Allocation concerns:
Coming to a river journal near you soon will be the outfitters solution to
the allocation equation, i.e., the allocation is fine, the trouble is in
the private allocation only, that stand in line system. Look for a proposal
to rework the private waiting list system. In the meantime, consider the
following:
In dealing with an allocation model for access, the Wilderness Public
Rights 1979 9th circuit court of appeals decision points out the following
in regards
to allocation:
"Where several administrative solutions exist for a problem, courts will
uphold any one with a rational basis, but Secretary of the Interior's
balancing of competing uses of the Colorado River could not be an arbitrary
one."
"Allocation of the limited use between the two groups is one method of
assuring that the rights of each are recognized and, if fairly done
pursuant to appropriate standards, is a reasonable method and cannot be
said to be arbitrary"
"We conclude that allocation between the two classes of recreational users
is not per se an arbitrary method of recognizing and accommodating the
interests of the two classes. The question remaining is whether allocation
has been fairly made pursuant to appropriate standards."
"We are informed, however, that the study initiated by the National Park
Service has now been completed and that the interim basis for allocation
between the two classes of users-freezing at the 1972 level-is being
abandoned."
"Under the plan, 70 percent of the user days will be allocated for
commercial trips and 30 percent for noncommercial trips."
Given the above, we note that use levels as defined in 1979 are as they are
TODAY. In 1981 there were 2000 folk on the non commercial waiting list,
average wait 4.5 years (estimate). In 1971, there were 40 private trips on
the water. People who joined the list in 1989 joined a group of 4000 folk,
and are launching THIS YEAR (1997). In 1997, the list is made up of 6800
individuals. Who knows how long they will wait. With this in mind, we
present the current time burden on the non commercial user as reflective of
an arbitrary allocation.
And today, who are the users that need an allocation pie?
1) We'll do it ourselves, leave us alone (private)
2) We'll do it ourselves, and rent equipment (also private)
3) We'll do it ourselves, rent equipment and a guide (currently illegal,
but possibly happening and impacting private allocation)
4) We'll charter a commercial trip (could be private but impacts commercial
allocation)
5) We'll go on a commercial trip ( commercial)
we know about the above folk, but what about the following?
6)How about the educational groups that can't afford the commercial $ and
also can't afford the wait?
7)Those folk who are middle class Americans that can't afford $10,000 plus
transportation costs for a family of 5 vacation in Grand Canyon?
8) Others you can think of and i can't. Maybe science, who weigh in at
about 78 trips a year.
Does a two user group allocation split serve all users? How many should we
define? And then, who gets what chunk? The 1979 case is clear, allocation
can not be arbitrary.
i can create an allocation scheme, but my numbers are arbitrary. Do i base
the measure of allocation distribution on equal wait in time?
Concessionaires could increase advertising and drop prices and run a wait
list out to capture an allocation equation based on an equal time wait. A
simplistic allocation equation could look like this:
(Total Waiting List participants (6800)) X (average trip length (15 days))
X (average number of people on a private trip (15 people)) = allocation
demand from the private sector.
This was, in 1996, roughly 1.5 Million user days.
This number is compared against the following:
Total present number of booked commercial passengers, at roughly .25
million user days. (This assumes a generous complete booking of two years,
though as stated above, the commercial passenger may book openly for almost
any 1998 date at this time.)
This results in a ratio of 1.5 to .25, or an existing verifiable allocation
of 83% non commercial use to 17% commercial use.
Eventually, the privates would force the commercials from the river if the
commercials were not able to book out as far as the privates to show
demand.
This is not fair to those who can not do it themselves. So i've been
looking for another gold standard to define allocation.
How about the % of population served, as the outfitters say they serve 95%
of the population. This would be true if 95% of the population were in that
income bracket that could afford outfitted trips. Let's not forget how some
outfitters increased their individual user day pie in 1971 (historians help
me out, it was 71 or 72) by floating bargain trips. They would do it again
in a heartbeat to increase market share.
Should we look at wilderness and wilderness guidelines? Is there help here
in getting a standard? Hey Kim, can you help here?
Freedom of choice concerns:
The upside is we avoid the allocation headache all together, with trying to
define what is fair keeping me up at night...
The confusion in how this system would work is an issue. Deregulation is an
issue. would it be a lottery as Earl suggests. It better be for all of us
recreational users, commercial and non commercial, to be fair. And how can
concessionaires survive in this model? How do hunting guides survive in the
hunting model?
Sorry, but i seem to be stuck in trying to force some sort of rationality
on the current irrational system.
i hope Jerri will be around, watching what is going on downriver. Keep up
the insights Jerri. We'll be thinking El Nino thoughts. Thanks for all your
help, tom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tom martin president grand canyon private boaters association
gcpba@flagstaff.az.us
http://www.flagstaff.az.us/~gcpba/
tomandhazel@azaccess.com
"the truth shall set you free"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=========================================================
To unsubscribe from RiverAccess, send a message to majordomo@hydrosphere.com containing the following: unsubscribe riveraccess