I was simply suggesting that since private trip tend to be longer (whether
or not the formal limitations are the same or not), having more of them
would tend to increase the total number of user days in the Canyon which
would increase total impact. And if NPS wants to maintain total impact,
they might decrease the maximum trip length to do that. However, your point
that private trips also tend to be smaller is a good one and may counteract
the effects of longer trips.
>
>Judy says that outfitters only "sell" access because they've
>paid for it themselves. ....
So, how do you convince NPS to stop taking in that money they get from
commercial outfitter permits?
>
>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.
Well, I suspect market forces would limit the number of outfitters. I still
panic about lots of outfitters though. Maybe that's a misplaced fear.
(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.) -
I'm a hardliner on this one -commercial boatmen should NEVER be drunk or
stoned on the water during a commercial trip - period. These days they're
crazy even to drink at all on the water because if something happened and
they had had a beer, lawsuit-city, even if they weren't drunk. Most
companies have policies against drinking on the water, or before boating.
Of course, right or wrong, pot is illegal and presumably most companies
have at least unwritten policies against committing crimes as well. I would
never drink when I still had to row during that day. Camp is a whole nother
matter, though I think it important that at least some guides stay sober
since shore accidents can always happen.
>
>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.
These are good points. I also appreciate your simply addressing the question.
>
>Judy shares a sentiment I've seen a lot here--that we should
>somehow let those people into the canyon who most "deserve it".
>...
>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.
Good point. I think many if not most lifetime Canyon rats actually put a
lot of effort into protection, but it's true, there's no guarantee. And
there are other ways of showing devotion besides just doing a trip.
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.
Well, I was only talking about private trips and cancellations really,
though I didn't make that clear. So, the commercial vs. private issue was
something different. I have a problem with the system of allocation; I
don't have a problem with the system of dealing with cancellations. I think
the first is unfair, the second is not. I still think there is something to
be said for people expressing how much they want to go by what they do to
get there. With respect to cancellations - the fact is, nobody is stopping
anybody on the list from calling up today and trying to get a cancellation.
If you aren't doing so, it's because you are choosing not to. That's how I
pick who goes - whoever calls up and tries to go. It's simple.The people
who call and get cancellations all the time are not exercising any right
that we all don't have. That is different than the priv-comm allocation
issue where because of defined limitations, everyone does not have the same
rights. Those who prefer commercial trips are favored.
Just think of the private list as several methods of allocating the
resource at once - all methods are used in different places and have
elements of fairness and unfairness. There's the wait list where everybody
stands in line and waits their turn. Often considered a fair allocation
method, but it can be inconvenient and inflexible. With respect to
cancellations, we move to a combo of the first-come first-served and the
lottery methods. These are also often considered fair. The lottery governs
permit distribution on Idaho rivers and many others. Its fairness comes
through randomness. It is unfair in that some people can get a permit every
year and some never. First-come first-served is also often thought to be a
relatively fair method. It rewards perseverance. It is often used for
cancellations all over and other things, like waiting to get into a movie
or get concert tickets. It is really just another wait in line method, but
with less order and without any guarantees of final success. So, this GC
system, which incorporates these methods of distribution used all over the
place for many things doesn't strike me as unfair. It seems less unfair
than a straight lottery because even if you don't win the lottery, you will
eventually win through perseverance. You don't get that guarantee to do a
Middle Fork or Selway trip. Why isn't everyone bitching and moaning about
that? Like I said, I'll go with the concerns over comm-priv allocation, but
I don't agree with those regarding cancellations. I see these as two
totally different issues, though it seems that many people here lump them
together.
Oh, my God, I have to stop this. I really have to get to work and stop
babbling. Let someone else take over now.
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
====================================================================