Re: allocation vs freedom

Tom Martin and Hazel Clark (tomandhazel@azaccess.com)
Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:21:45 -0700


hi Dave, thanks for your reply...
>
> > But this cuts both ways. If i can't afford a commercial trip, maybe
i'll
> > try it with my friends. Should Powell not have tried a river trip
because
> > there was no commercial outfitter.
>
> And I think you should have the right to make that decision. Are you
> suggesting that we should move to a system where there are no
> commercial outfitters?
>
Maybe, as i'm open to looking in every corner.... But a (for instance)
common lottery weighted to give those who wait longer a preference, which
is a true time line equalizer, does not eliminate outfitters unless the
country does not want to use their services. Like Perrys hunting lottery.
It makes no difference what kind of trip you get to do once you get to go.

> > I don't agree with the advertised into
> > the GC system, and think a better system is your suggestion of
allocation
> > if we can solve the advertising $ scalping, or go to freedom of choice.
> > FOC, by the bye, also has this same need for advertising $ scalping
> > safegaurds, doesn't it.
>
> I don't see what you're getting at here. Why is advertising a problem,
> other than the fact that its costs are passed on to commercial
> customers?
>

If i want to sell widgits, and you do too, we compete. You advertise and i
don't. Who gets the market share?? Concessionaires advertise for a scarce
resource, that non commercial boaters don't advertise for. This is not fair
in a strictly business sense, nor in a fixed resource sense. Is it??? Let
me know if this is not clear to you. Can anyone else help to explain this
better then i. Please do.

> > Again, i strugle with an allocation ,model that serves the folk who can
> > afford it, while those who can simply don't. Those folk who are in the
> > canyon a bunch can help me out here when i ask this question "how many
> > people of color do you see on the water?" You'll see NONE in the
outfitters
> > brochures.
>
> I'm not sure what being a person of color has to do with any of this.
> Is there some kind of discrimination going on?

you tell me. Maybe...it might be called price discrimination.

>
> > > 3. Repeaters
> >
> > This was an argument put forth by the concessionaires as a way to
manage an
> > out of control wait list. No one i've talked to outside of GCROA, the
> > outfitters lobby, wants this.
>
> I've also read it a couple of times on the riveraccess list.
>
> > True. But this chap is supposed to be the TL, and is only allowed to go
one
> > other time. All other river users go as often as they like. This
penalizes
> > the folks who get on the WL. What does that do to our indicator of
demand?
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the trip leader can go on as many other trips
> as he/she likes. The effect on the "indicator of demand" would be to
> reduce the average waiting time for private trip leaders to access
> the river. A low average waiting time means that the private allocation
> is sufficient to meet private "demand".
>

If private trips were launching with all folk waiting roughly the same as
commercial folk ie booking for next year, then the word sufficient is right
in there. A worthy goal, well said. So whatever type of allocation or
freedom plan we adopt, it sounds like anyone should be able to go/apply as
often as they want. Got that Ben? rule # 1.

we'll sleep when we are on the river....t

=========================================================
To unsubscribe from RiverAccess, send a message to majordomo@hydrosphere.com containing the following: unsubscribe riveraccess