Go Back   Mountain Buzz > Whitewater Boating > Whitewater Kayaking

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2010   #41
Caspian's Avatar
Englewood, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1978
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 882
I am a practicing litigator. I have not had time to read the 9th Circuit's opinion, but did read the District Court decision when it came out a few years ago. I have NEVER seen a federal judge so completely obliterate arguments like was done in that decision. When I read it, I told one of the GCPBA board members that RRFW did not have the faintest prayer of a ever getting it overturned and that attempting to do so would be an absurd waste of money. The District Court judge just stitched it all up way too tightly to possibly be overturned. In my opinion, those who contend otherwise are asking you to drink the Kool-Aid.

Imagine this - I take you to the Tallulah at 500, tell to you run the middle of Bridalveil, and you swim after the worst beatdown you've ever had. I take you back the next day at 700 and tell you to run the same line again, you can do it this time. That's what the appeal was on this case.

Join up, suckas.

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Kierkegaard
Caspian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010   #42
Andy H.'s Avatar
Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,909

The statement below is very telling:

We learned today that the GCPBA is getting donations from the GCRRA, the group representing commercial motor passengers, who's goal is to safegaurd motorized concessions river access.
It is a fact of life that unlikely parties become allies when mutual interests are at stake, especially when hard-won agreements are being threatened by litigation. It is not unheard of for this to happen while simultaneously opposing each other on other fronts or issues. This is how things happen when pragmatic leaders are involved.

If an organization such as RRFW doesn't understand this very simple fact, how can they be taken seriously at a negotiating table? And if RRFW does understand this, pointing out the above is simply pandering. None of the parties involved in the CRMP development got everything they wanted, however none want to restart the process and take chances with a new management plan.

When the CRMP first came out, my knee-jerk reaction was that the GCPBA should file suit against the NPS. I wanted more summer allocation, no motors, and didn't want to go on the GC in the winter. Then I learned a bit more about what had transpired in the planning process, what the actual "survivability" of some of the other more attractive options (to private boaters) were, and how bad some of the other potential outcomes could have been. I also realized that nearly doubling the allocation for private boaters, with much of the increased allocation during what I consider the most pleasant time of the year in the desert, and when there won't be commercials with motors on the river any way, isn't such a bad deal after all.

So once more...

When RRFW filed their lawsuit, private boaters' allocation had been increased from about 58,000 to about 113,400 user days per year under the current CRMP. For the fourth time, I ask you to please answer my question about how or whether RRFW's suit would have increased private boater allocation over the year.


Nothing in the world is more yielding and gentle than water. Yet it has no equal for conquering the resistant and tough. The flexible can overcome the unbending; the soft can overcome the hard. - Lao Tse
Andy H. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010   #43
Tom Martin's Avatar
Flagstaff, Arizona
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 818
Hi Andy, the RRFW, RTE, LR and WW litigation sought to rectify the imbalance in summertime access, an imbalance so blatant you even said you had a problem with it. While we worked hard to increase do-it-yourself allocation, it makes no sense to us to see that gain in the off season. The spring is motorized from April 1 on, and in the spring and fall there are still more concessions passengers than DIY folks.

In a previous e-mail I noted "RRFW and a coalition of groups, including other recreational river running groups, encouraged the NPS to modify a motor-free alternative between B and C, that would have INCREASED do-it-yourself trips and do-it-yourself numbers overall beyond what we have today. The mainstream river running community understands that they are still getting the short end of the 50-50 stick when it comes to summertime access, thanks to the GCPBA."

For the fourth time, i have answered your question. All the best, yours, tom
Tom Martin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010   #44
Andy H.'s Avatar
Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,909
Show us the Numbers


A review of the final CRMP Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which contains details about the various alternatives, raises some questions about RRFW's repeated assertions that "a motor-free alternative between B and C, that would have INCREASED do-it-yourself trips and do-it-yourself numbers overall beyond what we have today," or that "a modified B alternative, somewhere between B amd C, has the potential to greatly increasing [sic] self guided river access year round"

If one reviews the attached Alternative summary table and graphs from the FEIS (click the file name next to the PDF button at bottom of this post) that compare the various alternatives, the fallacy in RRFW's assertions become evident [for those unfamiliar with the alternatives listed, "Alternative A" is the previous system (waitlist, highly uneven allocation, etc.) that was replaced by the current CRMP system referred to as "Modified Alternative H"]. As there is no "Modified Alternative B" listed for comparison or available using a search for "Modified Alternative B" on the RRFW website, I'll assume that the RRFW numbers would be, as RRFW asserts, somewhere between the B and C Alternatives.

So lets look at what RRFW states we would've gotten from "a motor-free alternative between B and C."

1) User Days - current yearly user day allocations (Modified Alt. H) for privates and commercials are 113,486 and 115,500, respectively. Under Alt. B, the proposed private and commercial allocations are 74,523 and 97,694; under Alt. C the proposed allocations for private and commercial are 115,783 and 166,814 user days, respectively. This means that private allocation would be somewhere between 74,500 and, under a best case scenario, 115,783. This is only about 2,300 user days greater than the current compromise allocation of about 113,500 user days obtained by GCPBA and AW negotiations. Referring to an extra 2% user day allocation as "greatly increasing self guided river access year round" is quite a reach.

2) Trip Lengths - current trip lengths for private boaters during the shoulder season and during winter are 21 and 25 days, respectively. In your posts above, you imply that trip lengths, particularly in the winter, might be longer under RRFW's "Modified Alternative B." Under both Alts. B & C, the maximum shoulder and winter season trip lengths are 18 and 21 days, respectively. At best RRFW's "Modified Alternative B" would result in 3 and 4 day shorter trip limits for private boaters in the shoulder season and winter, respectively, than the trip lengths allowed under the current compromise plan obtained by GCPBA and AW. RRFW would not be "greatly increasing self guided river access year round."

3) Launches - in all the Alternatives the number of launches per day vary throughout the year - you have to dig into the graphs and details in the EIS to unravel this story but here's the summary:

Summer Launches: Under Alts. B and C both privates and commercials have two launches each during the summer so the commercials are decreased from their previous 4 to 5 launches per day to only 2 (Note: this reduction may get a bit sticky if you're actually trying to negotiate an agreement with the outfitters at the table). Private launches under Alts. B and C go from the previous one launch daily to two launches daily. The current compromise plan, Mod. Alt. H, gives private boaters an average of 1.5 launches per day. I'll give you this one, by obtaining a average of 0.5 launches per day more during summer, we actually see "increased do-it-yourself trips" over the current plan.

Shoulder Season Launches: For privates during the shoulder seasons Alt. B has an average of 0.5 launches per day in March and April, and 1 per day in Sept. and October. Alt. C gives privates 1 launch per day for all shoulder season months. The current compromise plan obtained by GCPBA and AW gives privates 2 launches in March and an average of 1.5 in April, Sept. and October. If we can agree that the numbers 2 or 1.5 are greater than 0.5 or 1, its safe to say that RRFW's plan does not provide "increased do-it-yourself trips" over the current plan.

Winter Launches: Alts. B and C give privates an average of 0.5 and 1 launches per day. The current compromise plan obtained by GCPBA and AW gives privates 1 launch per day. RRFW's plan does not improve upon winter allocation for private boaters, and remember, the winter trips would be 4 to 7 days shorter under RRFW's plan.

In summary: Without specific numbers associated with RRFW's "modified Alternative B" we can still deduce that, at best, it would add an average of 0.5 summer launches per day and take away motors. In the best case scenario, it might also add another 2,300 user days to the private pool (8 full 18-day trips added to about 500 trips per year), but maybe not. However RRFW's best case plan would reduce all winter and shoulder season trip lengths by anywhere from 3 to 7 days, increase the time of the year commercial trips would be on the river, reduce the number of shoulder season launches, and reduce the number of winter launches.

One would expect that as often as RRFW states they have "a motor-free alternative between B and C" that is the the holy grail of private boater access to the Grand Canyon, details of that alternative would have been released long ago.

Neither I nor anyone I have ever spoken with have ever seen specific "Modified Alternative B" allocation numbers, and I can't easily find it on RRFW's website. There are huge gaps between Alts. B and C, (i.e. would RRFW have commercial user days be about 97,700 or about 167,000? would private boaters get 75,000 or 115,000 user days?). The NPS didn't have the luxury of implementing a non-specific amalgam based on RRFW's vague pronunciation of a plan. The NPS had to make actual decisions about number of launches and user-days, length of trips, seasonal apportionment, etc. that the stakeholders could live with.

If you just take the average of Alts. B and C, it sure doesn't increase the private boaters' access, and if you skew everything to the privates' favor, it sure doesn't look like it would be unchallenged by politically powerful and well-funded stakeholder groups with an interest in maintaining the status quo.

Please provide the link to the details of RRFW's "Modified Alternative B," preferrably its in a format that allows easy comparison to the other Alternatives. A release date prior to filing the lawsuit, or during the CRMP comment period would help RRFW's credibility in this matter. If you can't show us the numbers, then please quit asserting that RRFW would have increased private boater allocation over the current allocation had the NPS listened to you, or had the lawsuit been decided in RRFW's favor. Without specific numbers, no plan would have ever been implemented.

So for the fifth and final time, please tell us how RRFW's plan would have increased access for private boaters over the current compromise plan obtained by GCPBA and AW.


Attached Files
File Type: pdf CRMP_Summary_Table_Graph.pdf (74.9 KB, 24 views)
Nothing in the world is more yielding and gentle than water. Yet it has no equal for conquering the resistant and tough. The flexible can overcome the unbending; the soft can overcome the hard. - Lao Tse
Andy H. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010   #45
Tom Martin's Avatar
Flagstaff, Arizona
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 818
We did...here they are again...

Hi Andy, thanks for your note.

1) On user days, the present 50-50 allocation (that is not 50-50) lets the river concessions have the lion’s share of summertime access, the do-it-yourself river runners get the off season fall-winter-spring. The GCPBA folks say that’s 50-50. We looked at the allocations in B and C as part of the overall picture, that must include 50-50 or better summertime access. That’s what I am referring to greatly increasing self guided river access year round. User days are only one part of a bigger picture, and the present split of the actual use is bogus.

2) On trip lengths, we consistently and still support 18 day summer, 21 day spring and fall, and 30 day winter trip lengths.

3) On trip launches, yes, that was and still is the idea, more summer launches (two a day). And spreading commercial use out over a larger spread of the year makes sense to decrease crowding.

4) Finally, you ask to see the Modified Alternative B/C compared with the other alternatives. We had this up six years ago, so you are certainly excused for not finding this on the front page of the RRFW web site. But it’s still on the web site, and here’s the link:


Thanks for the opportunity to go over this. One thing is for sure, the issues that needed correction in the last CRMP still need correction in regard to wilderness protection and summertime access.

All the best, Tom
Tom Martin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010   #46
ajpz's Avatar
boulder, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 45
Has the possibility of 'electric motors only' ever entered the discussion?
ajpz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010   #47
sealion's Avatar
Moab, Utah
Paddling Since: 1987
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
looking at the RRfw alternative(the last column in the table at the bottom) I have to say I would not be for it. 4 launches a day? I am prejudiced in that I prefer my private trips to be in late winter season or early spring, and one of the reasons I go in the winter is because there are less people down there, and the only motors you see are science trips(how bout those user days? and the amount of firewood they burn motoring up and down the river collecting wood for their long days in camp if they're doing bat studies or some other night time gig?) Another reason is because it is not way f'n hot, and you can do some long hikes. Leave the summer to commercials and people who can only go in summertime-kid vacations etc. When I did guide, it was spring and fall trips only.
sealion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2010   #48
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 883

I'm flying fast and low, with not much time to spend on this.

Supposing that you looked at the link Tom just provided, to RRFW's six year old chart. It's quite different than the hybrid B/C plan he advocated a few posts back. Ignore the fact it has several blanks and speculative footnoted numbers in key locations. One wonders why he first pointed readers in one direction, then another?

But you'd also find in this latest document that RRFW advocated four launches a day in the winter. That's the way RRFW achieves what it considers a superior allocation for private boaters.

Then and now, there was/is no earthy reason to believe that this is a practical proposal. The Park can just barely fill a one-a-day launch pattern in the winter -- much less four. The Park needed a solution that actually had a chance of working -- not some fanciful construct that relied on trips that would be non-existent in the real world.

And of course there is the delicious irony of RRFW depending on four winter launches per day to make it's proposal work. In every imaginable venue, RRFW has criticized the Park and GCPBA for relying on winter trips in its "50/50" tally. If I had the time, I'll bet I could come up with a dozen quotes over the last several years, where RRFW or its supporters hammer the CRMP for over-reliance on winter trips to achieve balance.

Thinking people think about these things -- particularly when they consider the overall credibility of RRFW's other positions.


Rich Phillips
richp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2010   #49
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,302
I've been following this closely since I find it fascinating. It is very clear that the GCRRA, GCPBA, AW, RRFW and all the others have entirely different opinions as to what is the correct plan. I don't know the numbers, but I would assume that AW has the largest member base of do-it-yourself river runners looking to get on the Grand Canyon, being that it is an organization that focuses (albeit a subdivided focus) on all rivers rather than only the Grand Canyon.

If this is the case, then I would also assume that AW worked with GCPBA and others closely and I would assume this about the majority of the American Whitewater crowd:

Although most people aren't for motors the majority of us also aren't so completely against them as RRFW. They have a place, and I'm usually happy to avoid those places and those times of years. I am definitely against getting rid of the current motor use if it were to greatly decrease the number of user days, as others have stated. I am glad that motor use isn't year round, and can live with it.

RRFW seems to have major issue with the allocation of days favoring privates in the off-season and not the summer months. I guess I look at it this way... As a kayaker, I have a very limited season to hit all of the amazing rivers and creeks that I want to run because most of them only have a season of a few months, a few weeks, and even a few days. That season, the on-season is usually the same spring and summer months as the Grand Canyon 'season', and therefore, when I just applied for permits, the most on-season Tina and I even attempted was August. After all, we don't want a Grand trip to interfere with all of the other sick paddling that can be had around our beautiful country. I'm not saying that I don't someday want to experience the Grand in the summer, because I certainly do. However, as a private boater the Grand is a great option because it's the Grand, and because it runs year round and affords some of the best off-season paddling anywhere. As a kayaker, rafter, and runner of all rivers, I think it's sweet that privates get the hookup in the off-season, at a time when commercials would go unused.

I would love if privates had more launches than commercials. It would be amazing if all of our elite private boater friends could call up and get a permit whenever we want, and all of the commercials and paying lower-class citizens had to get on the waitlist or when a lottery. But that's not fair to the businesses that have been built around the Grand. I don't have any ties to those businesses, but if the raft guides can show the lay folk the beauty and value of rivers and river access, and maybe even encourage them to get more involved with rivers, then they certainly have value. From a membership standpoint alone (which is revenue to help fight the good fight) I would think American Whitewater sees the value of the commercial rafting industry as well.

So to end, I would like to give a huge Thank You to Tom, Andy, and Rich (among others) for clarifying, these complicated issues. And another huge Thank You to GCPBA and AW for working together to create a system that gives private boaters a better chance to do the Grand. Tina and I both scored permits, Feb and Nov respectively, so as a private that has never scored a permit (and never been on the Grand) I believe that something is working. Too bad we have to cancel one.
Kyle McCutchen
Cutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2010   #50
Andy H.'s Avatar
Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,909

Thank you for providing a link to a somewhat detailed description of just what RRFW means when referring to "a modified B alternative, somewhere between B and C." I would like to point out a few issues with the RRFW assertions.

First, RRFW apparently has a different definition of the word "between" than the one commonly accepted in the English language. A comparison of RRFW's proposed numbers of launches in different seasons, user day totals, commercial group sizes, and trip lengths, shows that many are outside the ranges set by the two alternatives referred to when RRFW describes their preferred allocation. This is at best sloppy, and at worst a misleading distraction to those trying to understand RRFW's proposal that aren't aware of the 6-year old document buried on their website and which can't be found by a search using any of the names by which the plan is referred to in public by RRFW.

By repeatedly using phrases such as "a modified B alternative...between B and C" RRFW misleads people into thinking their plan is "between" other NPS-proposed alternatives and that any reasonable person could accept it. RRFW may state that the details of their plan were published on their website all along, but in practical terms, the details were buried so deeply as to be basically unavailable to the dialog until someone demanded to see them.

Second, to gain insight into the credibility of RRFW's proposed allocation scenario, merely examine RRFW's allotment of user days. This parameter is generally considered among the most important in any serious discussion of optimizing access to the Grand Canyon while also minimizing impacts to the ecosystem, attractions, and cultural artifacts, and maximizing the opportunity to get a perceived experience of relative solitude. While I have emphasized access for private boaters in this discussion, there are obviously limits to what is reasonable to expect so the resource can be protected. Under RRFW's alternative, up to about 483,900 user days are possible, compared with the current total CRMP number of about 229,000. Earlier in this exchange RRFW stated "We can't just keep on increasing use on the Colorado in Grand Canyon." How RRFW can say this while simultaneously proposing a plan with nearly a half million user days is truly mind-boggling. Furthermore, as Rich P notes, much of the RRFW's allocation boost is accomplished by greatly increasing available permits during the winter, which RRFW has consistently complained about in the current plan.

Third, RRFW repeatedly asserts that GCPBA and AW "sold out" to the commercial interests. This assertion implies that GCPBA and AW got something in return and that private boaters got a lousy deal. As for the complaint that there aren't enough summer private launches in the compromise plan, its my understanding that GCPBA studied the historical application dates for trips requested by private boaters under the old waiting list and observed that the April through early June, and September through mid October were the times that private boaters preferred. Conversely the outfitters could clearly show greater demand from mid May to the end August - a fairly good fit was identified that would be preferrable to the two major stakeholder groups.

During the planning phases, GCPBA used the NPS's publicly-available trip simulator computer model and came up with river use scenarios that fit within the NPS requirements to minimize group contacts and provided constructive input to the NPS as they developed their scenarios.

The opportunity to do this was not limited to GCPBA / AW, GCROA, GCRRA. Anyone could have used the NPS's trip simulator to develop scenarios that would comply with the CRMP planning criteria and lobbied the NPS for consideration of their proposals. Instead RRFW focused on scolding the NPS, splintering and destroying the support of GCPBA / AW, hinting at backroom intrigue and wrongdoing, and boasting of Congressional support for their position - support that never materialized.

The results of the GCPBA / AW approach includes the following changes from the previous system, among other things:
  • Nearly doubling private boaters' user day allocation,
  • Private boaters practically own the Canyon during the desirable shoulder seasons,
  • Motors are now prohibited for much of the shoulder seasons and during winter,
  • Privates get an additional small group launch every other day in summer,
  • Commercial oar and motor trips have shorter trip lengths than before,
  • Helicopter exchanges are limited to April through September instead of year round,
  • Commercial group sizes are decreased from about 40 to a maximum of 32 (guides now included),
  • Commercial groups are off the river for 5 months out of the year
RRFW refers to this result as a "sell out."

Now, lets take a look at one more very important issue:

What would have happened had RRFW succeeded, either in the CRMP planning, or in court, to eliminate motors from the Grand Canyon and radically cut commercial access during their preferred summer season?

First a little background:

Under the old plan, in the summer commercials could launch 7 or 8 trips per day with a total group size of up to 39 on oar trips and 43 on motor trips (including guides). Its easy to figure well over 100 paying custromers leaving Lee's Ferry daily. Under the RRFW scenario, commercials would be limited to two oar-powered launches of 16 members daily, all year round. This means that they'd probably be running three or four 18 - 22' oar rigs with at least one guide per boat, and each boat carrying only 3 or 4 passengers, for a total of 3 or 4 guides and 12 or 13 customers. This comes to a total of 24 - 26 customers launching per day supported by 6 - 8 guides.

The RRFW plan would substantially decrease the outfitters' profitability and limit their clientele to only those able to spend the time and money to for two weeks on the river, in addition to a few more days getting to GCNP and back.

Given this scenario, its easy to imagine a very well-funded lawsuit would be filed by the outfitters with their affiliated groups joining in. This lawsuit would have substantial public support from the large pool of folks who enjoy commercial trips and don't have more time than a week for their trip, thus requiring motors. This large, well-funded and well-connected stakeholder group could have made a very valid case that there is much more demand for week long motorized commercial trips than there is for two- to three-week oar trips, and that "the public is better served" by one-week motorized trips open to everyone, not just a relatively small group of "elite do it yourselfers" who can take 3+ weeks off work to go run the Grand. The courts (or Congress) could have easily decided that the 2006 CRMP gave too much preferential treatment to the small group of "elite privates" and cut back the private use substantially from the old allocation.

Anyone who assumes the commercial outfitters would just roll over without a protracted, vigorous, and well-funded fight, especially if their passenger load is cut by more than three fourths during their most popular season, is not approaching the issue pragmatically.

I'm done debating with RRFW on this issue. RRFW didn't approach the CRMP planning in a constructive manner, was never able to bring a nationally-recognized advocacy group on board to their cause, lost the first lawsuit badly and the appeal even worse, and in the process made future challenges to governmental agencies by the public more difficult. RRFW's goals are laudable, idealistic, and have a natural appeal to private boaters. But those goals are not practical, implementable, or likely to advance the cause of private boaters in the long run. RRFW's accusations and antagonism of successful advocacy groups splinter the boating community, distract us from more important and winnable battles, and weaken the private boating community in the eyes of potential adversaries.

My future lack of a response to whatever RRFW posts as follow-up is not, by any means, any kind of admission of defeat - I've made my case and am done with this particular issue for now.


Thank you for weighing in on this discussion. I really appreciate the way you've managed to put a number of issues into perspective for private boaters.

I think your following statement sums it up for most of us:

Thank You to GCPBA and AW for working together to create a system that gives private boaters a better chance to do the Grand. Tina and I both scored permits, Feb and Nov respectively, so as a private that has never scored a permit (and never been on the Grand) I believe that something is working.
I don't know the GC stats for the 2011 permit lottery but if there are about 3500 applicants for about 500 launches, that's a 1 in 7 chance of getting a permit. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but it seems those odds are better than the lotteries on the Middle Fork, the Selway, Lodore, and a few other rivers.


Nothing in the world is more yielding and gentle than water. Yet it has no equal for conquering the resistant and tough. The flexible can overcome the unbending; the soft can overcome the hard. - Lao Tse
Andy H. is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RRFW Riverwire – RRFW Attorney Argues Case in 9th Circuit Court Tom Martin Whitewater Kayaking 2 06-18-2009 09:56 PM
RRFW Riverwire - Grand Canyon Litigation Update - Court Sets Hearing Date Tom Martin Whitewater Kayaking 0 04-07-2009 08:49 PM
RRFW Riverwire – Appeal Court Briefs Filed In Grand Canyon Litigation Tom Martin Whitewater Kayaking 0 05-24-2008 02:35 PM
RRFW Riverwire – Judge Issues Court Ruling in RRFW Case Tom Martin Whitewater Kayaking 0 11-30-2007 09:37 PM
RRFW Riverwire – Court Date Set for Grand Canyon Litigation Tom Martin Whitewater Kayaking 0 10-17-2007 07:11 PM

» Classified Ads
Jackson Karma (Medium)

posted by Paddling Life

Brand Spankin' New 2016 Jackson Karma Creek kayak!

2016 Dagger Nomad...

posted by atom

2016 Dagger Nomad LG Used as intended but tons of life...

2014 Rockstar Jackson...

posted by Scardenas95

Great shape, excellent boat!

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.