Originally Posted by ob1coby
Doesn't sound like it's "good riddance". Looks like the Government is doing it's thing. Take the individuals in question and relocating them elsewhere to make it look their doing something (they'll probably get a raise). Meanwhile contract the operation out so that they can still do special favors for special people while the peasants (the ones actually paying for all of it) scratch for an opportunity to float the GC.
Do you honestly think they'll really get raises? I seriously doubt it, and expect it's a lot more likely their new positions have the words "latrine" and "clean" in the job description. Whatever it is, it won't be nearly as glamorous as what they used to do, and they'll likely be on a very short leash. As government employees, they may be hard to fire but when your actions splash that much crap on the park superintendent, moving up the grade and pay scale, or getting plum assignments, will likely get a little more difficult.
From the article: "The report also found disciplinary action was inconsistent and that [GC Superintendent] Uberuaga and his deputy failed to properly investigate or report allegations of misconduct."
As for displacing private boaters, you don't seem to understand the unit's allocation didn't really take anything from private boaters. Private river runners get a set number of launches per year (503, I think) according to the 2006 CRMP. That's not likely to change.
As for complaining that taking "researchers, politicians and students" down the river is wasteful, that's debatable. Likely the students were assisting the researchers (it's doubtful we're talking about high school kids or freshman biology students, but why would it be such a bad thing if that were
the case?). And if more politicians were able to experience the Canyon, maybe that would be a good
thing for protecting our nation's rivers. If you want to whine about a government boondoggle, maybe you should call your congressmen about something that has a greater impact on your tax bill - like this
Dissolving this unit is bad for a few reasons:
1) It eliminates a handful of decent-paying, good benefit jobs for some deserving career river runners,
2) Hiring outfitters will likely be more expensive for us taxpayers than having the work done in-house, if it's the same cost or cheaper, the commercial boatmen will be the ones getting paid less and enjoying fewer benefits, and their outfitter bosses will still get the profits,
3) My understanding is that the "institutional" trips often had some rangers on them as well, if the new trips don't, then it's fewer eyes looking out for stuff like this
It seems like dissolving the unit was a way for the superintendent to show he's doing something
severe to save his own butt. The NPS should investigate & get the bad apples out, and make sure the next guys know that "NO" doesn't just mean "keep trying." They're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.