomy. I have seen enough evidence in outdoor pursuits other than rafting to see how non-motorized stakeholders have compromised what I view as wild and wilderness as well. It doesn't take much looking in Utah to see how impacted our wild areas are by foot traffic alone. 

The same goes for the claims of motorized land use and wilderness but that is less germane to this specific conversation. I started firmly in the wilderness defense and anti-motor camp and then both personal experiences and readings have shown me that being entrenched in that manner was neither consistent with my values or the outcomes I desired. The evidence that changed my mind tells me this is anything but a simple false equivalency. 

Its unlikely that I will ever transition to a motor raft rig myself, as I personally enjoy human powered endeavors, but I don't see how forcing others to embark on that style is needed. (I have only been on one motorized whitewater trip an that as enough for me)

Phillip


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

Anyone who thinks that folks who want to see the GC from the river runner's perspective should be able to do so on a non-motorized trip, in a non-motorized wilderness area, are unaware of who actually does get on the river and how. Yes there are a few outfitters that do special needs trips and do them very well. Peoples with disabilities enjoy access via motor boats also, but thats not what I'm getting at.

As Americans, many of us work year round to provide for our families, and or ourselves. For most, vacations are taken infrequently and money is tight. I'd like to remind everyone that a two+ week trip away from income isn't an option for the VAST majority of Americans. I believe, as most here would agree that we'd live in a much better country if everyone had the chance to experience a trip on the Colorado through GC. In a perfect world that would certainly be a nice long, quite float through, stopping to wander and explore. 

The simple fact is that motors could provide that experience to almost anyone, while a non-motorized trip will always be limited to the able bodied few who have the means to not work for long periods. A commercial oar trip is expensive, and able private boaters like us are a very small % of the population. Motor trips include people younger and older than oar trips will allow, and unfortunately, the fitness of many, many Americans is a big hurdle to enjoying an oar trip. If you don't have two+ weeks in any given year for a vacation, and you aren't fit enough to hike in/out at Phantom, does this mean you don't deserve an experience down there? By advocating a ban on motors, that is the conclusion you've made, and I don't agree.

One of my favorite clients during my career guiding motors and oars, was a 65 y/o plumber who still was working. He saved for 10 years to afford the $1,500 week long trip. He knew that time was running out to fulfill his dream of seeing the Canyon on the water. He couldn't afford to be away for any longer, nor bring any other member of his family. This trip was his one chance, and he wanted to see the whole thing. Were it not for a fast, affordable, motorized option his dream couldn't have come true. I met many blue collar clients on motor trips, and very, very few on oar trips. I for one am for keeping motors to help facilitate trips for those who aren't able to enjoy an oar trip. Are motor trips better than oar trips? No...


----------



## Moon (Jul 25, 2007)

Well here's my take on things... my new Mercury is so quiet I can speak in a loud whisper and my daughter can hear me when she's sitting on the bow (lowest throttle setting) .... I have never spilled anything in the river, and will take great pains to ensure I never do... Do I leave a wake? If you consider a 3" wave a wake then I guess I do... Having grown up with power boats that leave a 2' wake, I don't consider my little Merc as leaving one, but everyone has their own opinion... we go to Harvey Gap every Sun night where they have a "no wake" policy, and even at full throttle I have never been "pulled over" so to speak, so I guess the rangers don't feel I'm leaving a wake either.... When I pass someone on the river I give as wide a berth as the river will allow, and throttle down as well so as not to create noisy chaos... like I've said the new motor is extremely quiet... Heck most people ask if they can tie on in exchange for some beer... Met some very groovy people that way...

I guess I have a live and let live attitude... If you hate motors don't get one... please don't dictate superior morality to me because I own one though...I'll do the same and not judge anyone because they don't... Do I use my motor non stop on my trips? Of course not! I love to swim, float, hike and generally just hang out. I've never even thought of running a rapid with it... However when the afternoon winds kick up and there are whitecaps where the should be glassy smooth water and I'm still 12 miles from the next camp cause we've been swimming or hiking all day I love having it as a option... How many Deso folks know what I'm talking about?

Anyway just my 2 cents, hope this doesn't sound like a rant, not meant to be. Thanks Randaddy for opening this up. Hope to hear other folks opinions as well. Hoping this could be a great discussion and not just name calling and preaching....
Happy Floating!


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Moon, I sure wish all motor rigs were like yours and all captains of them like you. I might not have anything to complain about if that were the case!

Jmacn, I can't say that I feel for the "blue collar" clientele you speak of. I run rivers as a poor, often unemployed, dirtbag. I have no job today and saved every penny I made this summer to pay for a trip to Peru. I just sold my TV and am selling my kayak to pay for our guided trek to Machu Picchu. If it takes a plumber 10 years to save $1,500 then he doesn't want it bad enough. Some great adventures take commitment and time - and sometimes more ability than the average Joe. I do not want everyone in America to have the opportunity, just those that want it bad enough.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Folks, the argument that motors are somehow grandfathered into Grand Canyon is without grounds. 

The year of the passage of the Wilderness Act there were no motor trips in the Grand Canyon. On the Salmon, motorized boats are used to service private inholdings. There are no such inholding in Grand Canyon. 

After much public participation, motorized tour boats were to be phased out to oar powered watercraft in Grand Canyon. 16,500 user-days were awarded to the river concessionaires as an economic incentive to make the transition. Congressional special-interest legislation was used to benifit the river concessions and allow them to not only keep thier motors, but they kept the 16,500 user day incentive as well. That thirty-five-year loan is long enough, Grampa. 

To say motors on tour boats are somehow grandfathered-in means once Grandfather is gone, the incompatible use should be removed. It's time to acknowledge the Wilderness that the Colorado River in Grand Canyon IS with the removal of this non-conforming use. By the by, half the year is motor free on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. And why is that in the winter months only? There is just no rational reason to have them there. 

Finally, anyone who says this-or-that special needs group or elderly or who-ever "needs" motorized tour boats ignores the fact that 1/10 of 1% of America will travel all the way through Grand Canyon in 100 years at present use levels. Right now, the folks who use motorized services are paying over $500 a night for the privilege (western), making them the privileged few. 

Best to you all, tom martin


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

I was going to stay out of this, but the post above by Tom Martin struck a bit of a nerve. In fact, this is exactly the type of elitist environmentalism that has alienated so many people from a cause that I believe in. 

First off, I hardy see how one could consider the river corridor through Grand Canyon as wilderness. Let's look at the definition of wilderness as described in the Wilderness Act: 

_“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

_So how do you consider a completely altered river just downstream of a massive hydroelectric dam as _"untrammeled by man"?_ In fact it is so trammeled by man that most of the riparian species that once thrived in the Grand Canyon can no longer exist there. I make this point because the Colorado River has many real threats. Dams have completely altered the hydrograph. A nuclear power plant is planned on the Green River. Denver is calling for more trans-basin diversions from an already over allocated river. Oil and gas development is impacting some of our favorite upper basin canyons, and the threat of wholesale destruction from oil shale and tar sands remains. In recent years, the Colorado River has been labeled as one of the worlds most endangered rivers. In the big picture, motors in the Grand Canyon are insignificant.

Furthermore, removing motors from the Grand Canyon would either require a reduction in the number of people who can see the canyon or an increase in user days. for the 2015 season, a 14 day trip with OARS starts at $5180. A 7 day motor trip with HATCH starts at $2644. If I need to explain why average folks will find it easier to do a motor trip then I should stop now.

I appreciate non-motorized, wildness trips, but what you are proposing is to deny people acces that has been granted for several decades, hurt exsiting bussinesses, and put river guides out of work, all so an elite few can see the canyon in the way they would prefer.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> Hi Folks, the argument that motors are somehow grandfathered into Grand Canyon is without grounds.
> 
> The year of the passage of the Wilderness Act there were no motor trips in the Grand Canyon. On the Salmon, motorized boats are used to service private inholdings. There are no such inholding in Grand Canyon.
> 
> ...


No motors by 1964? Really Tom:

http://www.gcrg.org/docs/gtslib/50th_aniversary-jet_boat_up_run.pdf

Motors had been used to descend and uprun the entirety of the Colorado through the Grand by July 1960. This is 4 years before the passage of the Wilderness Act by my math. I assume you know this and are just trying to spin it semantically to look better for your argument. 

Even Ingall's book is riddled with evidence that supports the conclusion that by the time the Colorado River was up for designation, motorized travel was established. Ingalls throws out the fifties (in a generic wilderness versus motorized debate in his book) as a well-accepted date of use in the canyon. Is this untrue?

You also oversimplify motors on the Main. They are also used by a ton of wild place loving non-motorized rafters to shuttle between the takeout and Corn Creek. People who are obviously fine with motors in designated wilderness. 

Phillip


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

As I said before Randdaddy, you and obviously others have determined that the average Joe doesn't deserve the experience of a GC river trip. I disagree, as does the National Park Service, who's mission is to help facilitate access for all Americans to recreate in special places like GC. If you don't understand why the dirtbag lifestyle doesn't work for most people, I'm certain that I can't help you figure it out. I myself choose seasonal (un)employment, save up for special trips, and prefer to run uncrowded rivers. Perhaps I'm still too young and idealistic. Maybe someday as my favorite places get ever more crowded, I'll adopt opinions that try & limit access to the masses. But for now, having seen the affect the GC has on folks who will only be there once, I'm convinced the more people who experience it, the better. And, as others have noted, if every motor trip was replaced with 6-16 oarboats, that wilderness experience you seek would feel a lot busier indeed. There is an abundance of true wilderness experiences to be had in North America and abroad. It may not be found on the Colorado or the Machu Picchu trail, but wilderness is still there for those that really want it.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Mike, 



Thanks for your note. Your posting of language from the Wilderness Act is great, as is your question “So how do you consider a completely altered river just downstream of a massive hydroelectric dam as _"untrammeled by man"?_

You may be unaware that Congress has designated Wilderness below dams. And, Congress has designated landscapes that have been mined and logged. These man-made impacts outside of Wilderness Areas may temporarily detract from Wilderness areas, but that does not mean these areas should not be preserved for their wilderness character. Nor does the existence of Glen Canyon Dam justify other non-conforming uses down-stream that are so easily rectified. 



Thanks for posting pricing data. The Oars trip you quote is $398 a night. The Hatch trip is $440 a night. Look at Western. It’s over $500 a night. Your numbers show that “Average folks” simply can’t afford these trips. I also pointed out that 1/10 of 1% of America will see the entire Colorado River in 100 years. We have left any sort of “average” long back. 



If your point is MORE PEOPLE need to see Grand Canyon from River view, there is a Utah congressperson (thankfully no longer in office) you might want to talk to. He wanted a highway on pylons through the Canyon so the average American (who does not boat but drives a car), would have a real chance to see the Canyon from the river level. 



Yes indeed, after many river management plans that attempted to address the motor issue by simply adding more river runners, the removal of motor rigs may cut back the total number of river travelers. Many would say there are too many now. Motorized tour boats should not be a justification for resource damage to make sure people see a damaged resource. 



Did you know in the last river management plan, the NPS ran the numbers on the motor-free alternatives. The result would be a boost to the regional economy with more guide jobs. And studies in the 1970’s demonstrated profitability was a direct result of how the company was managed, not the number of user days the company had or the type of craft the company ran. 



Mike, your argument in support of the elite few in the status quo who want to motor through a wilderness simply makes no sense. 



Phillip, nice attempt at a twist in language. My quote was ” The year of the passage of the Wilderness Act there were no motor trips in the Grand Canyon.”


You said “No motors by 1964?” Please read the sentence above. Where is the word “by”?


Again, there are no in-holdings on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. There is no need for motorized commercial services. There are no jet-backs on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon.


Best to you all, tom


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Sorry, I want back and looked at the numbers again. It's not that less than 1/10 of 1% of Americans will see the entire Grand Canyon by boat in 100 years, it's that less than 1/10 of 1% of Americans will see any of the Grand Canyon by boat in 100 years. 

Any arguments for managing the river resource for anything other than Wilderness fall flat given the actual visitation numbers. 

All the best, tom


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't twist your language (do you see quotes in my response)....I put it back into the context of the previous comments in this thread that you were adding to. What does the lack of motors trips in 1964 have to do with the previous comments about motors being historically used in the Grand before the Wilderness Act? The affect of your comment, hard to know the full intention, is to lead one to believe that this one year of no motors is somehow defining of the characteristic of the river in that era. And that is an inaccurate conclusion, as I have highlighted. Motors were well established tools by then hence why we have 50 years of debate about conflicting ethics. 

I also think you are skewing the conversation into a traditional us-versus-them direction by making it solely about commercial motor trips. Its not remotely that simple but you continue to default to that language. Plenty of people across the West use motors on private river trips. They are part of that "them" you are fighting and no manner of politicking (sorry Tom but RRFW is very much one of the special interest groups you previously wrote off in a pejorative manner) hides that fact. Couching it as a private versus commercial sentiment may seem to make your argument clearer but it just exposes the lengths one has to go to make your conclusions seem simple, clean and "rational". Both history and law clearly show a muddled political situation that doesn't fit so cleanly into any box (my 20 year old self would be disappointed that I am arguing for the status quo).

That was the reason I initially mentioned the problems with the Wilderness Act as I think this a predictable and unavoidable outcome when you force a new ethic onto an existing/historical framework. There is nothing simple, clean or "rational" when it comes to competing stakeholder values and experiences. I have become extremely wary, skeptical and outright resistant to organizations that try to sweep that complexity under the rug and foster what I have come to believe is an inaccurate and untenable narrative. I see it as fundamentally dishonest and it often uses the very political machinations they deride. 

I think Randdaddy attempted to sidestep this and start a new conversation and I fear my response played into derailing that potential. Taking the conversation out of the other thread and starting a conversation is admirable and shows a willingness to hear other sides. I obviously have an position that conflicts with the politicking of some but by no means do I need to invalidate those who experience the river differently than I. Despite my views I can still have sympathy for those who outcomes are not met, even if its by stakeholders I defend. Sorry if that is not always obvious.

Phillip


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

Just personal preference, I would prefer no motors in the Grand Canyon or on 99% of all rivers. 

One major exception is Cataract. As someone who has rowed out on the lake three times, I can say for a fact that trip is infinitely better with a motor. In the future I will always choose motors on Cat if given the opportunity. 

Which leads me to my personal philosophy - no motors on rivers, but motors are ok on lakes/reservoirs. It's arbitrary, but I'm comfortable with it.


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

Tom,
Randdaddy came right out and said that he isn't concerned about the average Joe's ability to access the river through GC. My comments about the average American's access to vacation time in't based on any statistics, just a basic understanding that many hard working folks might be able to pull off a week or so in the summer, and perhaps a similar amount during the Christmas holiday season. My question for you is based on your comment that commercial motorized services aren't needed. Let's say that someone from that very small percentage that can afford a commercial trip wants to go, but they don't have 2 weeks of vacation time available. In addition to the time constraints, they are also not fit enough (age or otherwise) for the hike in/out at Phantom. Under these circumstances, do you think that because of their limitations that they don't deserve to experience a GC river trip?


----------



## shoenfeld13 (Aug 18, 2009)

Someone with financial and time limitations cannot climb Denali. Should we allow a special motorized vehicle to bring them further up the mountain with their gear so that they can do in in a shorter time and for less money? I think that populist argument falls flat. Average Joe doesn't get to do plenty of things. That is just part of life. It has nothing to do with deserving anything. Should we allow helicopter tours up and down the Canyon for those who aren't physically able, or interested, in a 10 day river trip? Lousy argument from my point of view.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

BrianK said:


> Just personal preference, I would prefer no motors in the Grand Canyon or on 99% of all rivers.
> 
> One major exception is Cataract. As someone who has rowed out on the lake three times, I can say for a fact that trip is infinitely better with a motor. In the future I will always choose motors on Cat if given the opportunity.
> 
> Which leads me to my personal philosophy - no motors on rivers, but motors are ok on lakes/reservoirs. It's arbitrary, but I'm comfortable with it.


BK, I think that my view has evolved to agree with you about Cataract (though I think two sets of oar towers and two rowers is still more elegant.) It is a reservoir down there, not a living, flowing river. So next time you go feel free to invite me - I'm confident that my cook group can win this time! 

Am I a hypocrite? Maybe. Will my views change about the Grand? Maybe not... Was my morning mountain bike ride ruined by the dirt bikes? No, but it could have been better...

Thanks for chiming in. Hope you're well.


----------



## catflipper (Jun 22, 2011)

What about the average american that wants to thru-hike the PCT but can't get 3-4 months off? Should they be allowed to take a motorcycle? I can understand existing motor usage being grandfathered in, as in ranch access on the main salmon, but I have a real problem with recreational motor use in an area that is otherwise wilderness. The main salmon doesn't feel like wilderness when you have recreational small-plane pilots and jet-back rafters buzzing around at full throttle every day of the trip.


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

shoenfeld13 said:


> Someone with financial and time limitations cannot climb Denali. Should we allow a special motorized vehicle to bring them further up the mountain with their gear so that they can do in in a shorter time and for less money? I think that populist argument falls flat. Average Joe doesn't get to do plenty of things. That is just part of life. It has nothing to do with deserving anything. Should we allow helicopter tours up and down the Canyon for those who aren't physically able, or interested, in a 10 day river trip? Lousy argument from my point of view.


Commercial motor trips have been in Grand Canyon since the 1950s. Comparing climbing Denali to rafting GC isn't exactly apples to apples. Very few of Georgie Whites Royal River Rats would've/could've taken part in one of Norm Nevills' exclusive oar trips. So yes, there is a long history of motors in GC. And yes, motor clients are often younger, older, fatter, sicker, or have less vacation time than private or commercial oar participants. If anyone thinks that those people have no business getting to experience the wonders of a GC river trip, fine. That's just like your opinion, man...


----------



## Moon (Jul 25, 2007)

shoenfeld13 said:


> Should we allow helicopter tours up and down the Canyon for those who aren't physically able, or interested, in a 10 day river trip? Lousy argument from my point of view.
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm missing the point of your argument, but last time I was there in June there were helicopters buzzing the canyon every 15 min. all day long... every day....


----------



## Issip (Apr 7, 2011)

*Somewhere in the middle*

There has to be a compromise between accessibility and protection - that should be obvious.

On the one extreme, the best way to prevent human impact is to close it to the public. If you want to raft it then there would be nothing stopping you from getting a PhD in a relevant field and acquiring a research permit.

I'm thinking everyone believes that is too extreme and the place can accommodate at least some number of rowers private and/or commercial provided everyone follows some well designed rules.

On the other extreme, we could fill it with lakes and pave roads to the bottom, make a tramway or two and add a few high-rise hotel/casinos so everyone can enjoy it - I don't think anyone here is in favor of that extreme either.

Personally, I think park management has hit really close to the right balance. I've been down only once and only as a commercial passenger on a motorized raft. I doubt I would have ever made it otherwise - the 3 weeks vacation and ~$6k per person required to see it on an oar boat would have prevented me from ever doing it.

Of course now I'm hooked and my rowing skills are improving and I intend to run it next year on a private permit. Why should I ever get to see it again when such a limited number of people ever get the privilege? I think the once per year is a reasonable balance there.

Next year we're going off-season so there will be no motor boats and we're planning 23 days or more. Why should I get to stay in the canyon for 23+ days? Is my impact to the canyon less if I spend 23 days rowing a raft than if I spend 7 days on a motor raft? I don't know - I was honestly put off by the motor when I signed up for the trip, but the motor was pretty quiet even for me sitting a few feet from it. The guides on our trip were excellent stewards of the wilderness and I certainly never saw any sign of oil or gas spilling into the water or other leave no trace failures (aside from a tourist who peed in the wrong place and was publicly shamed for it during the act by one of our guides)...

So I got to run it in 7 days on a motor boat as a passenger for a cost I was able to afford, and now I'm addicted and can run it with a private group in the off season when there are no motor rigs, take nearly a month, and hike all over the place. Lucky me!!

Unless I see serious data proving that the motors are harming native species and causing damage in a way row boats can't, I see arguing to ban motors outright because they annoy you as selfish. Limiting motor decible level, number of motor trips and motor season would seem to be a reasonable compromise.

That's just my opinion.


----------



## beware209 (May 15, 2010)

Issip said:


> Limiting motor decible level, number of motor trips and motor season would seem to be a reasonable compromise.


The Park already limits decibel level with a maximum horsepower limit of 55. 

Most people associate motor use with the speed boats and PWC, which is what most people see... on lakes. The reality is none of the boats on GC are planing hulls. They'll have a maximum hull speed of around 6mph regardless of how much hp they have. So, running downriver at a quarter throttle will achieve maximum hull speed, which is what the commercial rigs do (and with 20 or 30 hp motors). There is one aluminum hull boat with a 50hp Honda on it that does do short upstream spurts owned by Brian Dierker who provides river transport for most of the science trips. Incidentally, I've seen him deadheading taking that boat through Lava, he is highly skilled.

Private motor rigs are typically tied to a group of rowers which means they'll struggle to not outpace the rowers, even at idle. In the past a group with less than half of the craft being motorized would qualify for 16 days to DC. Now if you show up with even a single motor rig you will likely be limited to 12 days unless you can demonstrate that the motor rig is required to make the trip happen.

It seems to be well under control.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Phillip, 
The year the bill was passed there were no motor trips in the Grand Canyon. It does not take anything away from the Hudson-Marston run of the Esmerelda II in 1949 and motorized boat travel after that. The point is, the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, TODAY, is managed for its wilderness values. The only non-conforming use is motorized watercraft. 
Commercial motor use in the Grand Canyon accounts for 72% of concessions use and roughly 5% or less of self guided use. The push back against transitioning to a motor free river in the late 1970’s came from the river concessions, not the self-guided folks. 
The reason why this is still contentious is the National Park Service, given the mandate to preserve America’s treasures “in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for future generations” along with public input, attempted to phase out non-conforming motorized uses. The special interest motorizers pushed back with special interest legislation that deep-sixed NPS planning and public comment. So this contentious issue remains.
I think all American’s “deserve” a chance to raft the Grand Canyon, on the Grand Canyon’s terms, so that the Canyon can be allowed to speak to us about time. And, of course, Wilderness. Many others before me have come to the same conclusion. Concessionaire special interest removed that from us and padded their pockets in the process. I am not a big-wall climber and will never climb El Capitan and don’t want an escalator to help me do it. I will never climb Mt. McKinley, and don’t want a snow cat to take me there. The National Park Service Organic Act did not say America’s Treasures need to be all things to everyone. Given that the elderly, special populations, kids of all ages, can and do travel through the Grand Canyon’s water pathway by oar power, and given that such a small number of folks will ever get a chance to do this, I think America and the Grand Canyon deserve management that acknowledges the Canyon for what IT is, not for what special interest can make of it. 



Hi Issip,
Your post reminded me of a study done in the 1970’s that showed 90% of the folks in the study that did both oar and motor trips said they liked the oar trip better. I beg to differ with you in that the NPS has not hit a balance, the river concessions forced it on the NPS by political fiat. If there were no motorized boats on the river for whatever reason, river runners would still be there. And I would offer you might be getting ready to row your own boat, having been introduced to the Canyon on a concessions oar trip. I could be wrong of course. 



Hi Beware, 
The motorization of the science trips is another huge farce, allowing folks to take thrill craft through Lava Falls in the “quest” for science. The 1923 USGS trip surveyed the entire Canyon with oar boats and closed to within 4 feet. 



Best to you all, tom


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Aye Caramba! This thread only confirms that as spectacular as the GC is there are a near infinite number of better ways to spend 2 weeks and thousands of dollars .$300 to $500 per day are you out of your @#$%&ing minds!!!!! Wilderness travel is not supposed to be expensive once you have gear!! Jeezus.There is incredible wilderness surrounded by interesting culture and history in nearly all corners of the globe for a fraction of the cost.I'd love to experience the Canyon but you guys can have it and the noxious fumes from motor boats.Go to any reservoir with motorized boating and try to tell me with a straight face that there is not a nauseating exhaust smell that taints the experience.The fact that most Americans only get two weeks vacay ,the least in the industrialized world ,is just another sorry indictment of our idiotic culture of greed and materialism.

what is the typical cost to a private boater who already has most of the gear needed?

Randaddy,You doing the Inca Trail ? Get off the beaten path if you have time try Chachapoyas or Carral if you love ruins.


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

cayo 2 said:


> what is the typical cost to a private boater who already has most of the gear needed?


Right at a grand for me for fees/travel/gear/food. Of course more for the vices of your choice but our group spared nothing, had a ton of fun, and ate well.

It was the non-motorized season in October and it was glorious - never been down with the motors


----------



## Issip (Apr 7, 2011)

*So what's the impact?*

I guess I don't see how responsible and regulated use of motors during part of the year will leave the place "impaired for future generations" in a way that row trips won't. If I was convinced of that I'd be for banning motors.

I'm definitely for banning tramways and restaurants at sacred confluences, because it's absolutely clear that will leave the place impaired for future generations.

Sure I'd rather row, but not everyone can (time and $$). Not everyone can raft the canyon at all - you need to have money, free time and reasonable health, so let's admit we're the lucky few.

I'd like to see the NPS and the concessionaires set up a lottery for a small number of underprivileged US schoolchildren to win a trip for them and a parent/guardian all expenses paid, then there would be at least some small chance for the multitude of lesser fortunate Americans to see it. They'd probably need to go on a 7 day motorized trip though as their parent/guardian is unlikely to be able to take 3+ weeks off of work and still pay the bills.

It's an interesting debate anyway, I appreciate everyone's take on it.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Kayakfreakus ,

That is much more reasonable $50 to $70( 14 to 20 days) per day,comparable to buying $500 plane ticket and having per diem of $50 for a month.The Grand is on my bucket list just not near the top.I know it is a big deal for rafters.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Been off trying to earn a living, and come back, and here's another storm raging.

I've done 2 GC trips; one with a motor, one without. I preferred the non motorized trip, mainly because we were such an outlandish group. Right up to the overnight "float" to Pearce that turned out to be more of a "stop". A motor would have been nice at the point that we arose from our stupor to find ourselves 4 miles down the canyon from our starting point the night before.

It seems to me that the impact of motors on the canyon has been exaggerated. I don't recall being bothered by any of the motor rigs that we encountered on our non motorized trip although we certainly must have encountered them.

The wake of a passing motor rig upsets? A wake bouncing us about in our rafts offends on a whitewater trip?

Wilderness designation be damned; the Grand Canyon quit being a "Wilderness" when they corked the thing in the 60's and started requiring that propane be dragged into the canyon; either that or an impossibly big load of wood or charcoal.

The environmental impact of motors in the canyon is minimal; certainly no greater than the impact of all those propane stoves.

Noise impact cannot be seriously discussed as long as radios, IPads, and musical instruments are allowed in the canyon. I mean, it's all noise pollution we're talking about, right? Not just taste in music?

My bottom line is, the presence of motors in the canyon seems to be more about the rapid transit concessionaires bringing their mobs into "my" canyon than about the solitude being disturbed by a gawdam motor.

Next thing you know someone is going to take exception to those "critter craft" being allowed in the canyon. Heaven knows, if we aren't going to allow motors, we damn sure can't allow those ugly things down there, polluting the scenery and what not.


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

Issip, well said & you're not alone. I've seen many, many lives changed for the better by the Canyon for what IT is. Many, many people are /were in your shoes & are/were limited by time, physical preparation, and/or money. A motor trip is an excellent experience for those many, many fine people & the Canyon continues to work its magic on them thanks to that motorboat & it's approachable schedule. Had that approachable schedule not been there I believe as does Issip that experience wouldn't have happened. Yes, it is a symptom of larger social issues. Yes, oar trips are waaaay better for most participants. If ever the non-motor camp gets their way you won't hear a peep from me, I'd rather be kayaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

cayo 2 said:


> Randaddy,You doing the Inca Trail ? Get off the beaten path if you have time try Chachapoyas or Carral if you love ruins.


Yep, we love beautiful, high mountain trails and are willing to suffer the crowds and guide fees to see the trail that men laid in stone by hand a thousand years ago. Thanks for the tip though, we have 3 weeks in the Cusco area and only one of them is spoken for (Inca Trail and Apurimac 3 day). If someone would just buy my duckie I could pay for the trek already!


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Thanks for all the input everyone - lots of great thoughts here and I'm grateful for all of you for them. Tom, thanks for your commitment to this cause and your insight and facts!

I'm feeling able bit more selfish the more I think about it, but I still can't stand motorsports. Maybe it's my own ego more than a good argument, but I see the high country and desert ravaged by dirtbikes and jeeps every day. I see the litter that these oft less considerate groups leave behind. And I see a culture that loves convenience and a rush more than they love the land and it's natural inhabitants. Maybe the motorized river users represent the least impact full of these users, but I can't help but see them as a part of the group.

There are some things in life you should have to earn with your arms and legs, I think. The big waves of Hermit, that sweet, winding singletrack through the alpine meadow, the remote canyon. Maybe I'm wrong, but I know that those of us that have earned it with our power deserve it more.

I'm not sure that motors should be banned. There are a lot of good points here for them - and their trips might be less impact full because they're shorter - and erosion is big impact. However, I will still shake my fist at you motor-boatin-sons-o-bitches when you pass because I don't like what you're doing and you're likely to get to Grapevine first!


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Randaddy said:


> Thanks for all the input everyone - lots of great thoughts here and I'm grateful for all of you for them. Tom, thanks for your commitment to this cause and your insight and facts!
> 
> I'm feeling able bit more selfish the more I think about it, but I still can't stand motorsports. Maybe it's my own ego more than a good argument, but I see the high country and desert ravaged by dirtbikes and jeeps every day. I see the litter that these oft less considerate groups leave behind. And I see a culture that loves convenience and a rush more than they love the land and it's natural inhabitants. Maybe the motorized river users represent the least impact full of these users, but I can't help but see them as a part of the group.
> 
> ...


I think you and I recreate in similar fashions and seek out similar experiences. I love the fatigue associated with rowing and I do believe their is satisfaction to human powered endeavors that can't be replicated by other means. I love walking long distances and often do so in fringe seasons when there are few people as I absolutely love solitude. Thru-hiking the AT at 19 has defined a lot regarding outdoor pursuits for me.

Living in Utah has really changed my perspective. Some of the worst recreational damage can be found here or in bordering states. I hate seeing the avoidable damage to both the resource and its affect on outdoor experiences. I blamed it largely on motorheads early on. And then I started interacting with them in various ways, from personal trips to weekend ride-alongs with FPOs while working as a seasonal bio tech with the USFS. There were some egregious offenders and still are. But what I found was most were either following both the law and a well-established community ethic or just needed a little education. I was resistant at first to the education versus punitive approach the FPO took but after 2 seasons I saw the benefits. In 6 years I have seen motor sports enthusiasts step up and foster healthy environments and social interactions. I just can no longer blame an entire group of people for the actions of a minority, it just reeks of a bigoted -ism too much for values and ethics. 

Motorized traffic on the river has been the same trajectory for me. I have been lucky not to have any negative interactions with motor trips at this point and I do have sympathy for those oarsman that have had one nonetheless multiple such encounters. We spend a lot of money, energy and time getting to the places we love so having our goals and experiences compromised just plain sucks. 

We do differ on how we perceive Tom and RRFW but that is to be expected in the venue of politics. Best of luck on your upcoming trip and hope you are able to find the finances to make it happen (had to cancel an 18 day solo SHR and JMT route this month because of funds). 

Phillip


----------



## GCHiker4887 (Feb 10, 2014)

*NPS Mandated to Provide Access? Me Thinks Not...*



jmacn said:


> ...as does the National Park Service, who's mission is to help facilitate access for all Americans to recreate in special places like GC.


I have reviewed the Organic Act of 1916, and I do not see anything regarding "help facilitate access" in there. It talks about 'promoting' the parks, grazing rights, etc., but not access. 

What history tells us, is that the parks go through phases, much like society as a whole. Back in the 30's, our Parks saw a whole lot of infrastructure growth. Would that same rate of growth and the scale of projects conducted (think of the work the CCC did at GC here) be acceptable today? I don't personally believe that's the case. So why couldn't the same be said with regards to motors in GC? It is about profits for a few who hold the 'golden tickets'. The faster you can move folks, the more folks you can move, therefore the more money they can make. The Organic Act doesn't talk about providing a reasonable business model so a group of folks make lots of money. I like capitalism, but I believe more in wilderness values, and the INTENT of the Wilderness Act. Commercial exploitation and motors don't fit into that mold, IMHO.

Some things are worth the effort, and some trips, like experiencing the Colorado River in Grand Canyon should have barriers to entry. Again, just IMHO.

Here is a link to the act if you're interested:

Organic Act of 1916 - Great Basin National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

-Josh


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

"provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations"

...I think provide for the enjoyment qualifies as access, just not as specifically as our laws legislate nowadays, but then again it was a rather vague law. The above statement also seems to be lenient to the allowance of motors (as I have never seen evidence that motorized rafts impair for the enjoyment of future generations) as does that actual law of the Wilderness Act. 

The Organic Act setup a conflicted policy as viewed through environmental ethics today. The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection dichotomy wasn't always a conflict in the time it was legislated though. I mean it expressly defers to a law that allows for the building and maintenance of public services, including dams and reservoirs. I value forward-looking policy, as you highlight, but I don't believe its productive to completely ignore and invalidate the experiences of an entire group of stakeholders, which I believe the numbers show is rather large, in the process. Motors obviously provide a valued experience that nobody has legally shown to be inconsistent with park and federal mandates up to this point. 

Phillip


----------



## whip (Oct 23, 2003)

Don't you have the option of missing commercial motors by launching after Sept 15?


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Anyone can, and many do, argue that wilderness lands with no roads, no powerlines, and larger than 5,000 acres, should be motorized and commercialized. To argue that such lands should be preserved free of motorized transport and commercialized is elitist, they will say. 

But that ignores the very reason the American people recognized Wilderness as having value in the first place. 

In 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act, which established the National Wilderness Preservation System with the explicit statutory purpose “to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition.” 16 U.S.C. 1131(a). 

Yes, we can motorized wilderness. In the case of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, keeping numbers of visitors and trips at one time low to preserve Wilderness resource values while allowing motorization to continue has made a mockery of the very wilderness values the Grand Canyon has to offer us as a society. 

As President Lyndon B. Johnson reportedly said upon signing of the Wilderness Act in 1964, “if future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it.”

Best to you all, tom


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

whip said:


> Don't you have the option of missing commercial motors by launching after Sept 15?


Yep. Sept 15th-April 1st. Best damn parts of the year, nice n quite like. 

I realize that the audience who might read this thread is most likely a private boater who's able to enjoy the grand on their own or perhaps aspires to one day. Those of you in that group likely wouldn't even consider running a motor rig on a private trip, 'cause when/where did you ever learn how to do that? Am I too far out on that proverbial skinny tree limb? 
Anyway, so the Average Joe private boater sees & hears those damn boats with all those chubby old geeks in faded orange pfds (neck pillow flapping in the wind). That sorry lot wouldn't even holler "sweet rigs" as they pass by your shiny Sotar Cats, and dialed in 16' Avons. Maybe someone in your crew built their own dory, nope, no love from those fools. Now you may be asking your self, do they even deserve to be down there? Clearly some of you have made up your mind that because they can't earn it like the rest of us the answer is no. OK, I get it. Its a really big deal for many of us to "earn" the soar muscles you get rowing your own boat through there.
For anyone else who's still undecided, I'll contend that those people do deserve to be there. Motor trip clients absolutely are a different bunch than oar trip clients. Those people need that experience more than just about anyone in my mind. The Canyon chews 'em up & spits 'em out just like the rest of us, and it was an epic for them too. They're different, better somehow, and often times they want more. If you take that week long full Canyon experience away from them, they very likely won't have that potentially life changing experience. An oar trip is just too much, too long, too physical. Its SAD, I know, but true. The motorboat is perceived safety, and they need that.
So say what you will about the purity of the GC, and how negative the motorboats are for the true essence of the river. I see where you're coming from. Those of you that feel that way are totally free to carry on with your crusade. But please don't forget how F-ing lucky you are. Go ahead & pat yourself on the back for all the good life choices you continue to make in order to be a private boater. Were such a small (crazy lucky) minority of the general population already, do we really need to keep that place to ourselves at the cost of denying others? ...$0.02


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

Comparing motorboats in GC to wilderness crisscrossed with roads, OHVs, and commercialization is silly. I respect you and your views, Tom. Keep up your fight, you may get your way someday. GC still has enormous expanses of roadless, powerline-less, vistas to enjoy. Please remember the fancy crap oarboaters bring down the river is just as insulting to GC backpackers. Those dance parties are a huge detraction from the wilderness experience of the humble hiker...


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

jmacn said:


> Those dance parties are a huge detraction from the wilderness experience of the humble hiker...


Speak for yourself, I've had some great parties out of a backpack, never was a "detraction" to the wilderness experience.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> But that ignores the very reason the American people recognized Wilderness as having value in the first place.


Lets do away with the populist argument as you have made it clear that is not your priority or care. The WA was not created by the "American people" but by a select group of special interest lobbyist known as the Wilderness Society. Very few people knew about wilderness and its values fifty years ago and the same is true today. Early attempts to pass the bill failed because they lacked public investment, though the bill largely stayed the same in that timeframe. They spent years lobbying Congress and Americans to raise an interest in the political idea, definitions and law. Even today the group only has 500,000 members and supporters at the worldwide level. Even if that were just Americans, which its not, than that would be 1 out of 600 people who adamantly support wilderness enough to financially support their political actions. And that is today, not 50 years ago when the bill was passed. Lest we forget most of the administration of the Wilderness Society at the time were former government employees and often very wealthy. They were part of the "revolving door" we admonish today, it just so happens their special interest aligns with what some of us value.




Tom Martin said:


> Yes, we can motorized wilderness. In the case of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, keeping numbers of visitors and trips at one time low to preserve Wilderness resource values while allowing motorization to continue has made a mockery of the very wilderness values the Grand Canyon has to offer us as a society.


Most often wilderness is defined by 4 major characteristics, lets look at those at see how the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon fits:

1) Untrammeled: "not being subjected to human controls that hamper the free play" of nature(as defined by Zahniser most specifically in a letter to an associate) or more broadly unconfined (the most commonly metric), uncontrolled, unmanipulated, unrestrained. 
I think most people I know, no matter their values and preferences, cannot say that the Colorado River fit those parameters. The Colorado River is one of the most controlled, manipulated, hampered and restrained resources in the world. There is nothing about the river itself that fits those categories, biotic ally or abiotically. We can try to mitigate the impacts of that reality but it doesn't change the fact its been that way long before the WA came into effect. From the recreational and human experience side, really the rational and heart of the WA, the river does not meet that criteria nor is it (one could argue it can't be) managed for its current and historical human pressures and be unconfined at the same time.​
2) Natural: wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization.
Once again, the ecological character of the Colorado River are not "substantially free from the effects of modern civilization" they are quite the opposite. The ecosystem is crashing and has been for decades. This again is the case on the biotic and abiotic level. I mean we have all heard and many of us have seen the evidence in person: reduction in sand deposits because of the dam; reductions in the woody debris because of the dam; invasive species in the river and principle corridor correlated with a reduction in the populations and viability of native species. The millions of dollars we are spending to research and experiment with the river expose the problem in its full glory. I mean honestly, how natural is a river that has such drastic daily tides.​
3)Undeveloped: essentially without permanent improvements or
modern human occupation.
This one is less clear cut. There is no doubt that portions of the river have permanent improvements and occupation, especially at Lees Ferry and Phantom Ranch along the main Corridor section of GCNP. How much those define the river is up for debate. They honestly take up little acreage but they play major roles in how river trips are approached and experienced. That said, any wilderness designation efforts have to intentionally cherry-stem these places to be viable. That cherry-steming is inconsistent with the linear nature of a GC Colorado float. Also in line with this metric is the fact that the size of the river and GCNP clear meets the 5,000 requirement.​
4) Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of
recreation, including inspiration and physical and mental challenge.
The yes part....the Colorado clearly provides opportunities (a ton of them) for inspiration and physical and mental challenge. One question that then comes up relevant to the motorized issue is if they affect it currently or for future generations and I can't think of a way it significantly impacts those elements.They do have an impact but are relatively short-lived and do not impact the ability of the landscape itself to facilitate those experiences.​The no part.....the Colorado River is not managed to provide unconfined recreation nor could it likely be with its current popularity and pressure. One of the wildest and most wilderness-oriented rivers in the US, the Selway, ironically fails miserably at the unconfined metric to provide solitude. Solitude is not common for most groups unless they launch in the heart of the winter. Crowding is common on the river, especially in specific stretches that have become popular over the years. 6-9 months out of the year the river does not provide anything resembling the definition or spirit of solitude. And unlike terrestrial wilderness areas the Colorado River does not provide alternate routes to address this inconsistency.​

So, with a lenient examination the Colorado River qualifies for 1 of the 4 metrics of wilderness characteristics and a 50/50 potential for a second. The other two it definitively fails at having and facilitating. If its about the environment and ecosystem the river itself fails miserably at having wilderness characteristics. Its muddled on the recreational side. 

So your statement about "a mockery of the very wilderness values the Grand Canyon has to offer us as a society" seems to fall flat as a critique. The law has shown your critiques to be inaccurate and exaggerated. The above metrics largely deal with biophysical and experiential aspects of wilderness. Where your critiques do shine is in the realm of the symbolic, the poorest defined aspect of wilderness, its characteristics and management. Its an extremely valuable aspect of wilderness and you obviously value it highly. That is fine. But to project your narrow definition onto a resource used by thousands to millions of people is problematic at best, especially when the laws you regard with such esteem show significantly more latitude than you vocalize. 

I think most of us know you find the situation a mockery but it seems self-serving, dishonest and inaccurate to try and sell the rest us your personal narrative as somehow accurate for "us as a society" at large. You have ever right to fight the good fight; more power to you. But your efforts here now and in the past have been shown to be intentionally or symbolically good for a handful of people....not some broad, populist concept of "us as a society." I have never seen much evidence in politics or society to support the clean narratives and interpretations you present so readily. You are just one of a complex group of stakeholders in this fight who remain rational and invested in wildness. And the past 50 years has proven those diverse stakeholders are willing and able to fight for a differing view of wildness.

Phillip


----------



## GCHiker4887 (Feb 10, 2014)

*The Rest of GC as Wilderness*

Hi Phillip-
Very well thought out posts, to be sure. Even if I don't necessarily agree with your interpretations. Let me segue this conversation a slightly different way now. I was an avid backpacker in Grand Canyon before I ever made it down the river. I guess I still am, with 2-3 multi-day backpacks a year, but it would likely be much more had I not discovered the river , however, I digress.

So do you believe the remaining millions of acres of GCNP should be designated wilderness, the Corridor and River Corridor notwithstanding? There are several trails and routes that see heavy backcountry use, year round, that fall outside of the developed backcountry corridor (Bright Angel Trail, North & South Kaibab Trails and the River Trail). I point this out because GRCA NPS manages these areas as wilderness right now, because it is in the proposed wilderness area (Corridor and River are NOT in their proposed wilderness area). Based on some of the arguments you posed above, these areas in the backcountry would fall outside of your definition to be managed as wilderness. Here are a few examples:

-Tonto Trail between Indian Garden and Monument Creek
-Hermit Trail
-Tonto Trail between Monument Creek & Hermit Creek
-Clear Creek Trail
-Tanner Trail
-Grandview Trail (lots of day hikers the first mile or so here)
-Horseshoe Mesa
-Escalante Route (now basically a trail due to heavy traffic)
-Beamer Trail between Tanner and LCR.
-Thunder River Trail, Tapeats Creek, Deer Creek Areas
-Areas in Kanab Creek (Indian Hollow, Jumpup. Though I admit, this is more of a stretch)
-Area of Havasu Creek from Havasupai Boundary down to the Colorado River.

What about the areas under the flight corridors? You can experience the hand of man, albeit Vietnam style in the Cardenas area, Nankoweap, Boucher, Crystal areas if that's your thing. Should that disqualify them from being in the proposed wilderness area? NPS doesn't think so.

In the areas I noted above, recreation is LIMITED to where NPS tells you to camp (except in a few of the Use Areas that are 'At Large'). Most have designated campsites, some have toilets! There is also a very high propensity to see other people. In many places there is clear evidence of those folks who came before us. Miners, prospectors, tourism operators, etc. So the land is not 'untrammelled'. Hell, there's trail construction in all of these places. But yet, GRCA NPS MANAGES these places as wilderness. There are places on the Rims that are proposed wilderness and lie 5 feet! from a road used by NPS themselves.

What I am trying to say is your argument just falls flat to me, though it is well thought out and presented. Finally, I believe Tom has pointed out previously that the dam does not disqualify the Colorado River through GC from Wilderness Designation.

Your Thoughts?

-Josh


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Randaddy,

I enjoy the quiet and solitude of floating on the river as much as anyone, however when I'm rowing into 2-foot swells with whitecaps hoping to get to the impromptu campsite a couple hundred yards down the river before dark, my fortitude wanes and if someone comes by with a with a motor and invites me to join a pod of rafts, I won't be a purist. That said, I've been on plenty of trips where I felt like the TL broke out the motor and got the boats podded up way too soon when floating to the take-out would've been just fine, and I've also been stranded by winds overnight and just glad we had leftovers and extra provisions for that unplanned dinner.

Four stroke engines like the ones required in the GC are nice and quiet, and if someone offers to bring a 2-stroke on a Westwater or Deso trip I'm leading, I wouldn't turn them down either but any motor has a place and time for use. Taking care when fueling or oiling should be a given.

The issue of banning motors on the Grand is something that sounds really good to most private boaters at first blush, but banning them or calling for purist wilderness management could have some consequences we may not be pleased with. While I love silence and solitude in the Grand Canyon, as Phillip points out, arguing that the river qualifies, and can be managed, as a wilderness really does a disservice to the concept of wilderness, and I think that those who have been in true wilderness and go to the GC expecting a "true wilderness" there will be disappointed.

One other issue that I've heard mentioned is that the commercial motor trips that give so many couch potato Americans a chance to experience the Grand, also provide many people a chance to experience nature in breathtaking glory and thus help the environmentalist cause by showing "average Joes" a glimpse of what's at stake.

As for getting the Grand designated a wilderness area, good luck with that, especially in today's political climate when even a locally-crafted compromise that includes some wilderness values can get scuttled in DC by the same folks that claim only the locals know best (thanks to Nathan Fey for posting this on FB). Last time I checked the environmental movement was playing defense striving to preserve what we've got, trying to keep the drilling rigs out of National Parks, and just keep from losing ground right now. 

I looked at a few of Tom's points and his group's proposal for GC management and broke them down a couple years ago in a post here, and will re-post below. 

For any newcomers to this discussion, RRFW is Tom's group, River Runners for Wilderness. The CRMP is the Colorado River Management Plan by which the GC is managed and allocations set. What I discuss below are RRFW's goals during the scoping phase back in the early 2000s when GC boaters and other stakeholders were providing alternatives for how the management plan would be implemented. About 10 years ago, the compromise CRMP did away with the infamous 20 year waitlist, set up the current motor/no motor seasons, and greatly increased access for private boaters. This discussion also has to consider that one of the major criteria the CRMP sought was to minimize group-to-group contacts.



> RRFW provided scoping comments and proposed a no motors and alternative that would attempt to return the Grand Canyon to a pure wilderness environment. You'll see in the bullet points on page 2 of the scoping comments what RRFW is seeking. A lot of these sound really good when you first read them and many private boaters may wonder "what would be so difficult about eliminating motors, restoring a natural flow regime, variable temperature water, natural sediment load, native species, and so forth? I like the idea of visiting the Canyon as it was when Powell came down it, so why not?" They're [RRFW was] basically demanding the removal of Glen Canyon Dam, which may be possible but would face some pretty stiff opposition. The last point in the scoping comments is very important: "GCNP must prescribe measurable indicators that will drive management actions when degradation occurs and the imprint of human use becomes noticeable." That's a pretty high bar to set.
> 
> To their credit, RRFW also provided an alternative in the planning process that includes the no-motors scenario with two commercial and two private parties of 16 people each launching daily all year round. On the surface, this may sound pretty reasonable to the private boater. Equal access, all oars, 730 launch opportunities yearly for privates and outfitters alike, or a potential 1,460 trips a year going down the Canyon and a total potential of 483,900 user days in the canyon each year. There are currently 229,000 user days allotted between private and outfitters.
> 
> ...


It's been said that in RRFW's recent lawsuit proceedings, one judge actually commented that, if carried to its logical conclusion, the RRFW position that a system requiring "management actions when degradation occurs and the imprint of human use becomes noticeable" would lead to no human activity at all in the Grand Canyon. While that's a bit extreme, I wonder how many private boaters would really rather have a system under which the NPS banned motors and curtailed access when "degradation occurs and the imprint of human use becomes noticeable" over our current level of access?

The current plan is a compromise among many diverse stakeholder groups and sure, there are things I'd like to have differently if I could have my way. And of course, I think most of us would all love to have the Canyon to ourselves, muddy, warm, untamed, and unspoiled. However, the current plan is what we've got, there's a big dam upstream, and a lot of private boaters get to go there way more easily than before. 

Thanks for opening up this discussion, and for listening to the diverse viewpoints. How we got where we are now, and just how nuanced the issue is, can be summed up pretty well by the 2002 AW Grand Canyon Survey, that found: 



> 77% believe that motors diminish the wilderness character of the river.
> 65% believe that motors diminish the paddling experience.
> 74% would compromise on motors if the number of private launches increases, 19% would not.


Hopefully we can all put aside our differences on motors and wilderness management, and get together to fight that damned tramway.

-AH


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

GCHiker4887 said:


> Hi Phillip-
> Very well thought out posts, to be sure. Even if I don't necessarily agree with your interpretations. Let me segue this conversation a slightly different way now. I was an avid backpacker in Grand Canyon before I ever made it down the river. I guess I still am, with 2-3 multi-day backpacks a year, but it would likely be much more had I not discovered the river , however, I digress.
> 
> What I am trying to say is your argument just falls flat to me, though it is well thought out and presented. Finally, I believe Tom has pointed out previously that the dam does not disqualify the Colorado River through GC from Wilderness Designation.
> ...


I think its about the overall gestalt and how they align with the metrics. The easy wilderness battles were won early on and we are left with the inherently controversial options in the grays. I think the potential National Park wilderness areas present a difficult issue in regards to the unconfined and untrammeled categories of evaluation. How wild is a place that takes weeks to months of working with the park service to be dealt a rigid itinerary and no room for making decisions based upon what you encounter in the moment, in place? As I have said earlier I think its not consistent with the intent or spirit of the ideal of wildness the founders initially wrote about. On the designation side.....haven't spent as much time in those areas or reading up on the terrestrial options in GC. Does it meet the metrics? I don't know.

Are they managing it as wilderness? Maybe in name but they do so with inherent contradictions to the themes of wildness (the NPS makes it very confined by design). I am not sure there is a much better option for a national park though and that is why I am not convinced they are the best agency to take on the model. Their requirement to actively promote their resource and their popularity often compromises the very values and metrics of wilderness. I think the agency has a direct and measurable influence on wilderness character that is at best conflicted and at moments harmful. At least in most of the lower 48 I see a conflict. What Wrangell St Elias has done with wilderness is worth studying but a big reason for their success, in my book, is geographical remoteness and relative small public demand.

Per your final remark....Tom has done anything but provide a convincing narrative of wilderness for many of us. Does the dam alone disqualify the river corridor for designation? Not likely as manmade structures and even building new reservoirs is allowance of the WA (though in USFS lands as I understand it). That said, the dam in concert with the ecosystem degredation affected by broad-ranging human encroachment to me eliminates it from wilderness designation. Does a political designation eliminate the wildness that many of us experience there? Definitely not. But I would argue we don't need political designations in many places or need to eliminate motors to provide opportunities to experience wildness. 

I would argue that to compromise on a massive manmade feature that inherently degrades all aspects of wilderness in law and spirit eliminates any real foundation to build an anti-motor argument upon. Motors play a relatively small component of an already degraded environment. And if a river can be wilderness with a dam and the degradation like the Colorado embues than I think its fair to say it can withstand the limited damage, mostly to a subgroup of users, motors create. The one thing Tom has proven to me is that he is adamantly anti-motor and I think it has come at the expense of wilderness designation he claims to prioritize. And I think special interest groups like his have actually done an amazing job at herding many centric, non-motorized users away from wilderness designation. I know within the 5 years I have been reading his posting I have gone from being camped firmly in the traditional wilderness politics to standing behind a much broader land and water policy.

Phillip


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Andy H. has it nailed in my opinion.

Only additional comment;
I'd be happy if motors never ran again in the canyon, but I expect they will and I am not going to blow a baffle over it..

One can't really call the Grand Canyon a "wilderness experience" if one is a purist about it, but one can surely have a very fine "wilderness experience" in the canyon even with the damn motors.


----------



## semievolved (Nov 12, 2011)

wow, good, thought provoking comments all around.

as to whether this should/could be wilderness, i don't know about the rest of the folks commenting, but i have traveled pretty far and wide in this country and world through many official wilderness areas here and in some of the wildest places this planet has left. just on the feel and breadth and wildness of it, i cannot think of anywhere i have been that more qualifies as wilderness in the true sense of the word as the grand canyon.

the argument of untrammeled or unaffected by humans can't be relevant like it used to be. with climate change effects in such evidence, the ongoing geomorphologic evolution of the GC is in rapid flux. on our 2013 trip, i was amazed by the number and severity of debris flows that had occurred since a 2012 trip 9 months earlier. well established, well vegetated debris fans that were hundreds if not thousands of years old and were prime camping spots were eroded and reburied under massive debris deposits. we witnessed this time after time. tried to camp at separation recently?

my point is that human effects are in evidence everywhere around the world, including the wildest places as far from human civilization as can be got. if we rely on the precise definition of wilderness, nothing qualifies any more. if we rely on our judgement, there is no way we can separate grand canyon from wilderness. IT IS WILDERNESS!

motors are a more complex question as others more knowledgeable and eloquent have already pointed out. 

as i said, even if motor operators are considerate, i still don't care for the smoke and the noise. there are options for people to see the canyon if they want to. the case has not been made that whisking more people through on lightning fast trips has any benefit for the canyon short or long term. what data support the conclusion that these people's lives' are changed and they become canyon or wilderness advocates? there are legitimate disabilities that we should do what we can to help people with and open up their lives and experiences as much as possible. but in this country, many disabilities are brought on by people's life styles and choices. why should the canyon be spoiled with motor noise and fumes (even if for a moment) so a boat full of spoiled obese lazy slickers can have their pandered worthless selves motored down? 

for the guy who said his motor never dropped any oil in the water, really, how do you know? i've spent significant time around motors including as a mechanic, and i've never met a motor that didn't lose some oil or gas or gear fluid - it's part of the deal.

yup, it's a value judgement and a personal matter. i don't like motors and i'd love to see them banned. if it can't be designated wilderness, at least we could treat it with the respect it deserves for its undeniable wilderness qualities.


----------



## mkashzg (Aug 9, 2006)

I work for a commercial outfitter and make a lot of money on the poor clientele you refer to and am happy to educate the public on environmental issues and have fun doing it! Keep complaining and I'll keep getting paid! Sorry you only get a few trips in your life and I get to go as often as I can put up with motors. Over and out. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## chutney (Jun 1, 2012)

*Tom Martin*

Tom, haven't I seen you launch your little wooden boat on a few motor supported commercial trips this year? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Chutney, who took the boat out of my friends garage when i was not looking? It's still in the garage, or was yesterday when I looked. My brother the optometrist has been after you to come in for a visit for some time... sorry, one trip a year from Lee's, a self-guided rowing trip at that, is all that little wooden boat and I get, if we are lucky... 

Have been working non-stop on Marston's manuscript, so have not followed this thread as I most likely should. Just finished the 30 page index, two columns per page. Phew! The indexing of Marston has only one perk... getting to see bits of the text that bring back fond memories of similar experiences and the occasional nightmare. In 1949, Dick and Izzy Griffith, along with Jim Gifford, went from Green River Wyoming to Lee's Ferry, through the Uinta Basin... in the summer... Marston described it this way: "The trio headed out into the Uinta Basin and struggled with the misery of a blazing sun and a hot black rubber boat, which smoked their skin and blistered their noses. There were mosquitoes carrying knives and forks, poison ivy, and sneaking mean wind blowing sand into their food."

Best to you all, tom


----------



## chutney (Jun 1, 2012)

Tom, I know my sunglasses are a bit scratched, maybe I have just seen your boat without you in it. Or I could be mistaken.


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

Chutney,
Could you be thinking of the "Sandra"? Or perhaps one of Brad's wooden boats? Just a thought......


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

+1 for the Sandra. Not too many boats could be mistaken for Toms. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## semievolved (Nov 12, 2011)

"there are legitimate disabilities that we should do what we can to help people with and open up their lives and experiences as much as possible. but in this country, many disabilities are brought on by people's life styles and choices. why should the canyon be spoiled with motor noise and fumes (even if for a moment) so a boat full of spoiled obese lazy slickers can have their pandered worthless selves motored down?"

i want to apologize for this rant. it's not up to me to say who is and who's not appropriate for whatever kind of raft. it was a bogus insensitive rant and i regret it. whatever good can come from getting people through that canyon should be encouraged and my rave was wrongheaded.


----------



## Plecoptera (Jul 26, 2013)

I think this discussion, while remarkably erudite in many aspects, is naive. The demands on the core resource, The Water, are going to be so severe that we will be lucky if we retain the GC, and many other western canyons from Gore on down, undammed. 

The emerging model, based on the increasingly accurate and abundant climate data, suggests that wet places get wetter, dry places get drier. Right now Denver seems most likely to be close to 'average', assuming you understand that mean comes with wild swings from year to year. The rest of the Southwest would be a dry place, Las Vegas, St George, Phoenix, Tucson as Very Dry Places. 

The Wilderness Act? Ten million people downstream without water will get that repealed or amended no problemo. I think it would be a better use of time and scarce dollar resources to be beating the crap out of US Congressmen and Senators to force BuRec, and the Denver/Las Vegas/S. Cal governments to embrace and enforce aggressive water conservation measures. Otherwise, the future looks like motoring on Lake [pick a name] past the former Lava Falls site.


----------



## trevko (Jul 7, 2008)

I think Andy H nailed it as well. 

I have been fortunate enough to experience the Canyon in depth (no pun intended) on solo backpacking trips, rowing a boat, and piloting a boat. Given my choices, I would row. But, I've had some outstanding motor trips. 

I think the Wilderness argument is a red herring. Even if one of the major motor companies wasn't named Hatch and was a not direct relation to the senior Senator from UT, it would be politically unfeasible to reduce commercial use or remove motors from the Canyon. And for those who disdain this and object to the influence of politics, please remember the Wilderness Act itself is born from such compromise.

Although I'm not one to argue the motors allow for greater accessibility - one of the companies had a guide with cerebral palsy who rowed and the recent Global Explorers/No Barriers trips are by oar, it was the same Hatch River Ex that motored tons of Sierra Club folks into the canyons to see what if was they were fighting for back in the day. 

I'm not bothered by motors too much when I am rowing. One way I minimize their impact on me is that instead of being bull headed and staying in the current to force the motor rig into an eddy and to pass me (having to throttle up to do so), I go into the slack water and allow the motor to quickly pass (hopefully at 1/2 throttle).


----------

