Go Back   Mountain Buzz > Whitewater Boating > Whitewater Kayaking

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-26-2010   #51
lmaciag's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2002
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 670
Thank you all for the on-line debate. I have gained a wealth of information and a better understanding of what happened before I became a river runner.

Andy - Special thanks to you for the comparisons and contrasts. Can't wait to discuss further on the river with you.

And although I don't share Tom's opinion, I understand his passion.

I cannot wait to go back to The Grand. It is such a special place.

Thanks again!


"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain
lmaciag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2010   #52
Tom Martin's Avatar
Flagstaff, Arizona
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 817
For the rest on Andy's missing info...

Hi Andy, thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, the RRFW plan was outside the two NPS motor free alternatives. This is not sloppy or misleading.

It was sloppy and misleading for the NPS to not produce a workable motor free alternative. The two alternatives the NPS put out needed a lot of work. We offered a solution. You don’t like the offering. And your point in a public process is...?

Andy, a lot of these issues were gone over years ago. The allocation levels RRFW uses are based on studies of user day ceiling done in the 1970s, BEFORE we got better at cleaning up after ourselves.

To Be Very Clear, the present plan increased do-it-yourself use in the winter as a way to avoid equitable summer access. This is a real issue you and the GCPBA never address. And this is a KEY point RRFW continues to raise.

If you are saying the GCPBA and AW got nothing in exchange for a lousy deal, I will agree with you.

Your understanding that there was data showing self guided river runners on the waiting list wanted shoulder season access and did not want equitable summertime access in incorrect. And the river concessions already HAD the lions share of summer access, given to them because they asked for it in 1972. Your claims that there is less demand in the summer season for self guided trips over commercial trips is bogus. There is no data to show this.

What we can do to look at demand, and the only data we have, is to look at lottery applications. That data is available here:
Grand Canyon National Park - Helpful Links for Noncommercial River Trips (U.S. National Park Service)

The stats from the 2011 lottery have just been run. There were 3726 applications competing for 274 launch opportunities. That may average to a one in fourteen chance, but trips in the dead of winter went unclaimed, while over 680 applicants wanted that prime launch date just after the end of the motorized season. Your chances for that date were one in 680.

This demand shows most folks want to go boating in the summer season (April through September), not the fall-winter-spring season (October-March). We have no demand figures for the concessions world. None.

As to the computer model, we have said this before...the computer model was based on data showing how the river worked in 2000 With motors. Any modeling without models showed serious flaws in the model, not the potential to have a motor free river with equitable access.

Yes, RRFW discovered the backroom deal, a deal the river concessions characterized as having their cake and eating it to. A deal that had it not happened, and according to the trade association staffer, would have had the river concessions going it alone "...the outfitters against everyone else."

The river community would have had real leverage to force the NPS to produce a better plan.

So now, here's what we have...

*Nearly doubling private boaters user day allocation, accessible in the winter

*Private boaters share the Canyon roughly 50-50 during the shoulder seasons, 3,221 concessions passengers (no crew numbers reflected0 to 2,926 self guided folks)

*Motors are now prohibited for much of the shoulder seasons and during winter, in a time they never ran historically

*Self guided folks get an additional small group launch every other day in summer, but still only get 123 groups of 16 people and 62 groups of 8 people compared with 476 concessions groups of 32 people

*In the summer, 14,385 concessions passengers travel the river compared to 2,270 self guided folks

*Commercial oar and motor trips have shorter trip lengths than before, as do self guided river runners even though two studies showed concessions passengers and self guided river runners alike said they wanted longer trips

*Helicopter exchanges are limited to April through September instead of year round, thought they never ran year round, only flying April through September before the latest plan came out,

*Commercial group sizes are decreased from about 40 to a maximum of 32 (guides now included), and this was the historic average

*Commercial groups are off the river for 5 months out of the year which is the same as the last river plan

You are quite right to say RRFW refers to the result above as a "sell out."

You now head on off and seek to destroy a different view, ignoring the mess above...

In responding to your points, the river concessions would make money if they ran all oar trips. And they would still run short trips to Phantom, so folks wouldn’t have to spend a mandatory two weeks on the river, even though the only studies on trip length showed concessions passengers want LONGER trips, not shorter trips.

Then you mention litigation. I agree with you it would have been better to have the river concessions sue the NPS, and have the court say the agency has discretion to manage the river as the Agency see’s fit...

Instead, a self guided river running group (GCPBA) and the river concessions trade association fought against another river running group trying to get better summertime access.

I agree with you that the commercial outfitters would put up a protracted, vigorous, and well-funded fight and the river concessions admitted they would lose that fight…unless…they could get a few groups to join them…and that’s what happened.

You make an accusation that RRFW splintered the boating community. Wow. That's incredibly misguided. It was after all AW and the GCPBA and the trade association that said they would use their best efforts to "discourage their respective members from engaging in any activities that would, if undertaken by the Parties, be inconsistent with the Joint Recommendations and the terms of this Agreement. The Parties will not support any efforts by their respective members to engage in any activities that would, if undertaken by the Parties, be inconsistent with the Joint Recommendations or the terms of this Agreement." Talk about splintering the river running community.

Bottom line, the river is still commercialized and motorized in the primary use season, and there is still huge unmet demand by real self guided river runners for real river trips in the summer.

Thank you for this opportunity to present the "rest" of the story and to help remind folks of one more thing...we are talking about management of one of the seven natural wonders of the world. Management of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon should be the best we as a society can make it, not something that is mediocre at best, and damages wilderness character of the resource at worse case.

Happy river trails, Tom

Tom Martin 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

posted by ShamanRx

Brand New never used 2016 XXL Crux. Has relief zipper and...

Dagger Nomad Large Blaze

posted by Rendezvous River Sports


AT and AT4 paddles

posted by CFriday

AT Paddle is a 194cm and AT4 paddle is 197. Both are in...

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 12:11 PM.

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