The common-pool system is not anti-commercial as you perceive it.
If you've read my CRMP comments then it seems that I failed to
convey some of the essence of the proposal clearly. This would
not shock me.
Commercial passengers would have to wait, but they would still be
able to schedule a trip with the concessionaire of their choice
and on the day of the year they want. It would only be a little
bit more complicated for the commercial passenger. First, a
representative of a commercial group would submit his or her name
to the NPS and wait until they came to the end of the list.
Judy's figures indicate that this would be about 3.6 years. At
that time they would be given a permit to run the river. For a
commercial party, this would _not_ include a date. They would be
free to make their reservation with the concesionaire just as
they do now. The only restriction is that they can't actually
take the trip until the party has a permit. NPS should allow
parties to schedule trips for any time after they get their
permit (currently private launches can only be scheduled in a
two-year window). If NPS provide this type of flexibility
commercial passengers could be virtually assured of getting the
trip they want on the day they want with the concessionaire of
their choice. If NPS would also provide reasonable statistics on
waiting list "movement" people could plan trips well in advance
of actually getting off the list, so they could in many cases
step right off the list and into a boat. By providing the
flexibility to allow for advanced planning NPS would also insure
that the concessionaires could plan their operations with
reasonable certainty.
Judy ties the issue of trip length to changes to the
alloctation. I don't see the connection. Right now I
understand that the limitations on trip length are the same for
both sectors. The fact that commercial trips are shorter, in
general, than private trips reflects the desires of the
commercial clientele and the desires of the concessionaires. I
suspect that one reason short trips are offered is to provide
trips with a lower total cost in the face of escalating per-day
prices. (There's also the drive-by phenomenon that makes some
folks want short trips.) Because river use in the Grand Canyon
is managed by launch, there would be no connection between
changes in the allocation and trip length. Trip length is a
parameter that NPS can adjust for resource protection and to
protect the canyon experience. I think that the reason NPS
limited trip length was to minimize encounters.
As for private trips having more impact because they're longer,
consider that they are smaller as well. (If total impact
becomes the criterion, let people take longer trips with fewer
people. My favorite trip was a 30-day kayak trip with 4
people.)
Judy says that outfitters only "sell" access because they've
paid for it themselves. This is precisely the point. Big
chunks of public property have been carved out and granted to
private companies, who then sell it to the public. Because
this proves profitable, the value of these companies increases.
The company then gets sold for a ton of money, its only real
valuable asset being the access they control to a public
resource. The buyer says "well, I paid for it" but that
doesn't change the fact that "it" is public property that never
should have been turned into private property. The best
analogy to this are grazing leases on federal land.
Judy also misunderstands my proposal for opening up the ranks
of outfitters. I am not proposing "unregulated" or "unlicensed"
outfitters. All outfitters should be licensed and regulated.
But, if a company meets the reasonable requirements of licensing
and obeys the law, they should not be prevented from doing
business in the canyon. I assume the operators would have to
have a jillion dollars in insurance and promise to be an
equal-opportunity employer and that the guides would have to
piss in the cup, too. (As an aside, and at the risk of
starting another thread, I have this knawing feeling that a
passenger deserves to know if their boatman is drunk or stoned
before they run Crystal. How does this balance with the
boatman's desire to medicate themselves? I'll say "guide" or
"boatperson" if the women want to claim a piece of this.)
As for jet boats, they're not allowed for upstream runs now and I
wouldn't propose allowing them. As for downstream runs, why I
guess there's nothing to stop you--I wish there were. (Jet skis
are coming. How about wakeless travel?)
Judy's on solid ground with her speculation that increasing
private use may increase the frequency of careless impacts and
idiotic accidents. I think that will happen. There are bad
commercial trips, but most toe the line or exceed it. I don't
think it will be serious but I do think NPS should manage
towards minimizing this. I think three things ought to be
considered. When private boaters think that a Grand Canyon trip
is a once-in-a-lifetime experience, some of them are going
to have less concern with preserving the canyon. That hopefully
will get fixed real soon now. Second, education ought to be
available for private trip leaders and participants. Third, if
licensed guides could be hired to "lead" private trips that
desire professional help, some of the sincere, but ill-informed
or ill-trained groups would benefit.
Judy shares a sentiment I've seen a lot here--that we should
somehow let those people into the canyon who most "deserve it".
This is a great idea--if I were king I'd do it and my choices
would be flawless. But, what do you propose we do here in real
life, take resumes, have interviews, run some x games. Who the
hell is going to decide how you measure "devotion"; how many
dimensions does it have? The predominant, romantic view here is
that someone who's "sacrificed all" should go first and often,
but what if they haven't contributed squat while some 8-to-5
schmuck has stayed up late to lead the fight to stop another dam
or ban helicopters. And, how does this notion of devotion and
deservedness square with the commercial allocation you argue so
strongly for--what does money have to do with anything. I think
this stuff is fluff. Either cut it out or tell us how we're
going to pick who goes.
Ben
-- -------------------------------------------------- -- Ben Harding blh@hydrosphere.com -- -- Hydrosphere Resource Consultants -- -- Hydrosphere Data Products -- -- 1002 Walnut, Suite 200 -- -- Boulder CO 80302 -- -- -- -- 303-443-7839 voice 303-442-0616 fax -- -- -- -- Publishing Natural Resources Data on CD ROM -- -- Consultants in Natural Resources Planning -- -------------------------------------------------- ==================================================================== To subscribe, send email to majordomo@songbird.com, with "subscribe gcboaters" as the only line in the message body. To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe gcboaters". For further information send "info gcboaters", or see http://www.songbird.com/gcboaters ====================================================================