Mountain Buzz banner
21 - 40 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
That's not the worst suggestion.
Could also reduce max group size from 30 to 20 and release 50% more permits (flows and campsite availability permitting)
I don't think there are enough camps to add more permits. During peak season, between privates and commercial, almost all the camps are used every night. Logistics would become a real bastard for camp assignments.
Already are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
That's not the worst suggestion.
Could also reduce max group size from 30 to 20 and release 50% more permits (flows and campsite availability permitting)
Good idea, I've thought that group sizes are too large on most permitted extended trips. Lower group sizes to even 16 and increase # of launches.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,645 Posts
Good idea, I've thought that group sizes are too large on most permitted extended trips. Lower group sizes to even 16 and increase # of launches.
The problem with this is there is a finite amount of camp spots available.. one would think that it's enough of a problem already as they assign your camps at launch...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenSlaughter

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
Could do like the Grand and offer small group trips. There are a lot of pocket beaches where 8 people can fit.
Under the current permit system, the resource/recreation managers have no idea whether a group of 2 or a group of 30 is showing up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
864 Posts
Could do like the Grand and offer small group trips. There are a lot of pocket beaches where 8 people can fit. Under the current permit system, the resource/recreation managers have no idea whether a group of 2 or a group of 30 is showing up.
I am not sure if the USFS is going to continue to assign camps a week before launch as they have the last two years or at the launch site as they did before that. Either way they know ahead of time how many people will be in each group from the information collected by wreck.gov. Smaller groups are already assigned the smaller or less used camps. You would be surprised how many 2-4 person groups there are, especially early in the season.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
I am not sure if the USFS is going to continue to assign camps a week before launch as they have the last two years or at the launch site as they did before that. Either way they know ahead of time how many people will be in each group from the information collected by wreck.gov. Smaller groups are already assigned the smaller or less used camps. You would be surprised how many 2-4 person groups there are, especially early in the season.
Yes but the FS doesn't know for sure that there are a specific number of small groups at lottery time...not soon enough to know to release more permits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
How can we, the users, do to fix the problem? Has there ever been a formal proposal presented to the USFS showing the problem with options. justifications, and solutions?
What about a massive mail/email to all level of the river management, Secretory of Agriculture all the way down to the river rangers? Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
I think those are options but we need to define what "we" want. I also think that it would be better to involve a lobbying group such as American Whitewater because they would have the DC connections that an Ad Hoc group just wouldn't.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,645 Posts
I think those are options but we need to define what "we" want. I also think that it would be better to involve a lobbying group such as American Whitewater because they would have the DC connections that an Ad Hoc group just wouldn't.
And historically, AW has stayed far away from stuff like this, I can see why they would. It would be akin nailing jello to a tree to get it's national membership to agree on this, and there the " why aren't you doing the same thing on MY river that I feel is inequitible in it's access system" part of the equation.. A sticky wicket. They typically do things the majority of their members can get behind. Mountain Buzz is but a very small sample of boater demographics...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Lobbying groups was what I began thinking about after my past post. They are the best to lead but I'm sure we, the boaters, can contribute. Does anyone know if American Whitewater, or anyone else, ever addressed the permit issue? I think I might start to dig in to things.

See ya' all on some river!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
There are two private lobbying groups for the Grand.
It takes a MASSIVE amount of work to keep a group like that going..but they do have a seat at the table.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,645 Posts
I know one is gcpba, but wasn't aware of a second. Who are you thinking?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
Hey all,

OP here. A good (and civil) discussion. I am still hoping for thoughts on leveling the playing field between private and commercial river users.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
I’m a private, not a commercial, but would throw this out there for the sake of discussion:

commercial use hasn’t really changed. They have an allotted number of user days. we don’t know if their demand has changed.

Demand for private launches has increased, private launch permits have remained steady.

In your view, what makes the current allocation unfair?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
Unfairness: If you can pay the $$, you are guaranteed a prime-season MFS trip in 2023. You can get a shoulder season trip in 2022. If you play the lottery, it may be years - or never.

All river users should be getting permits to run the river in a same mechanism. Commercial outfitters need not get guaranteed launches, IMO. Just permission to take paying customers down the river.
 
21 - 40 of 54 Posts
Top