But a lot of what commercial dudes want is to take a trip and not deal with
organizing anything. That's why they go with a commercial company. They
have three people who want to go, and they don't want to have to fill a
trip, they want someone elese to deal with logistics from equipment and
food and guides to getting the rest of the group together. How does that
work with your system? Do you think people should have to be in charge of a
whole group or go alone - basically make every commercial and private trip
a charter trip? (Ugh - working as a guide on chartered trips has generally
sucked, I have to say) What about people who don't know 16 people (I bet
the average private boater has more friends who'd want to go on a river
trip that most average commercial peeps, just based on a guess about
lifestyle and recreational preferences - in fact, based on data
whatsoever)? Just their tough luck? Maybe we apply my "if you really want
the trip, be ready to bleed for it" philosophy here?
>
>On to Judy
>
>As currently set up, no, you are correct. But look into the Next century.
>This dilemma will just get worse unless we retool now. It's never a good
>business practice to say everything's fine, if it aint broke, don't fix it.
>We are trying to solve the Longitude equation hear by inventing a time
>piece, not by firing canons at noon around the world, if you know that
>history.
Well, true enough. And I fully agree we should try to fix it. I have just
been trying to look at the full consequences of the suggested fixes. I'm
not even convinced these ideas are wrong, just trying to think them
through. A lot of people seem to be getting mad because I even bring up a
topic for discussion. If the ideas are sound, they will stand the weight of
discussion and of counterargument. It is how to find the best solution.
>
>Maybe yes, maybe no, but in a freedom system, they will still be served but
>so will ALL others. Imagine!
My question is, is this the system that will really do that? I'm sure we
all agree that's the ultimate goal.
>
> >There will also probably be a lot more yahoos who don't know what
>> the hell they are doing trying to run the river on their own, which is a
>> safety issue.
>
>Safety is a concern of all of us, commercial (who just had the last
>fatality in Grand Canyon) or otherwise. John Wesley Powell took that risk,
>travelling into the unknown wilderness. Three of his crew died. Wilderness
>implies risk. Please, i beg you, don't ever take that from us as an option.
Oh, we should not remove risk. To me that would involve blasting rapids and
so on, which is terrible. I'm very against that kind of thing. But, I am
for minimizing risk through skill and education. I think it's not a good
thing when people get hurt because of ignorance and stupidity. You may say,
get 'em out of the gene pool. Well, yeah, but they often end up hurting
someone else too. Also, the more people who get hurt, even if through their
own fault, the more pressure to "make the river safe" rather than make the
boaters safe, which leads to all those let's blow up or fill in the
dangerous rapid calls.
I believe the last GC fataility was a commercial peep who got drunk and
fell into the water, right? Probably not relevant whether he was on a
commercial or private trip, and totally irrelevant to relative skill levels
of boaters.
>
>> Also, how can you have employees if you don't offer them any job
>> security whatsoever? There is already little enough job security for
>> boatmen. You really think it's fair and feasible to have commercial
>> companies where the companies can't hire guides in the winter and tell
>them they have work for the season?
>
>That's exactly how it is now. What would it be like if the guides owned the
>company??
I think most companies have guides that are scheduled, in advance, on trips
throughout the season. They also have a buffer pool of guides without
scheduled trips that they can look to at the last second. The former group
has some job security, the latter, none.
Guides owning the company? Cool. Except most guides I know wouldn't want to
deal with the office part of it all.
>
> >I also wonder whether, in the effort to
>> treat commercial and private boaters the "same", people are suggesting
>that
>> commercial boatmen be restricted to the same number of trips as other
>> people, e.g. 3 trips in five years. Well, there goes your commercial
>> company, the profession of river guiding in the Grand Canyon, and skilled
>> and experienced guides on commercial trips, which is what people are
>paying
>> for.
>
>Good Point. Oh well. No sorry, that's not an answer. In a freedom of choice
>system, anyone can sign up as often as they want. There would be no limit
>on repeats, as there is none now for all folk except Wait List applicants.
OK. I think Ben was talking about a limit on number of repeat trips, 3 in 5
years, which is what I was responding to.
I think you need to treat commercial guides differently - they shouldn't
have to go in the pool - if you think there is any value in maintaining a
skilled experienced population of guides. I happen to think there is value
in that.
>
.....
>This may split the discussion into two. An allocation management plan and a
>freedom of choice management plan. i thought an allocation plan based on
>demand would work, until i factored in advertising and packing the system
>with $260 commercial trips. The privates could not compeat. It made for an
>us against them picture, in which the non commercial loose. What do you
>think about elliminating advertising? In 20 years of selling the river,
>maybe that's all it needs?
I don't quite understand you here.
....
>
>
>Thats two of us. 30 days is to short for this keyboard pusher. But i missed
>the point. A system based on total # of bodies and a seasonally adjusted
>daily number of launches, with minimum and maximum trip lengths would not
>drive the equation to shorter trip lengths. Forcing more people through a
>fixed allocation based on user days would. Yikes!
I guess this is all about whether you count days or launches or both. If
you increase the number of private launches to reflect their percentage of
all people who want to go, don't you have to decrease the average trip
length to something closer to the average commercial trip length, if you
don't want to increase total use? Or are you suggesting just looking at
launches and allowing the total number of user days to increase freely?
Then there will be more impact on the Canyon. I thought we were working
with the boundary condition of no increase in total use.
>
>Only if a new plan said they would. Otherwise, outfitters would guide trips
>in the Canyon just like guides lead backpacks in the Canyon now.
What is that system? No outfitter licenses? Or free licences but with
limited number of trips?
>>People give up a lot to have a lifestyle that allows them to get
>> up and go. Why should the people with the steady income, house,
>insurance,
>> retirement fund, all the bennies of stable lifestyle necessarily have the
>> rules changed to suit them in scheduling their Canyon trips?
>
>Do you mean the present GC commercial passenger. Just a minute, gotta go
>wash out my mouth with soap. I'm bubble back. What the GC trip means to
>each individual may be to hard to tell. Again, freedom of choice allows
>those of various lifestyles the chance to go, and could allow the flexible
>to be flexible, the stable to be stable.
>
Well, I thought we were all agreed that the average commercial passenger
was overly favored under the current system. I was talking about private
boaters. People were complaining that the current private system favors
those who can get up and go at a moment's notice because of the
cancellation system and long wait list. I was just saying, those people
give up a lot that the non-get-up-and-goers have just so they CAN get up
and go, and maybe it's OK that the system benfits them somewhat. It may be
too much so currently - not sure how I feel about that yet. I've noticed
that none of the people who can't get up and go agree with the idea.
Haven't heard from the get-up-and-goers - they're probably all in the
Canyon right now while we bicker on our computers.
...
>
>Hey Judy, you are so right on. The NPS has instituted Fee demo. Expect
>nothing but fee increases unless you've already written you Senator. We
>have, lots. Using $ to limit access is already practiced in the commercial
>sector.
This is true. By the way, I wrote to both my senators (Boxer and
Feisntein), my congresman, Clinton, Gore, Babbitt, and McCain. Got a couple
of "thank you for your letter - period"'s. Feinstein's office sent a letter
that said, in response to my concern about an increase in private river
fees in Grand Canyon from about $100 to about $1000 bucks, "fees to go to
King's Canyon only increased from $10 to $20 per car; this is cheaper than
going to Disneyland or taking a carload of people to the movies." Like any
of that was remotely relevant. I was so ticked off, I called the office.
They didn't care. I have lost faith in the tool of writing my senators. It
was also clear to me that Feinstein is not interested in any 3-year
demonstration - she has already decided in favor of fee increases
regardless of what the demo period shows.
>> Sure, you can make money running river trips. But how many folks would
>want
>> a business that is automatically retired in seven years? Consider the
>> capitalization cost of being an outfitter: you need a warehouse, boats,
>> trucks, a bus, a mess of skilled employees, etc. Most of this stuff is
>close
>> to worthless if you loose your permit. The hazards of permit renewal
>make
>> running Crystal look like a piece of cake...
>
>Gosh, that ride along is real important, ie leading a quality trip,
>effecting peoples lives, and making a very health profit must mean a ton of
>folk would not love to try it. Look at the last prospectus. Did no one bid
>knowing what you just mentioned? Why should they if this were so? As it
>was, few companies were not bid on.
I don't know about GC companies, but a couple years ago my company had this
big debate about whether to drop our non-profit status and sell the company
(to the general manager of course - sweetheart deal extraordinaire) and run
it for-profit. When the numbers were bandied around, apparently while more
than a million dollars were taken in each year, only $10,000 was actually
made for the season after expenses. Not actually a very high-profit
business. (As non-profit, that extra money goes to guide bonuses or new
equipment or donations to river conservation orgs, in case anyone is
interested. Also, by the way, we didn't sell out - yet, anyway.)
>
>It's Judy again. Hi. Wow, what are you cookin. Sure smells GOOD. Moose
>what?
>I hope you are laughing. Laughter is so much fun. Ok, back to work.
>
>> I'd like to hear people's ideas about having this approximate 50-50
>> distribution between private and commercial, if the commercial system
>were
>> relatively unchanged except for its size. Do you think the Canyon would
>see
>> more wear and tear or less? I'm inclined to think the damage will
>increase.
>
>It might, might not. Having seen commercial 25 year veteran trip leaders
>burn ants and destroy native veg to build a shitter, and seen privates
>trundle rocks, there seem to be idiots on all sides. Me too. Educate me.
>I'm trainable. Exclusion based on lack of education is to scary to think
>about.
I never said a thing about exclusion. But damage because of a lack of
education is also a scary thing to think about, and should be addressed.
Like I said, I don't know a higher percentage of privates would be a
problem, but if it would, it should be dealt with. I'd say by educating
rather than excluding the currently uneducated. But people who just won't
learn ... I think a 25-year veteran who rips up native plants is not doing
that out of ignorance but out of being a jerk who knows damn well that he
shouldn't but does it anyway. Maybe it's 'cause he started before anyone
cared much about environmental impact and he's too stuck in his ways to
learn new tricks. I don't support people who do this kind of thing, guide
or private.
>
>What a wonderful word, knowledge.
>i hope no one read this all the way to here. Goodnight. t
I made it.
Cheers, J.
====================================================================
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
====================================================================