The Grand Canyon TH E Private Boaters Association y Wai t i ng List Quarterly Volume Six, Number Two A Forum For Canyon River Runners Winnter 2002-2003 / $4oo

Can Canyon Use Be Expanded? page two THE Waiting List

TH E GCPBA RI V E R BO O K S T O R E Five New Titles & Some Favorites! PNEW! Day Hikes From the River ~ 2nd Edition - River runner Tom Martin’s excellent revised second edition features 25 more hikes for a total of 100 hikes you can take from river camps! Illustrated with 100 maps ~ $19.95 + $4 shipping. Total: $23.95

PNEW! Wilderness Medical Associates Field Guide ~ Every river runners first aid kit should include a copy of this spiral bound, water resistant guide to medical emergencies, from minor to evacuations. Spiral Bound, color illustrated, 4.25 x 5.75 inches, pocket sized, 98 pages ~ $19.95 + $4 shipping. Total: $23.95

PNEW! Ann Weiler Walka’s prose and poem bring to life one of the Colorado’s most beautiful and unknown tributaries, the Escalante. Walking the Unknown River and Other Travels In Escalante Country ~ $13.00 + $4 shipping. Total: $17oo

PNEW! Nobody tells a river story better than Katie Lee. Here’s Katie’s best, All My Rivers Are Gone — memories and thoughts of better days along the Colorado in Glen Canyon. In these days of increasing enviro-thoughtlessness, this is a must read! 261 pages. $18oo + $4 shipping.Total: $22oo

PNEW! Outward Bound Wilderness First Aid Handbook Sorry, no cover picture, but this near text book of outdoor medical help is used by Wilderness Medical Associates as part of their classroom and field training. This easy to read an understand is an excellent companion to the Field Guide, you’ll be glad to have this book along! $14.95 + $4 shipping. Total: $18.95

Over the Edge: DEATH IN GRAND CANYON An outstanding book by Dr. Tom Myers, author of GCPBA’s “Ammo Can Doc,” and Michael P. Ghiglieri author of the popular book Canyon, as well as a long time river pro. The authors have researched and compiled the story of every known death in the Grand Canyon from air disasters, hiking bloopers, suicides and boating accidents. 408 pages. $22.95 shipping $4 ea. Total: $26.95

SUNK WITHOUT A SOUND River runners love a mystery and the disappearance of the honeymoon river runners, Glen and Bessie Hyde in 1928 has been the source of speculation for more than seven decades. Did Bessie kill Glen, and then come back to the Colorado to tell her tale years later? You’ll find out when you read this fast-paced book from award-winning author and river runner, Brad Dimock. 280 pages ~ Paperback $18oo shipping $4 ea. Total: $22oo

THE DOING OF THE THING ~ the Brief Brilliant Whitewater Career of Buzz Holmstrom This 1998 National Outdoor Book Award winner recounts the life of pioneer private river runner Buzz Holmstrom, who in 1937 launched his home-built boat at Green River, Wyoming and travelled 1100 miles alone all the way to Hoover Dam on the Colorado. Less than ten years later the celebrated Holmstrom was found dead along side the Grande Ronde river in Oregon, a bul- let in his head. Why? This is one great tale, recounting travels and travails along the Green and Colorado, as they may never be again. Paperback, 292 pages, $20oo shipping $4 ea. Total: $24oo

With every order, you’ll receive a GCPBA sticker! What a deal! rMail Orders Order books or posters by mail! Take a piece of paper, fill it out with your name and shipping address, write down the titles of the books you want, the number of copies of each title, total it up, add $4 for EACH book ordered and send your request along with a check or money order to: GCPBA River Bookstore, Box 2133, Flagstaff, AZ 86003-2133. Or~ You may order and pay for books online at: www.gcpba.org Either way, we’ll send them to you via USPO Priority Mail, múy pronto. Winter 2002 / 2003 page three From the “Pres-editors” Deck rand Canyon National Park planners toil away analyzing and categorizing the more than G15,000 comments generated in the Scoping meetings held across country in the summer and fall of 2002. Working hard to meet a court imposed deadline that will impose a new and hopefully better method for river runners to gain access to the Grand Canyon. As this issue of the Waiting List goes to press, another, and unique phase of the CRMP project is about to unfold. At the end of January, nearly 100 people will, come together to participate in workshops being conducted by NPS contractor Mary Orton. The meetings will be broken into two elements, the first being a gathering of “experts” who will be tackling Canyon recreational use carrying capacity and allocation alternatives facing GCNP planners. The second be being a gathering of “stakeholders”—folks like you and me who are passionate about matters that directly concern us—how we’ll get on the Colorado River and how long that might take. Who are the experts? Nineteen folks from a wide variety backgrounds but all related to issues of the recreational use of our nations natural resources. There are planners, scientists, mathematicians, and professors. We’ll all be interested in hear- ing what they have to say. Back to the stakeholders, that’s us. that GCNP planners are creating a sense of MS Orton consulted with a large number of “fairness” throughout this process. folks to determine what groups of people It should be noted that these meetings might be interested in the planning process are being conducted as an effort from GCNP and ought to be included in talks designed to to keep citizens involved in the process all the focus on what characteristics of any new sys- way through. The NPS has looked for ways to tem might be either desirable or not in a new do this, prompted by requests to do so from access system. Additionally, stakeholders will constituents. These meetings are a first for the be reviewing the “spectrum of services” Park. So kudos to Park Service. offered to river runners by Park concession- We’ll keep you posted as to how these aires. photo by Julia Holland meetings work out. Who are the stakeholders? Pretty interesting. We river Beginning on the next page, you can read an runners most often think of ourselves as the obvious choice—it’s excellent piece by former river manager Earl Perry on our problem, we’re the ones that count. And that’s true, but so do the subject of Canyon carrying capacity. The article is a host of other folks who will be impacted by a new river plan. based on studies using the GC River Trip Simulator. Obviously outfitters, their patrons and employees will be affected, Earl and Ben Harding spent a lot of time gathering so will researchers and scientists, the Indian Nations that border and running scenarios that might be implemented in a the river and the Park, educational users, Wilderness people and new plan. handicapped lovers of the outdoors. Finally, the GCPBA river gear auction is gear- I’d like to thank MS Orton and the powers to be for ing up again. Coming to a computer in your home, reconsidering the size of the private boater delegation to these starting April 15, 2003 and ending April 30, 2003. talks. Originally each stakeholder group was given four seats. We’ll be featuring another of Dick Dechant’s fine self- Upon reappraisal it seemed private boaters were being over- bailing Hyside rafts. His newest raft, a nine foot boat whelmed by other stakeholders, some of whom have much less named the Mini-Me. Dick and his company, Hyside, interest in these questions than we do. After consultation with a have provided rafts for us for our auction for the last number of the participants, it was decided to double the size of three years. We thank him and all the other folks that the private delegation. help GCPBA to raise funds that we need to carry on This simple act goes a long way toward demonstrating our activities.

Ricard o

This issue’s cover feature two antiquities: a matched set of matates and manos found somewhere in the Canyon by one of our members. We haven’t published the name of the photographer or the location in order to help preserve the sites. If you happen upon such sites, take pictures, leave the artifacts alone. These sites are delicate and rare. so take care. The other item is an ancient drawing of Mayan fishermen at work in their carved “kayaks”—somehow I thought you all might enjoy the drawing. do you suppose that’s a rainbow trout on the line? page four THE Waiting List River Trip Simulator Shows Opportunity ~ Earl Perry Modeling Alternatives For the

t the nice instigation of Mark Grisham, the executive director of the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association (GCROA), a group of us met to see if we could find common A ground that we could offer the National Park Service (NPS) as they revise the Colorado River Management Plan. Mark and his co-chairman Richard Martin (better known as Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association [GCPBA] president and Waiting List editor) were looking for people with insight into the way the river “works.” The group they assembled comprised profes- sional boatmen, outfitters, environmentalists, and non-commercial boaters, each of whom also wore other hats. For instance, Ben Harding, a long-time boater and environmentalist, is a water engineer ‘in real life,’ I was formerly an environmental specialist, planner, and ranger for the NPS, Catherine Roberts is a mathematician who developed a computer model to predict how ... boaters from both sectors various river-use scenarios in Grand Canyon were asked to keep detailed would meet management objectives. Mark records of when they put and Ricardo were obviously more interested on the water each day; in getting real ideas than in stroking their where they stopped, own egos – some of the sessions had tartly for how long; when contentious moments. We called ourselves and where they camped ... Firewalk for more reasons than the fact that Garrett Schniewind, of Canyon Explorations, both sectors were asked to keep detailed records of when they has actually walked coals in bare feet. put on the water each day; where they stopped for how long; Firewalk fell into quiescence recently. Whether it when and where they camped. More than 500 diaries were will come back to life cannot be predicted. I personally completed by a spectrum of trip types, leading to a database regret its loss, not just because some of the people loaded with useful information about use patterns. involved were remarkably creative, and ‘few mouths suf- GCRTSim used these diaries to ‘learn’ how various fered from mealiness.’ It seemed to me that we had a real types of boat trips behave. The model can then produce a shot at presenting the Park Service with a consensus from series of synthetic trips which behave like actual trips. The the two most opposite user groups. What follows grew out synthetic trips seek the camps they would ordinarily have tried of Firewalk, but is not the consensus we hoped to reach – for, take second choice when aced out, visit attractions unless it is work that Ben Harding and I did, and does not repre- they are too crowded, and generally mimic canyon life. In sent the group. fact, GCRTSim has a graphic feature (not trustworthy, but fascinating fritter and an excellent tool for visualizing how the M e t h o d ~A b b r e v i a t e d Canyon works) which shows trips moving down a map of the river on your screen, starting out each day, jostling each other atherine Roberts et al. developed a model called the at the mouth of the Little Colorado and Deer Creek and CGrand Canyon River Trip Simulator program Havasu, clumping up just upstream from Phantom because of (GCRTSim). The user interface was designed and pro- exchanges, motor trips swooping down the canyon past oar grammed in Access by Susan Cherry, who also created the trips, and all of them pausing each night as the computer cal- diaries (discussed below). GCRTSim takes input in the endar, running at vastly accelerated time, puts them in camp form of an Access table called a ‘calendar,’ or list of a year’s for a few seconds that represent 12 hours or so. trips by outfitter and by non-commercial party. Length and number of people are included, as are whether the If you want information on GCRTSim or trip was motor or oar. For several seasons boaters from on how to get a copy, go to www.gcrtsim.org. Winter 2002 / 2003 page five Colorado River In Grand Canyon

synthetic calendar would be stocked with trips of each length in proportion as actuality had been stocked with o run the model, the problem was to create calendars. them. It’s hard to stress too much how important this TGCRTSim comes with a 1999 calendar. You have two adjunct to the model was; running the model is about 1 – 2 choices: to use the calendar utility in the program to modify hours depending on processor speed, and prepping a com- and create trips, one by one; or to enter the MS Access table pleted simulation for analysis is about 1 – 1.5 hours, but containing that calendar and manually change every trip to making a calendar was weeks - until Ben solved it. the length, type, number of passengers, and launch The randomized nature of the calendars we gener- days/dates desired to test a new management alternative. This ated is reflected in slightly varied total numbers of user-day was a huge task, a task so big we considered hiring a teenager and compliance probabilities even for scenarios where a part to do it. Then Ben Harding created a calendar generator to of the plan was identical to another scenario. For instance, craft input for the model. This automated the otherwise you will note some plans that each had 1 launch a day in onerous task of making the series of calendars required to test the secondary season end up with different user-day totals. various hypotheses about changes in canyon river manage- While part of this is owed to varying lengths and group ment. It allowed you to specify the start and end dates of a sizes, part of it is testimony to the randomness built into season, the number of launches per day, group size maxima, GCRTSim and the calendar generator. If the numbers had trip length maxima and minima, etc. Then it made a calen- matched exactly it would have indicated a bug in the dar embodying these choices. For trip length and group GCRTSim. size, unless otherwise specified, it took the actual lengths GCRTSim compares scenarios based on the Limits and/or sizes from the 1999 sample calendar, and produced a of Acceptable Change for the different seasons now in effect distribution. The calendars it generated were based on these in Grand Canyon River Management: distributions. For instance, if 6% of commercial trips are 7 days, 8% are 8 days, 12% are 9 days, and so forth, the new, • LACs based on inter-party contacts page six THE Waiting List

• LACs based on number of people seen and time spent in secondary season, and sight of them d. 1 or 2 launches a day split between both sectors The LACs for the Colorado in Grand Canyon are in the shoulder seasons. based on the social environment in the river corridor. 3. an equilibrated launch calendar with a required trip There are other areas where LACs are based on indicator length of 15 days. species or endangered species, and there are areas where 4. a calendar based on the original Grand Canyon Private LACs trigger management actions that have nothing to do Boater’s Association plan, which had 4 launches a day with recreation management. Just as an instance, a throughout the year. National Forest threatened by an outbreak of leafy spurge 5. a couple of plans based on 3 private and 3 commercial or knapweed might start control actions if the exotics are launches a day in the main season; these varied in trip size found in a certain density in the mead- and length. ows that are most likely to be infested. ... it is certainly possible to 6. a plan with 3 commercial and 2 Basing the LACs in Grand Canyon’s river provide increased use, private launches per day in the corridor on social impacts makes implicit but, most importantly, main season. sense, because in Grand Canyon, and Some of the initial impetus toward indeed in most river-running situations it is also possible the formation of Firewalk came where modern management is in place, at the same time when Mark Grisham and I inde- you have to be a raving enviroloon to dis- to improve the pendently started to look at how cover environmental damage caused by on-river experience. NPS was managing launches at boaters that is even remotely comparable Lees Ferry. Both Mark and I were to what is tolerated and encouraged on interested in finding out what would happen if there were an the public lands from the mining industry, the cow indus- even distribution of launches by weekday and by month, as is try, the oil industry, or the roadlice [1] industry. the case in Dinosaur National Monument, on the Middle (Obviously there’s an elephant in the room – the impacts Fork of the Salmon and on various other rivers. We suspected from Glen Canyon Dam – but we didn’t cause that; and this would simultaneously cut down on crowding on the being a part of the cure, while incumbent on us as boaters, water and at attraction sites, and thereby allow more private isn’t part of this modeling effort, this plan, or a subject of launches. Present management (the first scenario) provides a this article.) kind of upper bound on what’s thought by the Park Service The LACs used by the model were generated for to be tolerable – since they allow it. Currently, the NPS per- the 1989 River Management plan. The idea of LACs is mits up to 9(!) launches a day; the number of launches varies that the agency using them monitors the situation and as a by day of the week, and by month of the season. In June particular LAC is approached, changes its management to there are an average of 6 launches a day; in September, less shift the situation back toward compliance. Until now, this than three. As will appear below, some of our scenarios also has never happened in Grand Canyon. One outgrowth of explored upper limits. this modeling effort should probably be a revision of the In these scenarios, we generated trip lengths based LACs for Grand Canyon; at least some of them seemed on the existing data, except for the scenario with a stipulated pretty pointless when we stared at them. Specific LACs are trip length. Varying user-day totals are mostly due to varying discussed in the appendix. group sizes and varied trip maxima and minima. Among C E N A R I O S other experiments, we changed group sizes toward equality, S and changed trip lengths based on increasing the shortest wanted to analyze the ideas of main play- main-season commercial trips, and shortening the longest main-season trips. One way to think of the canyon when Iers[2], as well as ideas we thought promis- filled is as a series of nodes; if the shortest trips are 6 days, ing, so we produced a variety of scenarios: the longest are 18, and they start in the right relation to one another, the long trip is crossed at 2 intermediate nodes by 1. sample 1999 data provided with Version 3.0 of GCRTSim overtaking 6-day trips, and on the last day is also met. If a as a baseline 12-day started on day 6 of the long trip, it too would join 2. equilibrated launch calendars with the node on the last day. However, if the shortest trip is 7 a. a 200 day main season and the longest 16, you reduce the nodes to 2 and displace b. 2 private and 2 commercial launches per day in one of them from the reach of camps just above Diamond, the primary season, and from the Diamond de-rigging circus. c. one launch a day (assumed to be private) in the Winter 2002 / 2003 page seven

NPS for purposes of measuring environmental impact, but ON INTERPRETING THE GRAPHS it is outside the universe of this modeling exercise. At present outfitters are contractually limited to a ach user-day column is labeled with the percent-proba- certain annual user-day tally. Most of them sell these user- Ebility that it will achieve the LACs for intergroup con- days in the primary season, as early as they can. They also tact. This is because Shelby’s research clearly showed that have a smattering of use in the secondary season – about 1 – until some very high intra-group figure is exceeded,[3] meet- 2 trips worth. And they are docked from next year’s use if ing other parties contributes far more to the sense of crowd- they overshoot this year’s contractual amount. For all these ing than does either the size of the group you meet or the reasons, main-season outfitter use tends to taper off in

Fig 1. Primary Season Graph

August and September; and they also make very little use of size of your own group. In other words, if you meet a differ- the fall shoulder season, and none of the winter season. We ent party it doesn’t matter much if the group has 10 or 28 did our modeling as if these contractual limits did not exist, people in it; the sense of impingement on wilderness values but we did try to make best-guesses at how much use outfit- (or the enhanced gregariousness, for some people) is still the ters would actually be able to move in midwinter if the con- same. tractual restrictions were lifted. In most cases we figured NPS tracks, and the model tallies, ‘non-recreational about 10% of the use; outfitters would have to tap a differ- use:’ boatmen, staff, on commercial trips. These figures vary ent clientele to begin making much use of the winter season. between motor and oar trips, but season by season, are tal- As I can attest, it requires special skills and equipment, and lied by the model at 17.39%. It is sometimes implied that a somewhat different spirit than a midsummer trip. Some of “repeat users” comprise some sort of “crew;” in that context the scenarios based shoulder and secondary season use on it is worth repeating Jo Johnson’s (a long-time river activist) the concept of first-come, first-served. This is a complicated observation that repeat users on private trips comprise about but soluble management knot – do you let a boater or out- 14% of non-commercial participants, but unlike commercial fitter call up and reserve more than one trip at a time? If you crew, private “repeaters” are counted in the tally. Non-recre- do, you need some sort of punishment for overbooking, and ation use doesn’t appear in the graphs, but if you want to if you do not, there could realistically be no more than 14 envision it, add about a fifth to the commercial column. or 15 outfitter trips out of 165+ launches; by the time an Likewise, we did not bother to track administrative use – outfitter finished a trip, there would be no time to book and NPS and science use, mostly. Again, this is captured by the sell the next. For the first-come-first-served off-season sce- page eight THE Waiting List

SHOULDER SEASON GRAPHS (FIGURES 2& 3) everal of the scenarios didn’t have shoulder (spring, Sfall) seasons; we modeled primary seasons that were lengthened by comparison with today’s management, FIG. 2: SPRING SHOULDER COMPARISON and a winter season that was much lengthened, by abolishing the shoulder seasons and putting their use in the primary and secondary season. In order to keep the graphs comparable I included blanks where a scenario had no shoulder seasons. narios, we assumed an allocation split of 50:50. In looking at these scenarios, I estimate that 5% is significant; if a scenarios compliance with the LACs is 5% better or worse than another’s, there is a real difference not generated by programmed randomness. The results are summarized throughout the article.

PRIMARY SEASON COMMENT

rimary season LAC (Fig. 1 - pre- Pceding page)- Launch limit (1989 CRMP) - (1)166 people per day, 1000 people per week. (2) 80% probability that a river trip party will contact 7 or less other river trips per day, with up to one and one half hours in sight of less result in encountering fewer parties on the water, at attrac- than 125 people. (3) 80% probability of contacts with tion sites, and fewer campground negotiations to engineer. other groups at 70% of attraction sites, but with a 100% All of the 2:2 launch-per-day scenarios improve probability at LCR, Elves Chasm and Havasu Creek. 10% LAC compliance relative to the status quo while producing a probability of camping within sight and sound of another lot more non-commercial use, as well as more total use. The river trip. percentage figure at the top of each column indicates the While increasing non-commercial use at the time probability of complying with the NPS Primary season of the year most desirable for most people, this graph LAC. Differences in outfitter use scenario compliance are reveals a very substantial opportunity to improve compli- caused by their generally shorter main-season trips; note that ance with the primary season LAC. It’s also a considerable the scenario with a required 15-day trip for all sectors indictment of the present, near-laissez-faire launch manage- increases their use too while still complying; this is because ment, which has produced an outfitter calendar that varies that scenario posits a bigger commercial group size than pri- by day of the week, week of the month, and month of the vate group size; otherwise the totals would be near-identical. season resulting in non- LAC compliant operations. The By the same token, in most scenarios, increases in non-com- present system actually exceeds the primary season LACs, mercial use are due to: (1) their longer trips, and only slight- which should have triggered an automatic management ly to the increased group sizes we posited for them (up from response, according to the 1989 river management plan, 16 participants to 20, for instance - see discussion of “equal which remains in force. group sizes” below, ed.), and (2) are mostly to be explained Compliance with this LAC, as several of the sce- by far greater number of launch opportunities under these narios do, will produce actual, on-the-river improved expe- scenarios. The increase in private launches from about 1.14 a rience. Adoption of one of those proposed scenarios would day to 2, or even 3, is vast. That non-commercial use, even with smaller group sizes, could approach parity with the out- Winter 2002 / 2003 page nine

FIG. 3: FALL SHOULDER COMPARISON SHOULDER SEASONS COMMENT

houlder Season - Medium Use SDensity - LAC - 166 people per day, 700 per week - 80% probability of contact with 4 groups or less per day. 80% probability that groups will be encountered at 50% or less of sites vis- ited, but high use sites probability increases to 65%. 10% or less probabil- ity of camping within sight and sound of another river trip. It’s difficult to determine what the launch structure is for these sea- sons, under the present management alternative. There are a variety of man- agement strictures — motors, no motors, varying start and finish dates for varying seasons which have varying maximum trip lengths and season names — that I could not sort out. In the one alternative we evaluated using fitter sector can be envisioned either by the program’s visuali- 2 launches per day, one private and one commercial, com- zation device, or by your imagination. Non-commercial trips pliance was adequate in spring and failed in fall, for rea- tend to average as long as they can (an average of about 17 sons that are unclear to me, while providing a level of use days out of the regulation 18 days). With the mind’s eye you about 50% higher than at present. can see the canyon gradually filling with non-commercial SECONDARY SEASON COMMENT trips that move at almost the same pace, while waves of faster outfitter trips surge through the canyon, catching them up econdary season (Low Use Period) - LAC- 12 trips per and moving beyond. Sweek, 2 trips per day, 332 people per week. 80% proba- The 3:3 launch plans obviously don’t comply, and bility of two or less contacts per day - 80% probability of tend to establish an upper bound. They also indirectly contacts at 20% of destination sites. 60% probability of explain why June, under the existing management’s 6 launch- contact at high use sites. 10% or less probability of camp- es a day on average, is the most crowded month. ing within sight and sound of other river trips. The 3:2 launch plan doesn’t comply in the main sea- The present-management data indicates that sec- son, though it does better than the existing management ondary season use is vastly under-provided. Even using the alternative. But it has some desirable effects for both sectors. relatively strict LACs for secondary season and going to a It works as it does because about 2/3 of commercial trips are longer season (actually, eliminating the shoulder seasons) it motor, and tend to be much shorter than non-commercial is still possible to exceed the 80% probability figure for trips. For while non-commercial motor trips are the fastest compliance with the objective, while increasing use from growing category on the Colorado, they function on the about 4000 user-days to as much as 90,000 user-days. water and in the model as oar trips – the motor is there for Even retaining the relatively high present compliance rate, aged or weak passengers but the trip runs at the pace, and it is possible to increase use by a factor of 5 and still main- interacts with others, based on its oar boats. I suspect that tain a compliance rate of >90%. with some launch packaging (see below) this scenario could Note that plan 2 retains shoulder seasons and thus be made to work. Note that it provides more than 3 times as has a lower figure. much non-commercial use as the present system, and still comes much closer to compliance. page ten THE Waiting List

FIG.4: SECONDARY SEASON

SECONDARY SEASON GRAPH (Fig. 4) s mentioned earlier, some of the scenarios eliminated shoulder seasons and broke the year Ainto primary and secondary seasons. In those cases, I evaluated the secondary season by the most restrictive, secondary season LACs, rather than by the slightly looser shoulder season LACs.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE SCENARIOS rand Canyon National Park needs to establish a bal- CARRYING CAPACITY Ganced launch system, similar to other rivers – a system e lost one member of Firewalk who felt that the direc- with a standard number of launches per day throughout the Wtion the group was going would lead to increased use season. Dinosaur, the Middle Fork, the Salmon, all have in the Canyon—an objectionable outcome, from his point such systems, and they work. The model shows that such of view. systems would work here: increasing compliance with the As can be seen from the graphs above, it is certainly LACs, improving the on-river experience, and bringing non- possible to provide increased use, but, most importantly, it is commercial use nearer to commercial. also possible at the same time to improve the on-river experi- It is possible to combine alternatives that would ence. As a matter of practical politics, the NPS in Grand produce something close to equality, both season by season Canyon has not excelled at boldly facing down political and on an annual basis. Specifically, pressures. So it seemed that increasing use to parity between 1. The current secondary season use of about 1 launch every the sectors, if it could be done without damage to the four days could be increased to 1 launch a day without resource or the experience, was a more desirable outcome debasing compliance with the secondary season LACs. than cutting existing use back. It can be done. Conversely, the NPS may be able to cut use, but the experience we all 2. The current shoulder season use figures are ambiguous, had with the Hatch amendment suggests they will not try. mostly because the present-management alternative was not Frankly, an unenviable position – cutting use would clear enough for me to describe it. Use at the rate of about 2 undoubtedly evoke action by the outfitters, and failure to launches a day, split between non-commercial and rectify decades of unfair treatment of the non-commercials commercial sectors, will come close to compliance. probably would too: a lot of the private boaters I’ve talked to 3. Most improvement is possible in the primary season, where feel that with a 22-year waiting list, “What have we got to non-commercial use can approximately triple, commercial lose?” use can increase, and compliance can improve. Making launch use even through the days, weeks Winter 2002/2003 page eleven

FIG.5: MODELED SCENARIOS ~ TOTAL USER DAYS COMPARISON

This graph is included to summarize, and to save addition. and seasons reveals unused visitor capacity in the Canyon, passes, an and provides a possible solution whereby both recreational increasingly SHELBY POINTED OUT THAT user sectors and the NPS can achieve a reasonably small per- THE EXPERIENCE OF satisfactory outcome. centage of all THE GRAND CANYON IS users. Gross SO OVERWHELMING THAT MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS them out EVERYONE S RESPONSE enough, and ’ here are some implications to any management choices they seek IS POSITIVE. you make that ought to be stated. Shelby pointed out T unpopulated seasons; yet more, and they leave. Driving them that the experience of the Grand Canyon is so overwhelm- out is actually a detriment to a managing agency, which is ing that everyone’s response is positive. He also noted that normally stocked by people whose careers shift them in and nearly everyone is on their first trip, and everyone’s first out of a site, for a trove of knowledge and understanding experience in the canyon determines their expectations for passes with the disappearance of long-experienced boaters; future trips. You could, as he pointed out, build Stanton’s but it is a rare agency that recognizes and tries to stem the railroad through the canyon, run sight-seeing trains, and loss. It is a double detriment, if the management agency produce more satisfied users than river trips ever could. If believes that satisfaction of the greatest number indicates it is the greatest good for the greatest number is the gravamen doing a good job – it begins to believe its own publicity. The for management, you can increase use far beyond the levels resource then enters a cycle of progressive deterioration analyzed in any of these scenarios and still satisfy more and which nonetheless satisfies its increasingly crowded, first-time more users, while irritating the sensibilities of more experi- users. As the cycle continues, management addicts to user enced users whose ideas of a normal Grand Canyon experi- fees, since Congress is perpetually saving money at the land’s ence were formed in a different time. But these are, as time page twelve THE Waiting List expense. For a witness, recollect the way Dinosaur National gest that it is the idea of those outboards, rather than the Monument has attempted to define river running as a ‘special on-ground situation, that is repugnant. Consider the star- use,’[4] jack up the fees, and fund an entire backcountry pro- tling geographic variance in the attributes of wilderness. gram, most of which has no contact with the river, via the wal- Even within the west, what is wilderness in one area is lets of boaters – since if it were up to Congress the programs held to vastly different standards than other areas. would vanish. The cycle is only halted if a physical resource, Specifically, one can adduce the Idaho rivers: the Middle such as an endangered species, is damaged by the torrent of Fork, the Main Salmon, the Selway. The Middle Fork has users, and management can then be forced by a lawsuit to 7 launches a day during the entire primary season, 4 non- manage. The Park Service is more fortunate than other agen- commercial and 3 commercial. It is replete with structures, cies, in that its preservation mandate supervenes; it has built-in inholdings, bridges, air fields, antique cars, hydro plants, resource constraints that function to counter the Benthamite and in general a level of development found, in Grand argument. [5] Canyon, only in the immediate Actual management is inseparable from Some of the vicinity of Phantom Ranch – though values. All management choices, by creating the scenarios suggest even Phantom Ranch with a helicop- expectations of new users, create new user types there is excess ter evacuation going on is not at or foster one user type over another. Only imag- carrying capacity Middle Fork levels. The Selway is the ine how different the users would be if winter most paradoxical of these rivers. It use were all that were permitted, if no passengers most clearly in the has but a single launch a day. But were allowed and you could not go unless you winter and that single daily trip passes ranches, ran your own boat, if the only permitted evacua- summer. landing strips, home sites, and a tions were of those already dead. Implicit in the dense trail net populated by industri- scenarios we analyzed is a fundamental assumption: there are al-strength numbers of Forest Service seasonals including various social carrying capacities in the Canyon. We attempted whole packer trains whose sole job it is to bring supplies to reveal or explore these by setting differing use levels for the to yet other forest service seasonals, who in turn congre- seasons. Some of the scenarios suggest there is excess carrying gate for parties in Forest Service cabins by the river, where capacity most clearly in the winter and summer. In the shoul- they are joined by forest service river patrols; and who der seasons it appears to be there (present compliance is well when on duty will watch for fires that will not be fought, above the requirement) but it is less clear how to free it up. and maintain trails they use more than the public ever did It could be deduced that there is not a single carrying or will. From the perspective of structures and non-com- capacity for the canyon, so much as there are varying carrying pliant uses; and in the case of the Middle Fork, from the capacities, based in part on varying user types. For that reason perspective of river use; and in the case of the Main that we modeled scenarios that maintain a variety of seasons Salmon, grandfathered jetboat use and actual resort lodges, with a variety of opportunities for solitude/gregariousness. That these rivers are at levels of use and development that make it doesn’t provide this spectrum is the reason I don’t think most of the big southwestern rivers look empty. And yet much of the winter part of the GCPBA plan, though its pri- they are in the heart of already-designated wilderness areas, mary season effects have much to recommend them. I don’t including some of the oldest designated wilderness areas in expect the Canyon to be returned to the state I first saw it, the United States. when we went 10 days in the spring and saw a couple hikers on There are also some on-river effects of banning their honeymoon, the only people other than at Phantom; or in motors/wilderness designation that ought to be men- the summer, and saw another party at Crystal. But, there tioned. As noted above, at present crew is about 17.5% of should be times when management provides for the people commercial use, and is to be added on when assessing who like to take nature in much bigger doses than they environmental impacts, though not contract compliance. like to take people. Seasonal management regimes provide that Under an all-oars scenario, with the same total of commer- opportunity. cial user days, crew would be more like 30 – 32% of the total of participants in commercial trips. That is, ‘real’ or SOME EFFECTS OF WILDERNESS DESIGNATION total commercial use would be about 132% of the passen- ilderness designation for the river corridor in Grand ger totals. At present, there are about 3,000 guide-trips per WCanyon has been an issue for more than 20 years. I year; this would approximately double. It would, inciden- hope it will not be used to derail an attempt to rectify Grand tally, be about double the present non-commercial user Canyon river management. Clearly, under the law, existing total (approximately 3,000). motor use can be grandfathered in and the corridor can still be This is just a matter of horsepower – it’s pretty designated as wilderness.[6] This is repugnant to many. I sug- difficult, especially at either very low or very high water, to Winter 2002/2003 page thirteen control a raft with more than 4 passengers in it: in the have to have on providing concession services. rapids, initial position is all important, because you are not PROMISING, UN MODELED IDEAS going to get to reposition in the rapid itself; you’re going to - get very late into some camps; you’re going to miss some any of the ideas presented below could not be modeled landings.[7] Gear is heavy, and a lot of that heavy stuff has Mwithout more time, resources, and sophistication than gotten mandated over the years by the NPS. we could muster. Some of them demand capabilities of As discussed below, crowding on river would GCRTSim that probably aren’t there (it’s a remarkably pow- increase, because of the large number of craft required to erful program and I don’t claim expertise). But these ideas haul the same number of people. Concomitantly, there’d be were proposed, however tentatively, by people with years of fewer camps for a group of a given size, because of the need experience in how rivers flow and boaters flow down them, increased mooring space. Extra boats rub- and some of them have huge promise. bing on the shore would mean height- there should be times ened beach erosion, though this effect when management PACKAGING would probably not be large. But there’s also an economic effect. It is fashionable provides for the CROA refers to setting trip lengths to think of the Grand Canyon outfitters people who like to Gto avoid node formation as part of as plutocrats of the public lands. Actually, take nature in trip packaging. It works –when a river most of the large annual gross goes to ranger in Dinosaur, I noticed that the 5- equipment, and the owners live middle or much bigger doses days launched on Wednesday, the 4-days upper-middle class lives; this would prob- than they on Thursday, the ably not change under a no-motors alter- like to take people 3-days on Friday, the rare 2-day on native. The economic effects would be Saturday, and the 1-days on Sunday, felt by passengers and boatmen. There bringing as many as 98 boats and quanta would be more job opportunities for professional boatmen, of busses to the Split Mountain boat ramp on Sunday after- but, raising the number of staff per passenger would lower noon. Switching a few 3-days and 5-days around worked the boatman’s wages, or fares would have to be increased. wonders. The same packaging concept needs to be explored Some reading this will think, “So what? They get to work in in Grand Canyon, but this reaches a level of detail beyond paradise.” I’ll comment only that it’s an eye-opener to sit in what we could do in this modeling effort. As one who has with a group of boatmen – many of them have little of what worked this, I can attest to the promise of the idea. we consider the normal adjuncts of a job – pension plan or EQUAL GROUP SIZES 401(k) plan, health insurance, etc. They will be even less likely to have these if there are more of them. here is no ecological reason to have different group sizes It is not much known, but the outfitters maintain Tbetween the commercial and non-commercial sectors. active programs for special populations and educational There has never been a wilderness reason advanced for this. institutions. These are subsidized by the regular trips. It is It actually grew from the desire of NPS to limit the possible likely that such programs will end if regular trips are made profits of pirate trips, and from research in the 70s indicating more expensive by the necessity for hiring more staff and what size non-commercial groups actually were. Unless there buying new equipment. Now you can argue – I have argued is actual research that warrants discriminating against one – that the NPS for years abdicated its responsibility to con- sector – without such evidence, this kind of thing can and trol concession rates in Grand Canyon. You can argue that will eventually serve as the basis of an equal-protection claim the NPS has mandated requirements for the outfitters that – there is no point in maintaining such a baseless and insult- have raised concession prices until they are far beyond what ing requirement. I think both sectors should be limited to 28 the normal American public can pay.[8] You can argue that (not counting crew), which intuitively would provide on-the- concessions ought not to exist where there is enough ground improvements compared to the present maximum of demand from the part of the public that can outfit itself. 36. My experience with a system (Dinosaur) with equal You can recognize the insistence on luxury and avoidance of group sizes is that very few non-commercial groups use the personal responsibility and reliance on litigation on the part maximum anyway – church groups, scouts, etc. The group of the dudes that has made ‘wilderness experiences’ into types that would are not going to do Grand Canyon trips. resorts. But if you grant that the un-boated public has a On the other hand, I, and a lot of people I know, have been right to see one of its natural wonders – and the NPS running up against the current group size limit for non-com- Concessions Act has generally been interpreted that way – mercial boaters – if you want to take a couple of extended you should recognize the effects that banning motors will families, including some aged parents who won’t have anoth- page fourteen THE Waiting List er chance, it is pretty easy to hit the limit of 16. groups. And there is no need to go through the campsite Equalizing group size would remove an irritant, provide a negotiation each afternoon. theoretic means for the non-commercial sector to approach I know this works. I don’t know whether most equality of use, and would contribute very little both to boaters will want to put up with it. And I suspect that it is actual use increases and to environmental effects. Conversely, a bit like weather systems breaking down into chaos – you lowering the commercial group sizes from the present maxi- could expect solid compliance most of the way down the mum would have small but distinct positive effects: group river, but things might start collapsing after ‘enough’ size varies in one dimension but campsite nights downstream from Lees Ferry. It is also predicated disturbance in two. on boaters either knowing the river, or being able to read maps. HUNTING-SEASON SEASON DEFINITIONS RESERVED CAMPS ne useful idea is to define seasons as some hunting sea- Osons are defined. Instead of beginning and ending otor trips are out of everyone’s hair on the water calendar dates, a season is defined by something like ‘second Mmuch more quickly than oar trips, which tend to be Monday in April to 3rd Friday in October.’ The length of a beside you all the way down the canyon. One possible sep- season so defined is the same as one defined by calendar arator that could make on-water and in-camp encounters dates, so there is no disadvantage to non-commercial boaters, more rare is to select 14 – 16 camps, chosen so that there but it makes it easier for outfitters to maintain day-of-the- are 2 in each motor-day-length of river, and reserve them week launches. for motor trips. This cuts down on campsite competition and on-river interaction, as there is much less need to go ASSIGNED CAMPS through the afternoon assertiveness-training exercises in t is productive to think of popular, overnight river seg- figuring out where everyone will sort themselves into Iments in terms of hotels. As the visualization part of camps that night. GCRTSim shows, the dots that symbolize trips jostle down STANDARD REQUIRED TRIP LENGTHS the river, and all come to rest each night, then move on, while upstream groups bounce down into the camps vacated ou can obtain many of the benefits of assigning camps, that morning. Anyone who has gone through it knows the Ywithout the officiousness, by requiring all trips to be of irritant of having a motor rig sweep past in the afternoon the same length, or within a narrow length band – say, 15 just as you are returning from a hike, to be seen again in the days (as we modeled) or 14 – 16 days (as we didn’t). So camp you’d set your heart on. There is, of course, a converse, long as the required length is reasonable for oar boats, on- when you are running the motor rig (or indeed, any river encounters are minimized. Regardless of propulsion, upstream trip) and have arranged camps with everyone you all trips under such a regulation behave pretty much as oar met, only to find someone doing a layover in your planned trips, both in the model and actually. Motor boats under camp. such a scenario have a little more time to sleep in and to A number of rivers assign camps. We did it directly fiddle around at attraction sites. Under such conditions, in Dinosaur, because the levels of use on the Yampa and the canyon is divided, practically speaking, into 15 day- Green were comparable to Grand Canyon while the rivers long reaches. So long as each reach has N camps, where N were much smaller and shorter, and because 2 rivers fed into is the number of daily launches, the system behaves in a one final reach, making it impossible to coordinate camps very regular way. The cost, as mentioned above, is in a on-river. It is done on the Middle Fork by trip leaders meet- sense of freedom, and in a diminution of the opportunities ing with the ranger the day of the launch. now available in the Canyon. Now there are trips from 3 – What assigning camps diminishes is a sense of free- 18 days in the main season; under an alternative like this, dom and spontaneity. What it gains is: 7, 8, and 15 (assuming exchanges are still permitted). This was the third alternative modeled above, and it has 1) a substantial degree of increased capacity, many commendable aspects which are achieved at the 2) a certain comfort at knowing that where you are to be will be expense of a diversity of trips and a diversity of budgets. there waiting for you to get there, and Personally, I have some sympathy for this idea – running the Grand, for many, is a lot like intercourse. Instead of 3) minimized encounters. When everyone knows where they wanting to keep it going as long and sensuously as possi- are going each night, and plans the day accordingly, people ble, they want to be done quickly so they can get to the tend to time their morning launches, space themselves on important part: bragging about it.[9] the water, and clear attraction sites, thus avoiding alien Winter 2002/2003 page fifteen

LIMITING THE NUMBER OF BOATS Secondary Season ne de facto management choice that produces both a 80% probability of meeting 2 parties or less, remaining in Osense of crowding, and some actual though minimal contact 20 minutes or less, contacting a maximum of 40 ecological damage, is continuing to allow the trend that is people, per day. leading to 1 raft per boater. Some of these groups are using Comment on LACs 10 – 16 boats where 1 motor rig would have gone; this strings the group along the river, making all contacts and 1) It will be hard to meet some of these objectives in the attempts to pass that party an extra-long ordeal; and it maxi- off-seasons without mandating smaller group sizes. But mizes the boats’ frontal area for eroding beach sand when because the perception of alien-group crowding doesn’t vary they are all in camp. In addition, it limits the number of much with group size, I don’t think it is worth setting differ- camps such a party can use, for though the group size could ent group sizes per season – you’ll still be encountering other fit a small camp, the mooring space isn’t there. It makes Lees groups and still feel crowded or secure based on that. Note Ferry and Diamond meta-zooish. I don’t think boaters will also that the trend toward a boat for every boater means that limit this themselves, any more than roadlice owners, though it will become increasingly difficult to meet the time-in-con- sometimes decrying their own effects, will ever voluntarily tact standards: a couple of motor rigs fill about 100 – 200 leave them at home. yards of river, but a group of 16 catarafts can fill more than a mile. It takes a long time to pass them, particularly when on PROVIDING EXTRA LAUNCHES BY GROUP SIZE the oars. he idea is to provide, say, 4 launches a day for parties of 2) The other group-contact LACs deal with what percentage T8 or fewer, 2 for parties of 9 – 16, and 2 for parties of of trips in a season is likely to meet the objective. So for 17+. The small parties would be asked, I presume, not to example, for the final scenario, in the secondary season: take the camps that the larger groups need. If you run the 91.11 % of the trips are likely to meet the objective, with Canyon with an eye to finding them, there are a LOT of 5.34% of the days exceeding the standard. 8.89% fail to not-much-recognized campsites that could accommodate a meet the objective, with 29.41% of the days exceeding the group of 8 – say, 5 kayakers and a raft (see the Waiting List, standard. Vol. 6, No 1, p 50). Based on what we saw with the 3:3 I found these LACs confusing, could neither gener- launch scenarios, I don’t see how this plan could comply ate nor obtain clarification, and accordingly did not graph with the intergroup contact LACs, but it would provide a them. fairly quick way to cut down the waiting list – if the waiting list comprises small-group boaters. I’d like to see it modeled. 3) A second set of LACs deals with attraction site crowding and contact in general. These have been exceeded from day 1 © Earl Perry for reasons that have never been addressed. For instance, y turquoise water in midsummer is irresistible, and people will APPENDIX always want to stop at the Little Colorado, Deer Creek and Havasu. The idea that you will never get to come back – an LACs in Grand Canyon economic reality for most commercial passengers and a con- The LACs are broken out by season, with more restrictive sequence both of the waiting list and of some of the ill- ones in the shoulder and most restrictive in the secondary advised proposals to clamp down on repeater non-commer- season. cial boaters — makes it all the more likely that people will insist on stopping. If you know you can come back in a cou- Primary Season ple years, you’ll blow by a crowd; if you think this is the last 80% Probability of meeting 7 parties or less, remaining in chance before death, you crash right in. This in turn causes contact 90 minutes or less, contacting a maximum of 125 clustering in the corridor above and below the sites. Same people, per day. with exchanges at Phantom. Dislike them all you want, they Shoulder Seasons are extensively practiced by both sectors, and cause a backup in the canyon upstream, tight camps downstream, 80% probability of meeting 4 parties or less, remaining in and a violation of these LACs. contact 40 minutes or less, contacting a maximum of 65 As a practical matter, most people realize that in the people, per day. summer, there are certain cluster areas where boaters, even page sixteen THE Waiting List inexperienced ones, expect a diminished sense of wilderness time event, rather than an activity that has been going on values. If heavy use of these sites were eliminated – obvious- steadily for longer than the Park or Monument has been des- ly not a particularly popular step based on the way people ignated. make use of these areas – there would be a great step [5] The Park Service is required to transmit unimpaired to toward compliance with the attraction site LACs. Another future generations the values for which an area was preserved possibility would be to recognize that there ought to be dif- as a park; and when that mandate is fulfilled, to provide for ferent LACs based on zoning the canyon into sections the enjoyment by the public of the resource. where wilderness values are dominant and should be [6] See section 4(c)(d) of the Wilderness Act. respected, and transition zones where more encounters are [7] “Why, no three men in these degenerate days could lift expected. such a rock as Ajax then lifted.” I have rowed a 28-foot pon- FOOTNOTES toon through Lodore with 10 passengers on 400 cfs. Took at least an hour per rapid. I have rowed a 33-foot pontoon down [1] ATVs. Ed. note. the Green with 13 passengers and gear on 2000 cfs. I have [2] Dave Yeamans helped me understand the GCPBA plan. rowed, briefly, a Baby-J with 6 on it and gear. It’s too much. I Kim Crumbo gave me a ‘wilderness’ or no-motors alterna- stand by 3 – 4 passengers on a 15-day Grand trip, for even the tive. Note two points about this: its effects are basically the most broad-backed brainless boatmen, and even then, there same whether motors are used or not; what matters in ought to be at least one baggage boat and some evoking its effects is trip length. Second, I made one change swampers/kitchen help. to his ideas. This plan originally called for a mandatory trip [8] My unscientific personal test is whether a troop of boy length of 14 days to Diamond. I changed this to 15 based scouts or girl scouts can earn the money to go with a conces- on the low flows caused by the drought of the last 3 years. sionaire, within a reasonable period. This was actually true in Even in the event of normal inflow, refilling all the reser- Dinosaur when I was a boatman in the late 60s and early 70s. voirs upstream from Lee Ferry will mean low flows for some years to come. Any time we have a recurring drought [9] On the bank of the Futaleufú, I met a woman who had cycle, 15 miles a day to Diamond by oar will seem enough. done a 3-day Grand Canyon trip out of Las Vegas. Noblesse We also asked for input from River Runners for Wilderness oblige – with the slightly weary air of one, world traveler, but they declined to provide it. helping a North American bumpkin to save his money and his time, she assured me, “No fue mucho.” [3] I ran a Grand trip with 85 passengers, and that was over the line; people were complaining angrily about the size of their own group. Copyright © 2002 Earl Perry [4] This is a legal term for the Park Service which permits them to charge extra-high fees. Normally a special use is something like a movie shoot or an adventure race – a one-

It’s A Private Trip...Come On Along...Join Us! YES! I want private boaters to have a voice in the Grand Canyon! GCPBA is 501c3, tax deductible!

Name Address (st. / box)

City State Zip

e-mail “teley” membership: 1yr $25 / 10yrs $200 / Forever $350 or more p Check here if it’s ok to give your name to wilderness / conservation groups p here for river related business Winter 2002 / 2003 page seventeen Westwater Issues New Reservation Permit System Lottery Cancellation Rate Prompts New Plan

he Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Moab, Ut office, has changed the permit system on TWestwater Canyon for 2003. According to the BLM website (www.blm.gov/utah/moab/ww- info.html) the permit system was changed “in response to high cancellation rates associated with the annual lottery over the last several years.” The BLM received 2500 permit applications and only issued 431 permits via the lottery this year, unfortunately there was a 60% attrition or cancellation rate during July-Sept. While 2002 was a low water year, this extremely high attrition rate has been representative of the past several “normal” water years. The new system is in some ways a gamble; the BLM is waiting to see whether the streamlined application process is generally accepted and if it reduces the high percentage of cancellations during the summer. If the system proves efficient and meets the public’s needs, then there is a possibility that the permit system may be used elsewhere. Under the new system a permit is required year-round to run Westwater Canyon. Permits are issued only through advance reservation to individuals 18 years and older. The maximum group size is 25 people. GCPBA is optimistic about the new permit system, which has a number of interesting features: 1. Launches are available 2 months in advance. 2. Launches are alloted on a first-come first-serve basis by phone at 435-259-7012. 3. Five permits or 75 people (whichever capacity is utilized first) are allowed access each day. 4. No application forms are required, all you do is call. 5. The phones will be answered Monday-Friday 8 am - 12 pm (excluding federal holidays). 6. Walk-in reservations may also be made after 9 am. 7. Payment ($7/person) must be made in advance, and is due 30 days in advance of launch. 8. There is a cancellation system for permits to be redistributed if payment is not recieved or if a group notifies the office that they are unable to use their permit. 9. Permits may be modified... twice. 10. An online calendar shows the permit availability. 2002 Calendar. 2003 Calendar. 11. Visitor rules are clearly defined. During this planning time, while the GCNP looks for new ways to deal with it’s over capacity demand, GCPBA will be paying attention to the effectiveness of the new system. Who knows, perhaps elements of the Westwater system will find their way into the forthcoming river managment plan in the Grand Canyon. If you have any experiences with the new Westwater permits that you would like to share with us, we will be glad to forward your comments to the BLM. Jason Robertson y Custom Raft Frames ~ Raft Specific Trailers Marshall’s boater built frames are made from 6061 T-6 Aluminum using Speedrail free construction. The strongest and lightest river frames available - withstanding hitting the pavement at 75 MPH! Our Custom Raft trailers feature 3500 LB axles, with tie downs where you need them and no sharp edges to hurt your boat. Winches and such? No problem. Fabricated to meet YOUR needs Custom doesn't have to cost more. Don't settle for less! Marshall Welding and Fabrication Salida, CO 81201 - 719-539-4417 page eighteen THE Waiting List The Unforgiven: Dry Heat and the Desert Crucible Part I ~ Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff: The Minor Heat Syndromes “Yeah, but it’s a dry heat…” Sure. So is a fire. I’ve always be somewhat annoyed by the remark that low humidity somehow nullifies a scorching-hot day in the desert southwest. Even more annoying is that it seems to be most frequently blurted out by the recently transplanted, but nonetheless jaded, desert dweller sitting poolside or in the climate-controlled “Arizona Room,” sipping ice tea. And the commentary is typically battered about to entice future urban-sprawling Phoenicians to make the move, as the “adjustment” really isn’t that bad. In fact, the classic comeback is probably better known than the Arizona State motto, and has likely lured more people to the Grand Canyon State than any one piece of written propaganda. Maybe it should be the new state slogan… Certainly, if the extent of one’s exposure in the land of the eternal bake-off is mainly the front door to the car door, and the car door to the mall, each with their artificially cooled, canned-air atmospheres, heat won’t be a problem, dry or wet. But when you actually have to spend some time exerting yourself in it’s harsh, arid reality, away from the Atlantis- The effects of heat on the human body are varied and like world created by Colorado-River-powered AC units multiple. They basically can be divided into two categories: cranking ice cold 24-7, it’s an entirely different story. minor or non-life threatening and major or potentially life Despite the highly touted low-humidity bonus, it can be threatening. The minor heat syndromes are just that, usually extremely uncomfortable, even dangerous. For those nor serious and not life threatening. They’re more annoying who’ve been there, especially when it’s over 110(, the than anything else, and really not worth sweating about or los- 48th state rallying cry, “Yeah, but it’s a dry heat!” fails to ing sleep over. Still, they do deserve attention as some may reflect superior comfort in comparison to the humid progress into something far more serious if unrecognized and sweltering variety. Rather, the contrast becomes fairly untreated. ridiculous. It’s kind of like comparing dry heaves to pro- Before discussing each syndrome, there are some basic jectile vomiting. Either way, you’re still miserable. Or principles about heat that need to be appreciated: worse. Ways the body cools itself in hot, desert environments: Many people in the southwest, visitors and resi- Evaporation- Cooling from water or sweat evaporating off the dents alike, swear by the old adage. Some die by it. skin. Responsible for virtually all body cooling above 95 Brutal and unforgiving, summer heat is poten- degrees! tially the most dangerous natural hazard to back-country Convection- Heat is carried away for body by currents of air or travelers in the desert southwest. In Grand Canyon, heat water. accounts for roughly 75% of the 250 annual emergency Conduction- Heat is directly transferred for body to another evacuations from the Inner Gorge. While drowning in object, i.e. ground, wet clothes etc. the Colorado River has accounted for more fatalities, for Radiation- Heat loss from warm body to surrounding colder every drowning there are only a few true near-drownings. environment, independent of air movement. Conversely, for every heat stroke victim, there have been hundreds of near misses. Unfortunately, for many sum- READY OR NOT? ACCLIMATIZATION TO HEAT mer travelers the extent of their knowledge about desert • Partial acclimatization generally takes five days, and complete heat begins and ends with the comfort quote—- yeah, it’s acclimatization two weeks. Moderate exercise can accelerate the dry. So what? This ignorance, whether by circumstance or process. choice, leaves many totally unprepared and thus prime • Unfortunately it is almost impossible to acclimatize for the candidates for a physically and emotionally traumatic Inner Canyon heat prior to hiking or a river trip unless one experience—-provided they live to tell about it. By com- already lives and exercises in a hot desert environment. parison, the pain and suffering of educating oneself about • Acclimatized individuals lose substantially less salt in sweat heat in advance, is well, like sleeping on the searing sand, (up to 10 times less), significantly decreasing the risk of with the air hot, dry and suffocating versus an air condi- hyponatremia (will be covered in Part II). tioned bedroom and your ice-cold beverage of choice. • Acclimatized individuals also begin sweating at a lower core Enough said. Winter 2002 / 2003 page nineteen temperature, producing up to 2 1/2 times the volume of sweat, in hot environment. Caused by salt loss and electrolyte loss substantially decreasing the risk of heat exhaustion or heat imbalances secondary from sweating. Can be triggered by stroke. sudden cooling of muscles (especially calves) i.e. common from dipping or bathing in creek water. More common in THOSE AT HIGHER RISK FOR HEAT ILLNESS acclimatized people (guides, back-country rangers, trail- • Un-acclimatized (almost everybody) crew workers, etc. whose bodies have adjusted by an • Elderly or infants and small children increased sweat output. Can lead to hyponatremia if • Individuals with heart disease. untreated (covered in Part II). • Diabetics or those with thyroid disease. What to do: • Major skin disease, or significant burn scarring. • Obese 1. Responds quickly to salt replacement • Athletes (see Heat Stroke in Part II) (salted food). 2. Avoid rapid immersion extremities in cool or Common Drugs that may predispose individuals to Heat cold water. Illness: Heat Tetany- Prolonged painful muscle spasms (generally • Diuretics, Beta Blockers, or ACE inhibitors (for blood pres- hands, feet and face) along with anxiety and numbness sure or heart disease) and tingling (paresthesias) of lips, tongue, fingers and feet, • Antihistamines (for allergies) from over-breathing or “hyperventilation” in response to • Lithium, tricyclic antidepressants (psychiatric medications) high temperatures. Can be seen as part of heat exhaustion • Alcohol or heat stroke. More common in un-acclimatized. THE MINOR HEAT SYNDROMES What to do: (NON-LIFE THREATENING) 1. Control hyperventilation (breath slower, Heat Rash (Prickly Heat)- Itchy, red areas with small (1-2 mm) through nose not mouth). raised bumps under clothed areas. It is caused by acute inflam- 2. No other specific treatment necessary. mation of sweat ducts, blocking pores. Heat Syncope- Fainting, dizziness or light-headedness fol- What to do: lowing standing from a sitting or lying position while in a 1. Clean, loose fitting clothing. hot environment. Caused by blood vessels dilating, 2. Antihistamines (i.e. Benadryl) for itch. decreasing blood pressure and circulation to brain. More Heat Edema- Transient, self-limited swelling occurring in common in un-acclimatized, those with heart disease, or hands, feet, and ankles within 1-2 days after exposure in hot on diuretics, or other blood pressure lowering medications. weather. It is caused by acute retention of salt and water during What to do: acclimatization, and worsened by prolonged sitting, standing or walking. More common in un-acclimatized, and more com- 1. Get up or change positions slowly. mon in women, and elderly. 2. Maintain adequate fluid and salt intake. 3. Improves with acclimatization. What to do: (Coming in Part II: Dying of Thirst and Getting Drunk in 1. No treatment necessary. the Desert The Major Heat Syndromes: Potentially Life 2. Improves and disappears after acclimatization. Threatening Situations) 3. Elevating feet and legs helps. 4. Avoid diuretics. Dr. Tom Meyers Heat Cramps- Brief, painful muscular cramping after exertion y Duuuuuh! Let me see if I have this right. 1. We soak our feet in cold water for hours at a time like pinto beans being prepared for soup. 2. We get out on the beach and walk around in 135 degree sand, baking that nicely moisturized flesh to its tender best. 3. We repeat this cycle day after day for several weeks. 4. We wonder why we have to contend with toeitis, fungus, cracks, and other foot ailments. Rich Phillips page twenty THE Waiting List A Deer Creek Anthology FUN WITH HISTORY

n an on-line discussion recently, river historian Roy Webb wrote: “A question just popped into my Ihead regarding Deer Creek, certainly one of my favorite places in the Grand; who first went up there from the river, and how did they know of it? “ I thought it might be fun to try to find the answer. Not only was it fun, but I learned some things I didn’t expect. Here’s how I approached it, and what I learned. I started with a process of elimination. “Friday, September 6th, 1872 ... made Camp No. James White - if you believe his story - 105 on right side just below the mouth of a clear, cold floated past here on or about September 4th, stream, coming from the north. It is the prettiest stream 1867 and described how he “looked at a and the coldest yet seen flowing into the Colorado. Fifteen feet wide and a foot deep, it flows from one ledge of rocks stream of water about as large as my body that to another, not in falls, but miniature rapids. From was running Beaman’s through the description this must be the solid rocks of creek that he and the canyon Riley visited about 75 feet coming up the above my river from Kanab Cañon, 15 miles head, and the below.... clinging moss “Saturday, to the rocks September 7th, made a beauti- 1872. Waited for pictures up the ful sight. The creek. Nothing beauty of it to eat except STEREOOPTICAN SLIDE OF BEAMANS “BUCKSKIN FALLS” PHOTO. can not be bread and coffee. Started after din- described.” ner and ran rapid after rapid, none of them very bad for 4 Hiking was not a big feature of White’s alleged trip, miles, when we came to a small clear stream pouring out of and in any event, when he was pulled out of the river at the cliff into the river with a fall of about 175 feet. Stopped Callville three days later he couldn’t even stand up. So for pictures. This is the fall—Beaman has photographed White, even if he did go by here, missed his chance to be and called ‘Buckskin Cascade.’ Ran into the granite 2 3/8 the first to discover what’s up above the falls. miles below camp and found a narrow, swift river for a mile Next I looked at the journals kept by George Y. and a half. Ran this afternoon one of the worst rapids on Bradley and Jack Sumner on Powell’s first trip, which passed the trip. Near sunset heard some one halloo on right bank. by here on August 23rd, 1869. Sumner wrote: “Passed 2 Pulled in and found Adair, Adams and Joe Hamblin with cold streams coming in from the north, one of them pour- rations and mail at the mouth of lower Kanab Cañon. The ing off a cliff 200 feet high.” water from the river had backed into the cañon, so ran our Neither Bradley nor Sumner mention any hiking - boats up 300 yards and made Camp No. 106 on right side they were, in fact, racing to get out of the canyon before of the Colorado and in Kanab Cañon. they ran out of food altogether. So they missed their chance, “Sunday, September 8th, 1872.... The view at the too. mouth of Kanab Cañon is grand, but gloomy. The walls The next trip down the river was Powell’s 2nd expe- 2000 feet high and very narrow. Silence and solitude reign. dition, in 1872. On this trip, Stephen Vandiver Jones wrote Numerous signs of the visit of the miners last spring. in his journal: Winter 2002 / 2003 page twenty one

Thousands of dollars were spent here to no purpose. This Sept. 7th, 1872: evening the Major told me that owing to the shattered condi- “Spend forenoon in exploring Tapeats Creek below. Tis a tion of our boats and the high stage of the water that we deep gulch in wall of trap. Find Shinumo Ruins. Come would leave the river here.... So tomorrow morning we bid down after dinner to cataract. Make Picture. Climb over the Colorado good-bye and start for Kanab.” into Surprise Valley. When they Run down to mouth camped on Friday, of Kanab.” September 6th, Jones This wasn’t all was mistaken about that informative, so where they were: next I looked at the Tapeats Creek was not “official” history of the place Beaman had the expedition, writ- visited. But obviously, ten by Frederick S. Powell’s men already Dellenbaugh, and knew something about published years later the area, and the next under the title “A day, on the 7th, they Canyon Voyage”, found “Buckskin where I read: Cascade” - today’s Deer “... as soon as we Creek Falls - which they launched forth after recognized as the water- dinner, we began to fall that Beaman had look longingly for the photographed. mouth of Kanab E. O. Beaman Canyon and the was the photographer pack-train. The river who had accompanied was much easier in Powell’s river trip down every respect, and the Green and Colorado after our experiences to Lees Ferry in 1871. of the previous days But what was he doing it seemed mere play. taking pictures at Deer The granite ran up Creek before Powell’s for a mile or two, but 2nd trip got there? then we entered sedi- Jones’ next jour- mentary strata and nal entry provided the came to a pretty little necessary clue when he cascade falling thru a mentioned “the miners crevice on the right last spring.” E.O. from a valley hidden Beaman left the 2nd behind a low wall. Powell expedition in Northern Arizona University, Cline Library, Special Collections, thanks to Jess Vogelsang We at once recog- http://library.nau.edu/search/abeaman/abeaman/1,10,11,B/frameset&F=abeaman+e+o&1,1 February, 1872, while it nized it as the one was wintering in Kanab, Utah. This was just before the ill- which Beaman had photographed when he and Riley had fated “Kanab Creek Gold Rush” which was set off when, at made their way up along the rocks from the mouth of the Powell’s request, some packers investigated Kanab Creek as a Kanab during the winter. We remembered that they had possible resupply point for his river expedition, and reported called it ten miles to the Kanab from this place, and after finding some colors from gravel they panned at the river. A we had climbed up to examine what they had named couple months later, as miners poured into the canyon, Surprise Valley we went on expecting to reach the Kanab Beaman headed down Kanab Creek to check out the excite- before night.” ment. Now Powell’s entry was beginning to make sense. Expedition leader John Wesley Powell also kept a After dinner (“bread and coffee” for the mid-day meal), journal on that 2nd trip, and here’s what he had to say on the expedition left the vicinity of Tapeats Creek and page twenty two THE Waiting List shortly arrived at Deer Creek Falls - the “cataract” that they enjoying the “good the gods had provided,” we scrambled photographed - before climbing up to “Surprise Valley.” down the mountain, and under the shade of the cotton- Afterwards, they continued the rest of the way down to woods enjoyed the refreshment of sleep and food. Kanab Creek for camp. “The valley, or mountain-basin, as it really is, is a But what’s this about “Surprise Valley?” Today that’s half-mile wide and two miles long. It is the outlet of a a long hike to be doing on a nearly empty stomach, especial- gulch, and is surrounded by mountains three thousand feet ly on an afternoon where you’re also boating all the way high. The summits of these mountains are covered with from Tapeats Creek to Kanab Creek. To find out, I looked in eternal snows, and greatly resemble the glaciers as seen Dellenbaugh’s other book, “The Romance of the Colorado from the valley of Chamouni. On the river-side a wall of River,” thinking I might find more details. I didn’t, but I did slate and sandstone rises to the height of eight hundred find one of E. O. Beaman’s photographs, a picture of what feet, and through this a mountain-stream has cut a narrow we call “Deer Creek Falls.” The caption reads: “The Outlet channel or crevice, from which a lateral crevice cuts of the Creek in Surprise Valley, near the Mouth of Kanab through to the river - a distance of three hundred yards - Canyon, Grand Canyon.” from which there is a beautiful view of the Colorado. The Could if be that Beaman’s “Surprise Valley” was real- stream, running through the lower crevice, drops down in ly the Deer Creek Valley? After all, someone hiking upstream gradual cascades until it makes the final plunge, where it is wouldn’t see any valley from river level, and if they climbed precipitated into the river in a sheet five feet wide by a fall up past Deer Creek Narrows they’d probably be surprised of one hundred feet drop. Because of its serpentine course, when they looked down into Deer Creek Valley. I was unable to take a picture giving the entire crevice, and In 1874, Beaman published an article about his was obliged to content myself with taking views at differ- adventures on Powell’s second expedition, and explorations ent points. Walking about on projecting ledges, in many in and around the area of the Grand Canyon, including his places so narrow as scarcely to afford foothold, with yawn- visit to the mouth of Kanab Creek during the “gold rush.” ing chasms beneath us, and the muffled sounds of water After describing his trip down Kanab Creek to the Colorado running far below confusing the ear, gave photographing a River, he wrote: charm unknown to the studios; and, while pursuing our “The day after our arrival I visited a mining camp, perilous way, a curious archaeological observation was of which one John Riley was chief... Expecting to find them made. In many places the ledge seemed to be formed artifi- hard at work ‘panning out,’ we were somewhat surprised to cially of stone and mortar, and in one place the impress of find only one person in camp, Riley having gone up the river a beautiful feminine hand graced the wall. This hand was a week previously with a small rocker to work a newly-dis- like a dark blood-stain in color, and was neither carved nor covered flat, and the others of the company being absent on laid on with any material the chemicals would act on. a “prospecting trip.” Near the place was a water-fall of three Could it be that this was the mausoleum of some long- hundred feet into the river from a lateral gulch called Marble extinct race, and this hand so symmetrical and womanly Canyon. reached out from the eternal rocks to tell the tale of its “As the scenery was reported fine, I resolved to visit ossification? Just where two stately cotton-woods flung it; and so, shouldering my camera, I started, with one assis- tricksy shadows over a noisy little cascade, we paused to tant, for a ten-mile climb over limestone and marble weave fancies weird and strange around the evidences of bowlders. I found the cataract fully equal to the description generations unknown, who ‘rolled down the ringing given of it. The walls rise perpendicularly five hundred feet, grooves of time,’ and left nothing to tell their story. and the fall is unbroken and magnificent. “Our provision now running low, it became neces- “....We had now advanced one mile up the river sary to get back to the Kanab-Cañon as expeditiously as from the Buckskin Cascade, as I named the fall, but, before possible, and, rather than climb the rocks, we determined retracing our steps, we determined to go on over the shelf, to sail down the Colorado on a raft. Having constructed a and, if possible, explore a strange fissure we had observed in float, it was found not sufficiently large to carry two; and the wall of the cañon. Expecting to find a narrow gorge or my companion, preferring the overland route to the water, chasm, what was our surprise and wonder at suddenly started on foot, leaving me to solitary navigation. In three emerging into a lovely valley, flower decked and verdant! In minutes after pushing off, I had run a terrific rapid, and in its centre stood a grove of young cotton-wood trees, through less than an hour reached camp, a distance of twelve miles. which flowed a limpid stream of water, fed by a dozen “In company with Mr. Samuel Rudd, I again springs gushing from the foot of the mountain. Almost climbed over the cliffs into Surprise Valley. After remaining involuntarily we named this Surprise Valley, although for two days in the valley, during which time I was busy paradise it seemed to our rock-wearied eyes. Bent upon with the camera, we returned to the deserted rendevous at Winter 2002 / 2003 page twenty three

Kanab Cañon ... “ He concludes his account by mentioning that he reached Kanab again on the 10th of May, 1872. Powell’s 2nd river trip didn’t leave Lees Ferry until mid-August, so there was plenty of time to find out all the details of Beaman’s adventure, and look at his pictures. I’ve quoted at length from Beaman’s description, because - in addition to the wonderful prose and quaint spelling - he managed to answer my questions and throw in some other interesting information besides. His description of “Surprise Valley” is unmistakable, it’s what is known as “Deer Creek Valley” today. So it was the men of Powell’s second expedition who were the first to climb up there from the river, on September 7th, 1872. They had heard about it from E. O. Beaman, who in turn had learned about it from the would-be gold miners. While the miners may have wasted thousands of dollars “to no purpose,” a few of them must have gone home with unforgettable memo- ries of Deer Creek. But, that’s not all. At the end of the second Powell expedition, the water in the Grand Canyon was run- ning high enough to row 300 yards up Kanab Creek to camp. The only time I’ve done anything like that, it was running 50,000 or 60,000 cfs. Another interesting item: at this point on the 2nd trip, they were reduced to eating meals of “bread and coffee” - not much different than the first trip. KANAB CREEK, FROM APPLETON’S JOURNAL And how about this: in late April, or early May, in 1872, the snow covered cliffs above Deer Creek Valley resembled a scene in the French Alps! Even allowing for some artistic elaboration, that’s remarkable. I’ve been to Deer Creek in early May each year for a quarter of a cen- tury, and never have seen anything to match that. Global Warming today, perhaps? Or just a late, bad, winter in 1872? Drifter Smith y page twenty four THE Waiting List A Love Story~Slip Slidin’Aw a y he Grand Canyon is in Arizona.* Arizona is mostly desert and as a rule deserts always needs Train. No matter how much the earth needs the rain, no canyoneer really wants it to “rain on their parade”—everyone else’s yes, but theirs—no, neither a practical or realistic attitude. Rain and drizzle had been falling, on and off all day, the folks are frumpy and wet. The skies were filled with rumbling dark clouds punctuated by occasional patches of promising blue. My friends from Maine call those bright blue gaps “sucker holes”— a tease of blue promising an end to a dreary summer day. The chorus line sings: With just a glance up river we realize that our “Look, up in the sky—it’s— blue!” pastoral pumping repast is about to change. Drifting “The storm’s gonna break—it’s about time.” down-river comes another kind of storm—two motor “Yea sun—it’s so nice I’m gonna’ take these clothes off.” trips approach—four large tour head towards the tiny Promises go unfulfilled. The clouds close back up and Deer Creek harbor at the same time. It’s a solitude bust- the sprinkles turn into torrents, the torrents turn into hail. The ing invasion of usually friendly, cheerful, all encompass- clothes go back on. With a change of tune, the grumbling banter ing travelers—maybe seventy folks with their guides begins: who are going to tie up right next to you. “Damn it’s cold, what the hell is this?” “I’m going—anyone want to move on down “Call the Park Service!” river with me to wait for the others and pump water.” “It’s July, it’s supposed to be hot, not like this” “Sure.” The gathering of hoses and gear begins. More promises. A few rays of sun poke through the As we shove off, splattering rain drops assail gloomy sky, another patch of blue opens up and the chorus line both the arrivals and departures. starts their hopeful refrain all over again. Several people pile onto two of our boats and Suckers, sucker holes. we shove off for Ponchos Kitchen—a nice camping Such was one day for our river trip. Part of our small spot, with overhanging shelter to wait out the resuming flotilla of boats was stationed at Tapeats Creek, where some of storm while waiting for our companions. our folks were hiking up that splendid canyon in search of the Back out come the water pump, empty con- legendary Thunder River, they’d rejoin us later. The rest of us tainers, buckets, and a relaxed attitude. The pumping hung out at Deer Creek, either hiking or preparing to pump begins. Pump, pump, pump—fill, fill, fill. So it goes, water needed replenish our depleted water supply. until all the jugs are full. On hot summer days in the Grand Canyon plenty of safe drinking water is essential for trip health—heat exhaustion is “Big Horn!” no fun for anyone. Trips move down river inhaling their limited Everyone turned to look, and sure enough just water supplies. As there is only one water spigot in 224 miles, it’s across the river, perched on the edge of a cliff were two, often necessary to pump filtered water to fill empty containers. a mature ram and a much younger ewe. During summer storms the Colorado becomes the “color red-o”- Summer sightings along Southwestern rivers are —redenned by suspended red sediment. That sediment can turn fairly common, but still spotting a Big Horn in the an already tedious task into drudgery. So, finding reliable sources Grand Canyon is a treat. The Big Horns don’t appear to of clear water to replenish depleted supplies is critical. Deer be to phased by the sporadic river traffic drifting by. Creek is one of those places. Why should they be concerned in this time of eco-con- The pumping process has become a river ritual. A job scious harmony? Canyon Big Horns have been unhunt- meant for the patient. Not to say that is not a reward. Sitting ed by humans for generations. With their heads down, out on a boat—maybe with a can of beer at your side, maybe a munching Bermuda grass, the Canyons largest natives little smoke and surrounded by hoses dangling in the buckets of seem to be always striking the perfect photo pose for clear water gathered from the creek, empty containers, lids, thrilled river runners. Kodak shots, never gun shots. spouts and sponges amidst the towering cliffs can be a sublime pleasure. There’s plenty to look at and little to think about. River This old guy possessed a powerful body, neck Zen. and head, crowned by a nearly full curl rack. Just below him stood another much smaller sheep, with a nearly Winter 2002 / 2003 page twenty five

IS IT TIME TO GO? fresh sprout of spikes. At first it appeared the senior was Clouds drifted by, while the occasional sucker holes gently herding the younger about in what appeared to be failed in their promise. For more than hour the sheep love fatherly concern for his young, sort of a hiking training dance continued like an act from the nature gods own class. Romeo and Juliet. Leaping from rock to ledge, ledge to At second glance what was going on across river rock, pirouetting up and down, a mountain side lovers bal- revealed itself to be carnal courtship. The big guy was let. getting after that little girl. True to his goat heritage, this fel- Transfixed, we watched while continuing our low was horny and persistent. Patiently with a nudge of his pumping. head this way or that, he moved the comely ewe closer. “Pump, pump, pump.” With his each step, she took another away. As she parried, he’d take another, intruding his stately body, blocking her Richard “Ricardo” Martin escape route. What a Romeo. y As persistent as he was, she was reluctant.Once cornered, he’d maneuver himself into place behind her. Lifting his huge body into the air on his hind legs and *In April of 1999, the US Post Office seemed to dispute begin to mount, his front legs coming down upon her back, Arizona”s location when it issued at 60 cent stamp in a thrusts foiled as she squirted away with quick, dainty steps. series honoring natural wonders, illustrated with a painting He says “yes.” She says “no.” of the Canyon and the caption “Grand Canyon, Colorado” Each thwarted attempt was followed by and oddly across the bottom of it. Confusion abounded. human seeming moment. Mr. Big Horn would sidle up to his “sweetie,” whence he would delicately lay his huge head ** My hunting friends tell me that there is a word for this across the nape of her neck, rubbing it too and fro, as if to behavioral aspect of the Big Horn mating ritual— say “aw, come on baby—it’s me—the one who loves you.” “flehman.” At mid-stroke, he’d curl his upper lip to reveal it’s black underside and his white teeth. Through his every stroke, his dark glazed eyes gazing skyward, leaving behind his unique scent. Passion, frustration and patience rolled into one ten- der moment of Big Horn love making.** page twenty six THE Waiting List Private Trip Journals A RIVER ODYSSEY

t’s not like I had never paddled a river before—in fact I have spent countless hours engaged in Irapids and pristine wilderness adventures in my kayak and as a paddling passenger in my good friend Jane’s boat , so the thought of rowing a boat in the Grand Canyon, though intimidating, was not formidable. I chose to do so ! Here’s how it all came about. Having waited 11 years for the private permit, we were all ready to make the trip. I had planned on bringing my kayak and strapping it on a boat if I freaked out. Well—needless to say, an eye opening trip down the Green River in Utah took me for a near deadly swim and sent my kayak 5 miles down the river without me. I got the message! Not good enough to kayak that big water—no way Jose! So—hey, I’m 45 years old. I need to do something really challenging and exciting with my mid life. And—we needed an extra boatman to carry gear—I volunteered! n Thursday August 22, 2002, I met MOVE.” I did! And believe me—see- OKatie for the first time. She was a “pull baby pull ing whats ahead is a far better way to sleek 16 foot Achilles non-bailer with baby, run the rapids than hoping you get feathering oar locks and a narrow sweet thru with your back to it! smile. I took to her instantly. We loaded pull baby!” Each day’s success brought more all the boats with 15 days worth of boun- I go— confidence as I mentally prepared for ty and set forth on what would prove to its too late, Crystal—but first we had to get be the adventure of my lifetime. “we are f d!” through House Rock! Lets scout it For those who have rowed the * * * * * shall we!!!! God I hate scouting—first of canyon before, you know our friend Badger “begins the all it makes my face and gums go completely white and then Beguine!” As I entered the set up for it, my heart was I pee my pants! I hate peeing my Pants—ha! House Rock’s pounding in my ears, my hands were soaked with sweat and lateral wave caught me and threw me out of the boat. Cindy every disaster movie I’ve ever seen had nothing compared to got us to the Eddy and all was well. “OK, I’m wet, I sur- what would surely be my demise. But—I made it—side- vived. No one was hurt—cool—C’MON CRYSTAL” ways—ha!, but I made it. Actually, Hance was scarier than Crystal for me. Knowing full well what was yet to come because I But let me tell you about my run. I was boat #4 in the had done this trip commercially 11 years before, my order. My best friend and seasoned river runner Jane was stomach was now in total turmoil. Why had I said I would 2nd boat. do this—I can’t do this!—Well—as you know, you can’t row We watched her enter the rapid and get sucked into upstream so—I was stuck. No one else could row the boat. the hole and flip. Cindy says. “Jane flipped. Forget about It had to be me. The first change that would have to be it—we’re next! Go—” made was in passengers. I was carrying 2 people and I had I entered far to the right and went over a pour over too much weight for my ability. rock , lost my oar and thought we were curtains. Instead, I I asked my friend Cindy, who was with me 11 years grabbed the oar and the strength of Hercules flew into my earlier as wel, to be my “bailerina!” She said ok. From that arms as I pulled so hard to the right I got grass stains on the point on we were the greatest river team to ever share a bow of the boat! A Flawless run!!!! YES! Its indescribable boat. Cindy would help me stay in the right places all the the elation, the relief, the joy of making the right choice. time since all my strength was pulling and I never knew Kind of like life—you can do it. where I was going—ha! Ricardo and Roger told me I had At this point I must kudo my pal Cindy again. She to learn to push. “You will HAVE to learn to MAKE THE is so boat savvy and such a positive person that to screw up Winter 2002 / 2003 page twenty seven with her in your boat. You have to be a screw up in the first ”No?”—It was a ghost!” place. She was my total cheerleader and coach. We were We scout the run. True to the ghosts exhortation, floating along and there is this giant rock in the center of the run’s on the right. There is a smooth tongue entering the river—called Nixon Rock! Now you don’t want to hit like a needle between the ledge rock on the left and a this rock. It will pin you for sure. Roger and Leigh were “Maytager” on the right. The way to go was to touch the ahead and had made the run and I found myself being bow of your boat on the right edge of the ledge hole then pushed toward the rock faster than I could adjust to— turn the bow down stream, push and ride. Well—I pulled Cindy begins yelling—”pull baby pull baby, pull baby!” I go one too many strokes away from the ledge hole and caught — its too late, “we are f*****d!” And we ended up running the maytag. Flipped the boat in a perfect 10 and swam the this thing as pretty as you could have asked for in a docu- entire rapid. My biggest concern was having killed Cindy mentary. because she didn’t answer my screams. Fortunately, our Needless to say Roger and Leigh thought by kayaker phenom, George Fuller, had rescued her and took Cindys, “pull baby” rhetoric that we were in serious trouble her to shore on river left. Once I knew she was fine. It was and when we finished they were both doubled over in just another day in the park—ha! We did lose a rocket box hillarious laughter—— so, ha! full of coffee , which was later found. How good can it be! What a day—— every day had its emotional roller Well my friends. It was that good. coaster ride and every day had its exhilaration. Now its time for LAVA! n conclusion. My first ever rowing experience turned out As superstition has it, for good luck we touched the Ito be the greatest adventure of my lifetime, an empower- big rock, Vulcan’s Anvil, a mile or so above the rapid. Then ing saga that will guide my future in the greatest show on as we approached the scout both my boat and Rogers all earth— Grand Canyon! heard the same voice from no where—”go right.” Now I know why. I said “what did you say?” A true story by Keri Mills “I thought you said it,” Roger replied. y

GCPBA Hats and T Sh i rts are available now ! Politically Correct, River Smart, Virtually Very Cool (Cool -like you!) T's are $15 for short sleeve and $25 for long sleeve. We just got a new batch In stock every size from S to XXL Hats are $18 - One size fits everyone - one color, tan with blue lettering Bright red bumper stickers for a buck~they’ll fit any bumper or ammo box Visit Our Website: www.gcpba.org/goodies

THE Waiting List, is published quarterly by the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, Box 2133, Flagstaff, AZ 86003 - 2133. [email protected] The Board of the GCPBA: Richard Martin, President & Editor- Arizona / Tom Schiavone, Vice-President, Arizona / Willie Odem, Legal Eagle -Arizona / Marty Wilson - Pacific Northwest Coordinator - Oregon / Byron Hayes, Legal Coordinator - Arizona / Dave Yeamans, Science Coordinator -New Mexico / Bob Woodward, Goodies Fulfillment- Arizona / Bob Harris, Newswire Coordinator, Membership Coordinator - Kansas / R J Stephenson, Treasurer, Data Department - Kansas / Ken Kyler, “the DC Connection” -Webguru / Nancy Seamons, Secretary - Utah / Jason Robertson. Access Advisor - Washington, D.C. / Larry Lorusso - Massachusetts Nearly 900 General members in thirty-two states and five countries, and still growing! We welcome and encourage editorial contributions, stories, photos, river news, drawings, cartoons, letters, whatever, and for that we will pay nothing .. but .. we offer our eternal gratitude (we wish we could pay!). Editorial contributions and letters are expressions of the author’s opinion, which may or may not reflect the opinion of the GCPBA. Made on a speedy, cool, G4 Mac. Send editorial contributions to: [email protected] or: [email protected] or Editor, GCPBA, Box 43, Jerome, AZ 86331 GCPBA is a 501c3 Corporation. Contributions are tax deductible so give us all your money .. now! Hey! Do it! For advertising information, write: [email protected] All contents ©2003, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association unless otherwise noted. page twenty eight THE Waiting List Membership Survey GCPBA Members Prioritize Goals

ccess is the runaway number one priority of GCPBA members who made that clear in a Arecent survey. Protection of the Colorado and wilderness values are also clearly on their minds. Preliminary results of the mid-October survey were examined at the November, 2002 GCPBA Board and Member annual meetings, held in Denver. Final results of the survey are now in. Over 30% of GCPBA members responded to the survey. Many took the opportunity to not only rank questions and priorities, but to give com- ments and advice to the GCPBA Board. The surveys received after the GCPBA Annual Meeting reinforced what the earlier responses were saying. Survey results came from all over the country. The last question on the survey allowed members to prioritize nine statements. Each statement represented a possible goal or objective for GCPBA. “Access for private boaters to the Grand Canyon” was ranked as the highest priority by 62% of the respondents. Another 21.6% ranked “Protection of the Colorado River” or “Calling for wilderness values along the river in the Grand Canyon” or “Tactical opposition to motors in Grand Canyon” as their number one. Coming in third was “Represent voice of private boaters to public” with 15.7% of the number one priority rankings. When the whole list of prioritizations for each survey was tabulated, “Access” remained the clear number Members gave GCPBA high marks on each of the one choice by members. Almost 92% rated access to be one three statements. They were: of the top three GCPBA priorities. Access was followed Question 1: “Overall, the GCPBA as an organization repre - again by the environmental grouping of priorities. When sents the private boater effectively.” Average score was 4.57 reviewing top three responses, “Protection” attracted 53.1% Question 2: “I agree with the 50/50 allocation plan proposed of top responses, “Wilderness values” got 34.4% and by the GCPBA.” Average score was 4.23 “Opposition to motors” found 19.2%. “Represent Voice of Private Boaters to Public” held Question 3: I see that the activities of the GCPBA relate solid ground in the top three rankings too as 65.7% of directly to accomplishing GCPBA’s purpose and mission.” those surveyed rated it high. Average score was 4.71. At the low end of the rankings, “Initiating and IN T E R P R E TATI O N O F T H E NU M B E R S building more fund-raising to further mission of GCPBA” barely nudged out “Tactical opposition to motors in Grand he high ratings on Questions 1 and 3 indicate that Canyon” for the lowest rated goals. Tmembers feel that GCPBA does a good job representing Statements falling into the middle of the pack them and that GCPBA is working towards the goals of the included, “Voice for the Colorado River Corridor” and organization. The priority rankings in Question 4 make “Engaging in service projects such as river cleanups, those goals clear. vegetation removal, etc.” Support for GCPBA’s 50/50 allocation plan in Question 2 is more interesting. Over 80% of the respon- ME M B E R S GI V E OR G A N I Z ATI O N HI G H MA R K S dents support the plan with a ranking of 4 or 5. Comments urvey questions one through three allowed members to received with that question indicate members fall into four Srate how GCPBA was doing in three areas. It also pro- categories with regard to the plan. They either like it, hate vided the opportunity for written comments. Members it, want private and commercial users waiting in the same scored GCPBA 1 to 5 on each statement, 5 being the top line, or see it as a compromise of some sort. score. The comments became a source of reading material Differing opinions on the best allocation plan for board members during breaks and lunches as they should not be a surprise to anyone. Put 100 boaters in the attended the two day board retreat prior to the Annual same room and you probably get 100 different allocation Membership Meeting. Each board member took the oppor- plans. The important thing to note about the 50/50 plan is tunity to get a taste of how members felt about the organi- that is has wide spread support. The 50/50 plan was not zation. designed to be the perfect allocation plan on the perfect Winter 2002 / 2003 page twenty nine river in the perfect world. It was designed to be the best pos- protects the ‘wilderness quality experience.’” Additionally, sible plan for the Colorado River in a not-so-perfect world 79% of respondents “would compromise on motors if the that is subject to a number of constraints and pressures. number of private launches increases.” The largest dissidence from the 50/50 is apparent Raising funds and service projects did not receive high prior- by comments to Question 2 and on other parts of the sur- itizations, but that was to be expected. Fund raising is never vey too. Many respondents feel that everyone wishing to anyone’s favorite, and perhaps more of a necessary evil when boat the river, private or commercial, should wait in the pursued. Service projects do have many positives, such as same line for their turn on the river. good PR, fun and networking for members, and good for It should be no surprise that access is the number the environment. However, in an advocacy-based organiza- one priority for members of GCPBA. The organization tion, they did not garner a top priority. makes it clear that fair access is its number one priority. Members find GCPBA’s role as a voice for the pri- Members have vate boater to be other concerns important. That that are important was a goal of too. They should GCPBA when it not be forgotten. was originally Environmental formed in 1996. values are highly According to held by most GCPBA members. In President Question 4, three Richard Martin, of the priorities “These survey encompassed responses are those values. important. They Grouped together, will help to guide they clearly state the board in the that these values coming years. are important to We’ll continue private boaters. work towards “Protection of the our goal: The Colorado River” ability for all to was the highest obtain, on an ranked of the equal and timely basis, an opportunity to experience a float three. “Calling for wilderness values … ” Received consis- trip through the Grand Canyon while protecting the tent support in the top rankings. “Tactical opposition to resource.” motors in the Grand Canyon,” while part of the environ- mental suite, received weaker support in the high rankings RJ Stephenson and received more of the lowest rankings than any goal besides “Other.” AB O U T T H E SU R V E Y: WH AT DI D YO U HAV E T O SA Y? The low support for “no motors” seems to say that GCPBA t’s hard to design the perfect survey. The more answers members do not view the motor issue as an important you seek to find, the more difficult the task becomes. GCPBA priority. When disregarding the “Other” priority, I Our survey? Definitely not perfect. But it did give the Board 74% of respondents ranked opposition to motors in the Members who work for you a good idea of how you feel lower half of their priorities, over 42% ranked it as their about what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. It’s informa- lowest. tion that they need to represent you. Interestingly, GCPBA’s results seem to be in step Now, here’s some nuts and bolts on how we han- with the results of a larger survey conducted in August 2002 dled tabulations. In questions one, two and three, respon- by American Whitewater. In that survey, 87% of respon- dents were asked to rate statements on a scale of 5 being dents believe that motors “diminish the wilderness character best to 1 being worst. On question four, respondents were of the river,” but 58% of those same respondents would asked to rate priorities of GCPBA 1 to 9, 1 being the “agree to future use of cleaner, quieter motors.” highest and 9 being the lowest. Seems simple, right? Furthermore, “70% would compromise in a way that also page thirty THE Waiting List

On question four, it became obvious that respon- LET’S PLAAY—FAAMLEE FEUD! dents were using the “Other” The audience applause dies down, the game show music fades, the camera lights come priority as another comment on and Richard Martin, er, ahh, Richard Dawson walks up to you and says, “We’re field, similar to the first three back, darling,” gives you a big smile and a smooch, “Let’s play Family Feud!!! We asked questions. About 20% of the GCPBA members to name their top priorities. The top three answers are on the respondents did that and board. For the game, the championship, and a three-week float trip down the Colorado, most of surveys with com- name them. Will you play or pass? ments in that field had that priority ranked as 9, the low- “Play Bob, play,” urge your teammates Nancy, Larry, Dave and Willie. est. Also, on 88% of all sur- “OK Richard, we’ll play.” The audience applauds, they like taking chances. veys “Other” ranked a 9. We Dave takes the first guess. His chances are good as all the priorities are there to therefore decided to remove choose from. “Access,” he blurts. “Good answer, good answer,” respond his teammates. the “Other” category from “Let’s see what the members think,” says Richard. “Access! The number one pri- the final tabulations. When ority! Sixty-one percent of the members rank access as the most important issue!!” The “Other” was ranked higher audience claps louder and the team bounces up and down in excitement. than 9, all priorities ranked Richard moves down the line to Nancy. Big smooch. Nancy looks a little green. below it were move up one “Nancy, darling, what else do the GCPBA members think is important?” Nancy looks rank, except those that were around at her team, the audience yells encouragement and somebody screams, “No left blank. motors, no motors.” Richard turns to the audience and admonishes them, “No help, Many respondents did not now. All right Nancy, we need an answer.” Nancy looks confident and says, “River pro- rank all priorities, but chose tection and wilderness values.” “Are you sure,” questions Richard. “Yes, yes, I’m very to leave some un-ranked. We sure,” says Nancy. Richard turns and points to the game board. “Survey says.” The box decided that when a priority rolls over and Nancy is correct as 20% of the GCPBA members agree. The crowd was un-ranked, that it was applauds wildly and the team is flush with excitement. not important to the respon- Richard moves down to Dave, who shakes his hand quickly to avoid a big kiss. dent and should be given the “OK Dave, there’s one answer left on the board. If you get it right, you’ll win access for lowest ranking. Since all private boaters. You’ve got 20 seconds to confer with your team. Dave huddles with “Other” is removed from the the team and everyone starts throwing ideas into the mix. The audience yells advice and final tabulations, the blank works itself to a fever pitch. Larry and Bob are shouting ideas to Dave, “Service projects, priorities were assigned an 8 fund-raising, voice for the river corridor.” “No, no,” Willie cries, “Wait, I’m having an rank, the lowest. So, their epiphany. It’s ‘we represent the voice of private boaters.’ I’m sure, I’m sure.” may be multiple rankings of Richard waves his arms and the audience goes silent. He turns to Dave, “Time’s 8 on some surveys. When up. I need an answer.” Dave takes a deep breath and says, “Represent voice of private presenting the survey results boater to public.” “Good answer, good answer,” chants the team. The audience in percentages, this means applauds, they like it too. Richard spins to the big game board, swings his arm upward, that 140.4% of the surveys points and sings, “Survey says ...” The third box rolls over, “Represent voice of private had a ranking of 8 on them. boaters to public,” and the private boater team has all three answers correct. The audi- Additionally, a very few ence goes wild, theme music starts play, Jay, the announcer, starts his voice over of the respondents ranked two Grand Canyon footage that’s now on everyone’s TV. Richard starts looking for more items equally. As a result, the people to kiss. The private boater team is dancing in front of the big game board. 1, 2 and 3 ranks have They’re going to the Grand Canyon, they’re going to the Grand Canyon. Jay is saying, %100.6, 101.2% and “... and play, Family Feud!!!” 101.2% totals on them respectively. Well, maybe. QUESTION 1: Overall, the GCPBA as an organization On a few surveys (less than five), the rank on ques- represents the private boater effectively. tions one, two or three was left blank. When calculating the COMMENTS: If your response is less than “5” what keeps percentages, we did not include the blank ones. us from having all oars in the water? Some rankings on questions one, two or three read “2-3” or “3 or 4” or “4/5”. In those cases we averaged the 5 — Yes, you’ve been working with the Park Service in the two numbers. courts for our interests. Winter 2002 / 2003 page thirty one

4 — We attempt to represent our membership. and if the new management plan is unveiled. 5 — I’ve been psyched to send GCPBA a little $ since I 3 – I was not informed of the date for the CRMP meeting in discovered it two years ago. The stuff I complain about S.L.C. Ut. As I was told that I would be by GCPBA, and when I do a trip, you guys are doing something about! missed the meeting. 5 — You do great job! You are the voice – who else? 4 – We are not “private boaters.” We have merely traveled 4 — Why is The Waiting List so erratic on delivery? the ribbon of light some of them. When it comes to shoving off the banks @ Lee’s, I do not stand w/some. 3 — MONEY – you can’t afford the lawyers, politicians, and publicity that the commercial companies can. 4 – There’s always room for improvement. 2-3 — Allocation issues would largely be resolved if motors 3 – Representation is difficult to gauge, given there has not were removed from the Grand Canyon. GCPBA does been a change in current allocation system. not represent us effectively if it gives in on this issue. 5 – Doing a great job 4 — Uneven leadership, although it seems to be stabilizing. 4 – I suspect lack of sufficient funds to employ staff to carry 5 — Recognizing that GCPBA efforts relate only to the the standard 24/7. GRAND CANYON. Insofar as other rivers, GCPBA is 4 – I think you have done an excellent job of promoting our not effective, but other rivers are not covered by their interests. In order to “represent” us, you need to have mandate. more of our input (as this survey seeks to do). 2.5 — We represent the general group well, but most 4 – Refusal to come out in favor of wilderness, general PRIVATE BOATERS don’t even know about the i.e. no motors problem. So our group hasn’t done well to let PRIVATE 4 – We need more members and money BOATERS, all of ‘em, know there’s a problem. 3 – Need to increase membership 1 — Your agenda is too focused on just getting rid of motors and commercial trips, not resource protection! 3 – Just joined so I do not know much about the organization. Good job on the lawsuit against NPS 4 – Not a criticism, but nothing is perfect. regard their river management plan. 3 – Access – Access – Access ! Plenty of organizations for 5 – Yes on GRAND CANYON access issues. environment and wilderness, that’s OK, but who’s getting access for us? 5 – Thanks for getting CRMP going again. 5 – I joined to support the great job I saw you doing. 4 – Don’t know, I’m just a tough grader. 4 – GCPBA needs a few kayakers on the Board to help 4 – Need to enlarge our view to other western rivers. balance the views of rafters. 2 – Represents some perspectives, but not all – too slanted 3 – Which private boater – the one who is a member of toward 1 extreme end of spectrum and GCPBA and is active; the inactive member; the non- blatantly anti-motor member of GCPBA? QUESTION 2: I agree with the 50/50 allocation plan pro - 4 – Haven’t been following you close enough to know – but posed by GCPBA. very happy to GCPBA in our corner (http://www.gcpba.org/access.theplan.php3) 5 – As well as can possibly be expected given the diversity of COMMENTS private boaters. 5 – Yes! Keep at least 50/50 4-5 – Getting better focused on access. 3 – Though a 50/50 allocation plan would be a significant 4 – Hope so, hard to tell from Idaho. Appreciate info. improvement over the current allocation plan, I would like a variable allocation plan that would adjust so 4-5 – Stronger alliances with other like-minded “equal everyone who wants to do the Grand has a similar wait, access” and environmental groups. be it private or commercial. 5 – Happy you’re here! 3 – Not sure I completely understand it. For example, you 4 – Dissension: Wilderness & Motors cloud the access issue. refer to guaranteeing 8000 launches in 16 months for Accentuate the areas of agreement w/the NPS & Guide existing wait list people. Huh? Also, the 25% rule Companies. (original registrants that must go) seems arbitrary & 4 – Its effectiveness is yet to be proven. We shall see when problematic. Why not make it very simple & say anyone page thirty two THE Waiting List

who wants to go down the river must wait for a permit 2 — I think private boaters should have a greater than 50% or be invited by a permittee or their agent, and let share. Ideally the private vs. commercial wait would participants decide whether to go private or commercial. be equal. 4 – Good starting position, but be willing to compromise 2 — I recognize it as a compromise, fairly good. BUT – and negotiate within the realms of reasonableness. We will everyone should have to wait in the same line, privates be ineffective if we are considered extreme or and commercials. unreasonable and loose more than we gain. 5 – It seems realistic 5 – The best ideas published to date. 2 – Agree with the “50/50” concept. I disagree with the 5 – Private boaters have rights! structure of your plan in a key respect! It eliminates the 5 – It’s big but readable. Thanks for all the hard work by opportunities for spontaneity present in the everyone over the years. I’ve done 5 private GRAND existing system. CANYON trips since ’88, 2 as trip leader. This plan 4 – Best you can hope for seems to address my conflicts with the current system. 6 – I agree with the 50/50 allocation plan, but not as Having been on 3 of 5 trips that we “cancellations” I proposed by GCPBA interpret the 50/50 plan as a partial de juris of an existing defacto practice w/many more +’s. 4 – I’d like to see better – but I think the plan is a realistic goal to fight for Keep up the good work 4 – 50/50 only as a place to start. It needs to be adjustable 5 – Sort of … is the ration between public and private according to demand. A reservation system for all users is demand so evenly divided? preferable. 4 – It’s OK but I’d rather see all people interested in going 5 – Including repeat usage. If privates repeat us is down the river, commercial and private, in one line restricted, commercial customer repeat use should be 1 – 60/40 would be fine equally restricted. 5 – to be reassessed after a few years & further tweaked so 4 – Seems too complicated to easily understood for most that private & commercial have equal wait time private boaters. Make it simpler? 5 – Best chance for private boaters in face of 1 – If it takes more than 5-8 years on the waiting list, the political/economic pressure from outfitters on NPS private allocation is too low. 2 – Only when there is an equal wait for all boaters, both 4 – Everyone standing in same line for access is better! private & commercial, and the demand is about 50/50 4 – 50/50 is the standard max allocation for commercial in 5 – Very well thought out and concise. We will be fortunate Idaho. Should swing more to private to make up for if 50/50 passes NPS, but I would not ask for any less. historic commercial bias, at least initially 4 – The online calendar is going to be difficult and will fill 5 – You guy and girls ROCK! up fast. Not fair to people without computers. I like the 4 – Depends on total allocation – I would not like to see 50/50 part, but feel we still need a waiting list or lottery more user days. Make them count guides on system for picking up cancellations. company trips. 1 – No. I want a study to see what the proportional demand 4 – It’s worth discussing and the GCPBA deserves credit for really is – while I support the need for increased private getting it on the table. use, I’m not convinced 50/50 is truly fair to all. 5 – It is also important to loosen the 1 trip allowance for 5 – ya! waiting list people. If paying customers can take unlimied 1 – Only fair way to eliminate wait list is to identify all numbers of trips, private boaters should be allowed 1 per participants on private trips and allow no duplication. year without losing their place on the list. Your system. Is aimed to get you on the river and 3 – Should emphasize private access rather than corporate commercials out of business —- interests. Private access should be first, then $$. 5 – equal slices of the pie… rational approach. 0 – Concessionaire oligopoly is illegal. 50/50 would be good 5 – seems fair for an interim measure, until lawsuits are settled. 5 – thank your for your work on this! 2 – I believe we should take a stronger stance for private Winter 2002 / 2003 page thirty three

boater allocation. From what I see on the listservers and 4 – Disagree with _ people must be identified at reservation hear from friends in Arizona and Utah, the NPS and time and _ of them must float. In a workable reservation GCROA are just going through the motions. system I would like to see more the “real names, real people.” Raise the percentages to _ & _. 5 – I think we should not tip our hand (as on the web site) that we expect to have to compromise. 5 – Yes. “The Plan” Yay to whoever wrote it! 4 – Unsure I agree with the 240 user day allotment - 5 – It is the most workable of all the alternatives. concerned that this could encourage boaters to rush 4 – It’s not ideal but it does seem like a realistic down the river. compromise. 4 – Should actually be one list. Choose method of trip after 4 – While more would be better, 50/50 is about all we can you get a permit. hope for. 2 – Demand should dictate allocation. 3 – The 50/50 allocation should be users, not user days. 5 – Other option is to have everyone apply for spot on list There are other ways to control user days. We need more to obtain a permit – then do private trip or take permit detailed suggestions of views. to outfitter. NO! Everyone should obtain their permit through the same 1 – While I am supportive of the goals of GCPBA, it is process. Then they can hire an outfitter if they want. unrealistic politically and unfair from the policy 5 – A common “waiting” or “enrollment” list would be standpoint to seek 50-50 allocation in user days. ideal – then let people choose to hire an outfitter, just a 5 – Good job! A lot of effort on your part! guide, just rent the equipment or do it all on their own – all members of the party should be “on the list”!! 2 – We should all be in the same line 2 – No to 4 months of motors – 6 is equitable. Disagree I agree w/this as a compromise position. How many are on with unlimited opportunities for permit holders – abuses the waiting list vis-à-vis the # of commercial passengers each system to favor those who could lead trips & have many year? Let’s start there. “friends.” Disagree w/elimination plan if current wait list 5 – I don’t think that the commercial demand is 50% of the is restricted to “specified” 2 month scheduling window. private. With a 50/50 plan, the privates will still wait 4 - The 50/50 is a place to start to see how the wait is relatively longer, but I have confidence in GCPBA reduced. The wait should be the same for private and greater knowledge about the issue and the politics, so I concessionaire. defer to you. QUESTION 3: I see that the activities of GCPBA relate 1 – Commercial passengers should be in same waiting list as directly to accomplishing GCPBA’s purpose and mission. (“The privates. ability for all to obtain, on an equal and timely basis, an 5 – Yes! Any comments from NPS or GCROA? opportunity to experience a float trip through the Grand 3 – 90/10 or fight! Canyon while protecting the resource.”) 4 – The balance allotment by demand on the News group COMMENTS looks promising to reduce the backlog. 5 – You’re doing great. 1 – Don’t settle for less the common pool. 3 – Seems like some activities, like Gila river updates and 2 – Not enough, not flexible, doesn’t reflect true demand. San Juan clean-up trips are outside mission (although still quite useful) 5 – I have been reading newsletter faithfully, but do not know what 50/50 is. If it is commercial/private, it 5 – May need more congressional presence. sounds right. GCNP should also count commercial staff 5 – The lawsuit is a good piece of work. Organized interest in that allocation. groups are the effective means for change. Institution of 2 – I support fair access for private. Vs commercial. That the GRAND CANYON Private Boater interest is now may not be the same as 50/50. That assumes _ of users well presented. Further goals can be undertaken. are private. & _ commercial.. What if 60% of the people 4 – Stay focused who want access are private. & 40% commercial.? Access 5 – Consider expanding activities to include other rivers in should be determined by demand for private & demand the West. Possible name change: West Rivers PBA for commercial.. Let the #’s fall where they may. page thirty four THE Waiting List

5 – You have done a great job give the resources at your continue to hammer them regarding motors. Motors disposal. should not be and issue, Access should! Yes – except must get rid of motors. 5 – Be assertive, yet accommodating 5 – However, we need to be even more visible to those 5 – This comment is for the priority list in Q4. Assigning a mak ing the access, etc., decisions. high priority to wilderness protection & relatively low to motor rigs may seem a contradiction. I personally object 4 – Doing a good job. to the motor rigs, but don’t think it is a position; The lawsuit success was an amazing and wonderful result of therefore not worth devoting resources. GCPBA activities. But, what is the next step? We need to 5 – More so in 2002 than in previous years. address this “next step” at the annual meeting. I believe public education on the issue. Most people don’t know there’s and 5 – Before GCPBA there was no coherent voice. Thanks!! 18+ year wait. 5 – Great job generally, you all. 4 – Privates are abusing the current wait list with too many 4 – Hey, 4’s pretty good! names that represent the same people – I see the same I’m seeing no educational outreach efforts by GCPBA to do people on multi trips each year. something about the abusive/hostile behavior of private boat- 5 – Seems like a while since I’ve received The Waiting List. ing groups down-river. 5 – I’m not against motors in the GRAND CANYON if it 4 – Attached is check for this – since the PS has leaked there can be used as a bargaining chip to get more private user will be no change, this is for the next law suit … days. QUESTION 4: For the following statements, please assign pri - 5 – Clean up floats are good too. Good PR – helps orities for GCPBA. (1 to highest, most compelling, 2 to next with access. and so on … ) 5 – Access is issue for GCPBA, not wilderness designation. COMMENTS: (unless otherwise noted, comments from the 4 – Not all relate directly to this – but other activities are “Other” priority where individual was allowed to fill in a important also (i.e., San Juan clean up!) non-listed priority) 5 – The Private Boater’s Coalition in Colorado supports your 7 – Keep access your focus – wilderness/motors, don’t go efforts 100% there! 5 – I want equal access to the river that the commercial 6 – (Tactical opposition to motors) Okay during motor boater has. season, perhaps limit the # of them) 3-4 – Again, hard to tell from Idaho. GCPBA provides us Join w/other organizations to build mandate for removal of more info than other sources, including GCNP. Glen Canyon Dam. “Protect the Resource.” 5 – Mostly “see” through prism of list group on e-mail & Keep fighting for (all priorities except Tactical Opposition to newsletter & website. Good Job! Motors and Voice for the Colorado River Corridor) 5 – You guys and girls Rock! Grand Canyon Rocks! 8 – (Tactical opposition to motors) Motors are better than more boats 4 – More focus 5 – Serving as instrument of communication between 4 — Good job. boaters 5 – Thanks for e-mail alerts – useful and informational. 2 – Represent private boaters to the UNPS Thanks again. Represent voice of private boaters to government 5 – Doing a good job 2 – Represent voice of private boaters to 5 – Kudos – the volunteerism is amazing government agencies 5 – I appreciate all the work & effort all the officers have put 1 – clearing house of info for privates in. Without you we would never be on the river. 7 – removal of Glen Canyon Dam 5 – I think that the board does a great job! Thank you for 7 – change range of services offered by commercials donating so much of your time and energy. 7 – rate opposition to motors and voice of Colorado River 4 – Don’t let the “motor” issue trip up our efforts to gain Corridor as low as possible access! Outfitters will continue to dig in their heels if we Winter 2002 / 2003 page thirty five

8 – exposing commercial interests Non starters: calling for wilderness values … tactical opposi- tion to motors… initiating and building more fund-raising… 5 – reservation system all users 4 – promote river courtesy between private/commercial Initiating and building more fund-raising to further mission of GCPBA—This is a means to an end & is an apple among 8 – (Tactical opposition to motors) I have a motor rig oranges. 4 – Fight pro-commercial bias in government. Equal access, 7 – support for Glen Canyon Dam removal not more access. 1 – Represent boaters with GCNP new rules/regs 9 – mobilize voters from around the country! 4 – Go to D.C. and lobby for these causes! 2 – to be extraordinary non-profit 5 – Glen Canyon Dam Removal (Tactical opposition to motors) I don’t care 3 – Keep private boaters informed 4 – increase membership – increase impact 9 – File another lawsuit if 4 year repeat plan adopted These are not within scope of GCPBA:Protection of Colorado River, Calling for wilderness values … tactical 2 – Lobby Congress for access opposition to motors … voice for the Colorado … The Scorpion and the Frog ne day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he want- Oed a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river. The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran up-river and then checked down-river, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back. Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream. “Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?” “Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly. “Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!” Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!” “This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!” “Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog. “Ahh...,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!” So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current. Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs. “You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?” The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back. “I could not help myself. Self destruction. Its my nature” said the Scorpion. Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river. page thirty six THE Waiting List River Book Reviews SAN JUAN RIVER GUIDE SAND ISLAND TO CLAY HILLS CROSSING f you boat the San Juan River in Southeastern Utah, you might want to pick up a copy of this Inew guidebook for your next trip, even if you already have one or more of the other guidebooks for the San Juan. I have a whole shelf full of guidebooks for various rivers, some of them pretty old and others fairly recent. Over the years, the quality and diversity of information in river guide books has generally improved. Now Lisa has captured the best ideas of the bunch, and incorporated them all into this fine guidebook which, overall, sets the bar a bit higher for anyone who want to write a great guidebook for a popular river. Anyone who has a few is towards the top of the page, an weathered and worn guidebooks arrangement that seems both natural won’t find any features they and (now that I’ve seen it) obvious. haven’t seen somewhere before. In addition to mileages, rapids, and But I can’t think of any other river topographic contours, features men- guide that shows as much atten- tioned in the text are keyed with ref- tion to detail; this is a beautiful, erences to the page numbers where as well as informative, book. you can read about them. There are six major sec- Another interesting feature is tions, as follows: San Juan River the amount of current and timely Overview...including river charac- information that goes beyond what teristics, weather, and threats to you would normally expect to find the S.J. Logistics and in a river guidebook. There are con- Safety...including access points, cise, but clear, sections on such top- permits, river safety, and river eti- ics as permits, the Animas-La Plata quette, Human History...prehis- Project, silt accumulation on the toric and historic Indian cultures, lower end, river safety and etiquette, Mormons, miners, river runners and the preservation of archaeologi- Geology...well illustrated sections cal resources. on the River, the Landscape, and It’s spiral bound, printed on the rocks, written by guide and waterproof paper, and sized to fit geologist Wayne Ranney: inform- into your ammo-box. ative, but written for the non-sci- If you forget to get a copy entist Biology...including biologi- before heading off to the river, you cal changes, and a brief but excel- might be able to find one at lent guide to plants and animals Recapture Lodge in Bluff; but I’d recommend getting and a River Map. one now, so you have time to read through it before you There’s a few things about Lisa’s book that make it real- get to the boat-ramp. You’ll be glad you have a copy on ly special: first of all, the quality of the illustrations. From the your next trip down the Juan. spectacular color photo on the cover (Chris Brown), to the reviewed by Drifter Smith exceptionally clear river map at the end, this is a book with looks to match the scenery. There’s also some fine historic pho- tos, aerial photography by Michael Collier, and a pair of match- by Lisa Kearsley ing photos taken 70 years apart, showing vegetation changes at Waterproof Edition, 2002 ($17.95 + $2 shipping from the mouth of Chinle Creek, courtesy of Bob Webb. The draw- Shiva Press) Published by Shiva Press ings illustrating pottery types, rock art styles, plants, animals, 5557 White Horse Drive and geology are simple, clear, and informative. And the river Flagstaff, AZ 86004 map starts at the end of the book, so the downstream direction www.shivapress.com Winter 2002 / 2003 page thirty seven Hell or High Water: James White’s Disputed Passage Through Grand Canyon 1867 by Eilean Adams, 2001, Logan Utah, Utah State University Press— reviewed by Drifter Smith hile you’d have to look far and wide to find an American who’s never heard of John Wesley WPowell, the name of James White is not likely to be recognized except perhaps by a relatively small number of river runners with an interest in the history of, and controversies about, the exploration of the Colorado River. However, in 1868 - the year before Powell launched his first river expedition at Green River Wyoming - the situation regarding their relative name recognition was reversed. Powell was an unknown college professor from Illinois, a disabled vet- eran of the Civil War with a compulsion to explore the still little known territory of the inter-mountain west in the company of occasional students and various mountain men he hired as guides to show him the sights. In contrast, James White was a bit of a celebrity, perhaps even a folk hero, the Most subsequent Adams’ account begins with a sixth topic of numerous conversations, and river runners grade history test question more than 60 the subject of newspaper articles, and agreed with Powell: years ago: “Who was the first white man to scientific reports. Attacked by Indians go through the Grand Canyon?” Her answer, while prospecting, he fled deeper into White’s alleged trip “James White,” rather than the expected unknown canyon country until he was impossible, “John Wesley Powell,” was marked incorrect. encountered a large river. Hastily con- so he was either Her teacher was not amused when she insist- structing a primitive raft from a couple ed that White - her grandfather - had been logs, he and a companion escaped down confused, through the Grand Canyon in 1867, two the river. A few days later, his compan- a liar, or both. years before Powell. ion drowned. On September 7, 1867, Eilean Adams never met her grandfather, White was pulled out of the Colorado River at Callville, and for years what she knew about him (and the controversy Nevada, which now lies under Lake Mead a few miles east of surrounding his adventure) was based on family stories and a Las Vegas. Entirely by accident, he had apparently floated copy of a slim volume by Thomas Dawson that had been from somewhere north of the San Juan River through the published by the United States Senate back in 1917. In 1959, Grand Canyon, and washed out the lower end, still (barely) however, river historian Dock Marston wrote to her mother alive enough to tell the tale. as part of his research into the James White story, which Over the course of the next century and a third, sparked her interest in finding out more, maybe even writing Powell’s reputation has waxed while White’s has waned. something about it eventually. As it turned out, Marston was Before Powell’s expedition, White’s story was widely publi- mainly interested in finding evidence to discredit White and cized and generally believed. But in August of 1869, viewing his tale. Hance Rapid at low water, Powell and his men no longer A decade later, she was contacted by Bob Euler, who thought there was any truth to White’s tale. Powell publicly was also interested in the story. Euler - unlike Marston and denounced White’s trip as a fiction within a few days of most earlier commentators - was curious enough to wonder getting off the river, believing that he (and no one else) what sense could be made of White’s story. Could White have deserved the credit for conquering the Colorado. Most sub- really have done what he said he did? sequent river runners agreed with Powell: White’s alleged Euler gathered the details of White’s account - mostly trip was impossible, so he was either confused, a liar, or written down by others, as White was essentially illiterate - both. In any event, there’s no way he could have survived a and tried to match them with the landscape, in the hope that trip down the Colorado, without supplies, on a raft made he could make sense of the handful of information that out of a couple cottonwood logs. White remembered from an adventure he barely survived, In Hell or High Water Eilean Adams tells several now a hundred years in the past. Eventually he came up with interwoven stories that revolve around the strange story of a theory about where White started down the river that seems James White, his moment of fame, and eventual descent to fit; but then Euler lost interest in the project. into relative obscurity. While I doubt Hell or High Water will In the end, Adams realized that if anyone was going be the last word on White and his adventure, it will be to hear about her grandfather and his adventure, she’d have to essential reading on the subject for years to come. tell the story herself. And it’s a good thing she did, as one of page thirty eight THE Waiting List the most interesting threads in this narrative has to do with he couldn’t even stand up. In A River Running West Donald how her grandfather was treated by earlier investigators - Wooster sums it up nicely: “If (White’s trip) seems improba- Stanton, in particular - who had their own agenda of estab- ble, all other explanations are more improbable still.” lishing that White could not have been the first through the So what, one might ask. Who cares? After all, it was Grand Canyon. Nobody else could have told that part of the Powell who first ran the river intentionally, and made scien- story. tific observations; later he went on to map the surrounding Intermixed with the personal story of the quest to canyon country, started the Bureau of Ethnology, and for find out about her grandfather and his encounter with histo- years was Director of the Geologic Survey. White dropped ry (and historians), Adams has included the texts of the vari- pretty much out of sight in Trinidad, Colorado and his early ous accounts of White’s story, published over a century ago. publicity notwithstanding, he ended up in relative obscurity. Aside from a letter that White wrote to his brother (obvious- One consequence of White’s “disputed passage ly with some difficulty), the accounts were written by people through the Grand Canyon” in 1867 is that the publicity who interviewed White and then wrote up his story for pub- about his adventure must have been a factor in Powell’s deci- lication. Overall, there’s not a lot of details about White’s sion to explore the Green and Colorado Rivers by boat. trip or what he saw. Considering that he was barely alive at In later years, Powell said that exploring the river the end of his adventure, this isn’t very surprising. was his idea; Jack Sumner claimed it was his. Neither both- But the few details are enough to make one wonder. ered to mention the widely published conclusion of Dr. For example, he described “a stream of water about as large Parry - who wrote up White’s story - as my body that was running through the solid rocks of the “The absence of any distinct cataract, or perpendi- canyon about 75 feet above my head, and the clinging moss cular falls, would seem to warrant the conclusion that in to the rocks made a beautiful sight. The beauty of it can not time of high water, by proper appliances in the way of boats, be described.” Vasey’s Paradise? Deer Creek Falls? ... or one good, resolute oarsmen, and provisions secured in water- good guess in the middle of a pack of lies? proof bags the same passage might be safely made, and the White also mentioned getting stuck for hours in an actual course of the river with its peculiar geological features eddy at - or near - the mouth of the Little Colorado. Eilean properly determined” (Transactions of the St. Louis Adams doesn’t make anything of this detail (she’s never been Academy of Natural Science, 1868). down the canyon), but other river runners who have been About the time White’s story first appeared in the there when the Little Colorado was in flood stage relative to papers, Powell was talking about an exploring trip by boat the mainstream have described the spot as an enormous down the Green River. Others had already ventured down whirlpool...coincidence, or another lucky lie, or first hand the Green, but they were fur trappers, not scientists. As a observation? young man, Powell had boated a lot on the Mississippi and Numerous rapids, hours spent in eddies, getting it’s tributaries. A scientific exploring expedition down the washed off the raft several times a day, a companion who Green made sense, and - judging from Dr. Parry’s conclu- drowned when he got separated from the raft...it seems to sions - extending it through the “Great Unknown” did too. me these are details that are more likely the impressions of White was mentioned in the journals kept by both someone who washed through the canyon by accident, Jack Sumner and George Bradley on the first Powell trip. rather than a mess of imaginative lies. In any event, nobody General Palmer mentioned (in a letter to his fiancee) that is questioning the fact that White was pulled out of the White said Powell had tried to contact him and invite him Colorado below Grand Canyon, starved, sunburnt, unable along on his exploring expedition, but that they’d failed to to stand up, barely alive - all in all, pretty much in the con- meet. In any event, Powell certainly knew about White’s dition you would expect if his story about floating through alleged trip, and took it to be a sign that a well planned and the big canyon was true. equipped expedition would be likely to meet with success. In trying to maintain his position as the second Did White beat Powell through the Grand Canyon? explorer of the Colorado River, Robert Brewster Stanton You’ll have to read Hell or High Water and draw your own argued that White had hiked overland from the San Juan - conclusions. several hundred miles across uncharted desert and plateau Much as I liked this book, I have a couple minor country - then managed to forget that experience while he complaints: (1) I found myself wishing it was longer, and floated something like 60 miles down the river from some- (2) I wish there was an index. Neither should stop you from where below Grand Wash Cliffs. That’s a hell of a hike, fol- getting a copy and enjoying it ... lowed by a pretty trivial float trip: if this were true, White would have still been tough as nails by the time he got to Drifter Smith Callville. But the folks who pulled him out of the river said y Winter 2002 / 2003 page thirty nine Hot Off the Internet ~ How Hot I s H o t ? ob wrote—The hottest day I've ever seen in Canyon country was several years ago when it hit B122 degrees in Phoenix. The floor of the GC is at a slightly higher elevation than Phoenix and I wouldn't expect in the shade temperatures to go above 120. They should be more like 115 degrees maximum most years (anyone have any data on this?). Now I'm not saying that is a bit too hot but I'm not certain anyone could even survive 130 degrees in the shade. That's Death Valley hot (below sea level). They say you can fry eggs on the pavement in Phoenix in the summer although I've never tried it. One has to be quick on your feet in that summer mid-day sand on a Grand Canyon trip or on the Phoenix streets then.

TOO HOT FOR TEQUILA Ricard o responded—On that day you are referring to Bob, when it was 122 in Phoenix and the airport had to close, I had the unfortunate experience of having to select 8 quarter pine timbers from a stack, outside, in the full sun on the tarmac at Southwest Hardwoods. to add to the fun experience was the big brown boxcar parked right next to us. We moved quickly. When we returned to Jerome with the goods, the temperature there had topped 112, 4,000 feet higher in elevation than Phoenix. Speaking of moving quickly and more canyon specific, a number of years back I heard the temperature along the river near Kingman had reached 130. Sometimes I bring a very small radio on trips for my personal use (not a blaster) and I heard an Arizona weather broadcast confirming that temp. We were at Whitmore that afternoon, wistfully remembering the cooling waves over the bow in Lava Falls. I would suggest Whitmore to be one of the canyon "hot spots"—with it's long exposure to the afternoon sun. Everyone was just dogging about, there's little shade there. People just sitting in the water, blasting each other with squirt guns, tongues hanging out, too hot for celebratory tequila, or to even talk much. Just below the first big beach, there's a small riffle. Some of us turned to look at the riffle just as a very low flying eagle flew up river towards us. That eagle fellow apparently spied the boiling humans lining the beach and decided to join us. Enough is enough. He flew right into the middle of the group and sat down on the beach, where upon he sat until the sun had dropped a bit—remaining with us for about 15 minutes. Wonder. Silence. What is this all about? Could it be that we creatures shared a commonality of emotion— "it's too hot"? Or could it be that it was so hot, that like the airplanes on that hot Phoenix day the eagle found himself grounded due to lack of lift (hot air is thinner and there is less lift)? Did the eagle chose the path above the river because it was cooler, giving him a bit more lift without the effort of moving it's wings on a hot afternoon? Forget fishing—chill out big bird. When the eagles visit was about to end, he walked the beach amongst the amazed spectators and then lifted off, flying low towards the cliffs on river left. After sun down, we 16 spent the evening enjoying the tequila, and speculating on our good fortune to have had an afternoon with the eagle, and wondering about our place on this earth. Some like it hot. NOT TOO HOT FOR BEER Drifter commented—115 is a more typical temperature for a hot day in the Grand Canyon, but that doesn't mean higher temperatures are never encountered. Last I heard the official record temperature at Phantom was in the low to mid 120s...but then it's relatively cool at Phantom compared to other places with less vegetation and running water. I have a thermometer with a scale that ends at 165 degrees F. I've tried to measure the surface temperatures of stuff in the sun on my rig - black bags, aluminum rowing frame, etc - but on a hot day they're off the top end of the scale. Sand temperatures in the sun can easily get up around 135-140, way past barefoot walking and a bit much for the feet even with decent hiking boots. If Ricardo says it got too hot for tequila, I believe him. But I've never seen it too hot for beer... from [email protected] y page forty THE Waiting List Grand Canyon: American Whitewater’s Survey Analysis

merican Whitewater collected responses to it’s non-scientific online survey between July 9 and AAugust 8, 2002 at www.American Whitewater.org. The purpose in conducting the survey was to gauge the pulse of our members and the boating public on several issues related to river man- agement in the Grand Canyon. The respondents were self-selecting and elected to go to American Whitewater’s website after receiving email notification of the surveys availability. 872 people com- pleted the survey; 15 of these responses were incomplete and were discarded. 352 of the respon- dents were American Whitewater members (5% of membership). 175 respondents were Grand Other choices in decreasing preference are: Fax Canyon Private Boater Association (GCPBA— Phone an AW affiliated organization) members. The Mail or Operator Park Service did not assist with this survey. In Person. However, American Whitewater will share the Respondents would prefer a reservation registration system. results of our survey with the Park along with This is followed closely by a Weighted Lottery, then Lottery, the comments that we received. and Wait List. There was very little interest in a First-Come First-Serve sys- SUMMARY OF AMERICAN WHITEWATER tem. MEMBERSHIP RESPONSES 79% were interested in a hybrid system that provided two VISITS avenues for applying for permits. 55% of respondents have floated down the Grand Canyon. 62% felt that a 2-3 year wait was reasonable, 26% selected 1 Average date of last trip was 1997, median was 1999. year or less, 10% more than 3. Of those respondents who have been down: 72% felt that they should be able to launch 1 year or less 12% have been on motorized raft trips. after receiving their permit. 52% have been on non-motorized raft trips. MOTORS 63% have been in kayaks with raft support. 27% have been on commercial trips. 87% believe that motors diminish the wilderness character of the river. WAIT LIST 72% believe that motors diminish the paddling experience. 97% do not find the Wait List acceptable and 96% want a new permit system. 58% would agree to future use of cleaner, quieter motors, 38% would not. 36% have been registered on the Wait List. 70% would compromise on motors in a way that also pro- 41% plan to get on the GCNP Wait List in the future. tects the “wilderness quality experience,” 27% would not. An additional 36% would get on the List if it was shorter. 79% would compromise on motors if the number of private The primary reason 80% of respondents have not registered launches increases, 17% would not. on the List is its length. SUMMARY OF ALL RESPONSES The secondary reason 42% is that the $100 registration fee is too high. VISITS Respondents would prefer to register for private permits via 56% of respondents have floated down Colorado River in the web. the Grand Canyon. Their secondary choice is via email. Average date of last trip was 1998, median was 1998. Winter 2002 / 2003 page forty one

Of those respondents who have been down: 73% were interested in a hybrid system that provided two 18% have been on motorized raft trips. avenues for applying for permits. 68% have been on non-motorized raft trips. 56% felt that a 2-3 year wait was reasonable, 23% selected 1 39% have been in kayaks with raft support. year or less, 10% more than 3. 28% have been on commercial trips. 67% felt that they should be able to launch 1 year or less WAIT LIST after receiving their permit. 90% do not find the Wait List acceptable and 88% want a MOTORS new permit system. 77% believe that motors diminish the wilderness character 38% have been registered on the Wait List. of the river. 40% plan to get on the Wait List in the future. 65% believe that motors diminish the paddling experience. An additional 31% would get on the List if it was shorter. 55% would agree to future use of cleaner, quieter motors, The primary reason 72% of respondents have not registered 35% would not. on the List is its length. 66% would compromise on motors in a way that also pro- The secondary reason 36% is that the $100 registration fee tects the “wilderness quality experience,” 26% would not. is too high. 74% would compromise on motors if the number of private Respondents would prefer to register for private permits via launches increases, 19% would not. the web. OBSERVATIONS Their second choice is via email. s a result of conducting this survey and of reviewing the Other choices in decreasing preference are: Aresponses in the comment fields, it is apparent that Phone or Mail or Operator American Whitewater should conduct another survey Fax addressing the issues of helicopter use at Whitmore Wash, In Person. allocation between commercial and private permits, daily Respondents would prefer a reservation registration system. launch patterns, cancellation policies, and other related con- That is followed closely by a Weighted Lottery, then Lottery, cepts. and Wait List. There was some interest in a First-Come Jason Robertson First-Serve system. Access Director, American Whitewater y r r fw riverwire RESERVED SALMON RIVER CAMPS he Salmon National Forest instituted a campsite reservation system for boaters floating the Main Salmon from Corn TCreek during the high use season, beginning June 20, 2002. “All permittees will request campsites beginning 3:00 PM the day before launch,” according to the Corn Creek river ranger. “If there is a conflict, we will flip a coin next morning to determine the winner. The system is new to the Main, but similar to the campsite reservation system that has been used on the Middle Fork of the Salmon for some years. The change was in response to outfitter complaints about smaller (non-commercial) river trips taking large camp sites that the outfitters say are required for the larger outfitted groups. “They (the forest Service, ed.) talked about reducing group sizes from the current 30 person maximum, but there was too much opposition from the outfitters” said Ed Link, owner of North Fork Guides, who runs small commercial trips. “This makes our non-commercial trips more difficult to plan while on the river” said Doug Ross, prospective non- commercial Salmon River floater. “We may be forced to alter our trips to accommodate the outfitters’ schedules. We don’t need big camps, but is this fair to do-it-yourself boaters who have to compete with each other in a lottery to win a permit while commercial guests simply wrote a check?” Michael Greenbaum, longtime river advocate, noted “One of the reasons offered for this decision is that assigned campsites will reduce, if not put an end to camp jumping.” Greenbaum went on to say “if the North Fork Ranger District wished to stop camp jumping, they could stop it on a dime tomorrow by making it a serious violation of a special use permit and threatening to pull the permit of any outfitter caught camp jumping.” Do you have comments on this issue? You can mail them to: Supervisors Office Salmon National Forest PO Box 729 Salmon, ID 83467 page forty two THE Waiting List GCPBA Proposes ~ Split Allocation Pie 50/50 onsider the “you cut, I choose” method of having siblings split “m o m’s fresh pie.” It’s not perfect, but it’s close to what Cwe might do to re d ress river the inequity river use allocation. First, the pie is divided into pieces A and B. Siblings 1 and 2 each get to select pieces. 1 chooses A. That leaves 2 to get B. Would 2 prefer to get A instead of B? If so, then the split isn’t fair. T h a t’s what rive r runners have experienced for a long time now. Let’s not do it again. 1 chooses A. That leaves 2 to get B. Would 1 settle for B if he had to? If not, then the split isn’t fair unless 2 we re willing to settle for B. This option respects the differences between private and commercial sectors. It feels fair. Just about everyone who loves to run rivers, either rafters or a kayakers, dreams of participating in a trip, or even sev- eral trips, through the Grand Canyon. River runners consider a Grand Canyon trip one of the premier river trips in the land. Virtually no where else in North America can you enjoy the wide variety opportunity the Canyon affords. Multi-week trips contrast with most of America’s other rivers, which at best afford trips of just a day or two to a week. Because of the unique character of the Grand Canyon, n 1980, after an extensive public involvement process, demand for access has exceeded the currently adopted, Ithe NPS attempted to implement a Colorado River arbitrary capacity cap on visitation for more than twenty years. Management Plan (CRMP) calling for the phase out of The National Park Service established an allocation rationing motorized watercraft in the Canyon river corridor. At that system for non -commercial (private) “we’ll do it ourselves” time it was determined by Park planners that motorized use river runners and commercial river runners who serve folks in the Canyon was not an appropriate activity for a resource who cannot, or choose not to, “do it” themselves. proposed to be designated as a formal Wilderness. Presently opportunity for use between the groups is Additionally, a number of Park planners suspected that rationed 70% in favor of commercial, 30% for non-commer- motorized trips, which are usually shorter than both private cial, recreational use. and commercial oar powered trips was stimulating demand Like all outdoor adventure sports, non-commercial in a manner that resulted in private river runners finding river running activity has exploded since 1980, the last time declining opportunity and longer wait times to secure a allocation ratios were adjusted. In fact, the question of the river access permit. appropriateness of this fixed allocation ratio has not been seri- To say the least, the plan to phase out motors over ously examined since the 1980 plan was adopted. There have a five year time period was not popular with either motor been several revisions of the Colorado River Management Plan operators or their patrons. The controversy that erupted since that time. resulted in a scuttling of the proposed plan. With a threat A key characteristic of the current access system for off having a portion of the Parks funding eliminated if the private river runners is the NPS maintained “wait list.” The plan was implemented, the GCNP revised it’s plan, allowed wait list is composed of individuals who desire to lead a trip in motor use to continue and divided up the “allocation pie” the Canyon. Putting their name on a list now composed of at today’s 68% commercial, 32% private use. The ratio has 7,500 (2002) individuals who patiently (or impatiently) wait remained static since 1980. for one of the 250 to 270 trip permits awarded annually. The There have been attempts to reexamine the entire list now stretches more than twenty years. At the current rate situation, including allocation. According to Park regula- of growth, 600 to 750 applicants per year, by the time a new tions, the Management Plans are supposed to be revised system is in place, hopefully in 2005, the list may have grown every ten years. A part of the revision process includes by as much as another 1,500 people, or another six years. For studying demand for access and making allocation adjust- “do-it-yourselfers,” it’s a dismal proposition. Time doesn’t ments if needed. The most recent effort, which began in stand still. 1997, was scuttled by then Superintendent Robert In contrast to the completely overwhelmed private Arnberger in 2000, citing irreconcilable differences between access system is the commercial system, which efficiently serves constituents, that made the effort futile, in his opinion. prospective participants, getting most who desire a trip onto Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, along the river within a two year time frame. with several other groups and individuals brought suit The ever growing disparity has lead to a twenty year against the NPS in Federal Court in July of 2000, hoping debate over the fairness of the two systems. HI S T O R Y CO N D E N S E D to get the planning process restarted, and to get the alloca- tion question reexamined. Winter 2002 / 2003 page forty three

In 2002 the NPS settled the lawsuit. The settle- launches proportional to its yearly allocation. The total allo- ment terms served to restart the NPS planning process and cation in user -days, counting all staff, attendees, and each will culminate in a new CRMP which will define the sce- exchange passenger, is to be determined by the NPS. nario within which all river running activities will occur. • A permit holder may conduct a trip of any duration not to That leads us to today. exceed a maximum trip length seasonally determined by the SEEKING BALANCE NPS, and group size that uses fewer than a set total number rom the GCPBA point of view, the goal of anticipated of user -days. Therefore, commercial trips and private trips Faccess and allocation reform is to bring the time waited can be formed with group sizes and trip durations much the to access the Canyon via private permit into relative balance same as they are now, but with more flexibility and less with the time waited by commercial participants. administrative involvement. There is no limit to the number Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association is work- of times that people may repeat the river trip experience. ing hard to help rectify this out of balance situation. We’ve • In order to protect, preserve and restore the resource, and listened to our members and we’ve worked within the entire to maintain opportunities for a quality experience, seasonal river community to gather opinions, ideas, and facts in variations of group size and trip duration are designated. order to contribute useful suggestions to the process, Motor use is prohibited during certain times of each season. hoping to lead to a solution that provides users with a sense Helicopter exchanges of passengers within the Canyon are of fairness and balance which seems to be absent in the not allowed. Other existing environmental protection regula- current system. tions are maintained. Additionally, the GCPBA plan propos- The wisdom of experience teaches us that nothing es that all visitors to the river corridor via boat be required to in a negotiation process is written in stone. In that spirit, participate in an NPS conducted “orientation” before any the GCPBA put onto the discussion table at this summers person board and launches on a trip. series of CRMP meetings a proposal that recreational access As part of the plan, the National Park Service (NPS) be split between the two user groups, commercial and non- or management contractor computer maintains a registra- commercial 50 / 50. tion/reservation calendar, publicly on the Internet, for people As far as we are aware, GCPBA was the only group who want to organize their own trips. The Web site displays to offer for public review, a potential solution to the alloca- a great deal of information, with links to more information, tion imbalance that has proven so annoying to river runners particularly about, regulations and research or administrative for the last twenty years. uses. A person can schedule a known and guaranteed launch SPLIT RECREATIONAL ALLOCATION 50/50 date, of their choice, by paying trip fees and identifying some of the trip participants at the time of reserving the he Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association proposes launch. Concessions contractors reserve trips by negotiating Ta plan to implement a river management environment a launch schedule with the NPS. Like private permit holders, which fosters the ability for all to obtain, on an equal and the contractors must also pay fees in advance. However, they timely basis, an opportunity to experience a float trip through are not required to identify passengers in advance of the the Grand Canyon while protecting the resource. launch unless the trip is scheduled too far in the future, in A benchmark of any new plan would be to elimi- which case they must do as the non -commercial boaters do. nate the current waiting list system for private trip leaders, A portion of the identified passengers must attend the trip or replacing it with an access system that affords a variety of the trip is canceled for both private and commercial. opportunities to secure a launch permit in a reasonable time The NPS computer will monitor the waiting time frame. for every individual, including guides, volunteers, observers, • Our proposed plan recognizes a commercial sector and a and staff, between the time of registering with the NPS, and private sector, each with unique characteristics that are actually going on a river trip. The information collected addressed in separate ways, where necessary, and in the about waiting -time is useful for a number aspects of man- same way where possible. The plan greatly increases private agement planning, and especially important in determining launch opportunities by establishing a 50/50 split of user - the effectiveness any implemented system. The value of the day allocation. The plan is easy to administer, flexible to data is dependent on every river user registering on the NPS use, and above all, it creates equitable distribution of access web site prior to every trip they attend. opportunity. Go to : http://www.GCPBA.org/access/theplan.php3 • We propose the number of daily launches is limited, and to read more about this proposal spread out evenly throughout the year. Each sector has daily page forty four THE Waiting List Flipped Out Letters To GCPBA

BY THE NUMBERS — DOESN’T LIKE 50/50 really do not like this 50/50 idea because it may not be a good policy in the future as the para- Idigm continues to shift. When I first joined, I thought that was the fair thing to do, but now I do not think so. proposal to remedy the unfair access issue facing the private Here is what I really think and this is what I wrote boater. All I can say is, a most sincere and heartfelt thank in my personal comments at the Vegas scoping meeting: you. This is one of the most well thought out and compre- 1) shut the river permit system down; hensive responses that has been my pleasure to review. ... 2) nobody goes till the ecology is fixed and Please pass on my thanks to all that had a hand in what must biodiversity is restored; have been a Herculean process of writing this amazing docu- 3) only volunteers go down the river and they work ment. It makes me proud to be a member of the GCPBA. to improve the river corridor; Terry 4) row boats only (honor Congressional Acts) The GCPBA plan might not be the best plan, but it This is what I told the stenographer at the Vegas is way more equitable than the existing system. The only meeting: really fair system would be to have a totally open and equal 1) professional river guides are driven by selfish permit system with any applicant having equal opportunity, interests; and then, after obtaining a permit, elect for outfitter services 2) outfitters are driven by selfish interests; or self served. If the general public seeking guided trips is 3) private river runners are driven by selfish truly the majority of the users they would not be disenfran- interests; chised in any way by this system. Andy 4) none of these people should decide who or what ... most people have to wait because they can’t afford goes down the river. to pay for a commercial trip. Some people wait there whole Once the river is fixed, this is how I think the lives to run this river but never get a chance due to the wait- allocation system should be accomplished: It should be ing list and commercial expenses. Please make it fair to the driven by the selfish interest of the river, because the river is people who aren’t rich and change the number to 50% com- really in charge. mercial and 50% private, so that more people can follow 1) Permitting is done according to what the river their dreams and die happy. Austin ecosystem can handle and by the seasons. 2) The trip is done at river pace. “CONTRASHULATIONS” 3) Everybody gets in the same line as an equal to ust got off a ranger trip on the San Juan (it’s bony low) run the river. When it is there turn to go down and I’m still raving about the cleanup: Richard and his the river they decide how this is accomplished. J cohorts from the GCPBA did a special river trip in April, 4) River trip populations are equal/consistent. sweeping the riverbanks clean and hauling out tons of crap. 5) And whatever I am forgetting because I am tired It made an astounding difference. Usually the San Juan is and going to bed. awash in Pennzoil bottles, gas cans, pesticide containers, beer In conclusion it is: 1) the river, river, river; 2) equal, cans, broken coolers, styrofoam, tires, medical instruments, equal, equal; 4) forever, forever, forever. Weisheit and other scary stuff. We average 6-8 duffels of trash per ... CONVERSELY ranger trip, twice a month, and still don’t make a dent. Without any runoff this year, the new load of ’m quite impressed. This is a remarkably clear document garbage did not flow in. So everyone is savoring this clean Ithat includes most, if not all, the issues pointed out by river. The upriver dumps will resume their deliberate, illegal folks on this mailing list. Thanks for the hard work of the spills some day, but for now one can see what a river should GCPBA on a statement I think that we can all support with- really look like - glorious and bright in the spring sun, jade out much hesitation. Michael water and opalescent waves. Sandbars the brick-red of Chinle Wash. Not a garbage dump. Not a liquid landfill. A river. A I have just read, in it’s entirety, the GCPBA’s clean river. Thank you thank you GCPBA. Ellen Winter 2002 / 2003 page forty five

BIG, BIG kudos to GCPBA for their clean up job! with 10 or 15 row boats. Most camps don’t have room to We did SAND ISLAND to Mexican Hat a couple of weeks park that many rafts and keeping track of that many boats ago and I took a duckie intending to cruise the banks and in places like Hance is a nightmare. They will launch more pick up trash. All I could find was a busted up motorcycle smaller trips, eating up that many more camps. Ted Hatch helmet, a couple of water bottles and a few old motor oil is Orrin Hatch’s cousin. The motors aren’t going anywhere. containers. Thanks so much for taking such good care of Motors in the Grand Canyon are good things. It’s just too our rivers. long of a flat, windy, hot river to not use them if you can. Karen I think the GCPBA is going to really screw up the way private permits are issued. They are going to screw WHAT A PILE! THE RANGER ROWS REFUSE around and make it harder to do repeat trips. I have been putting in for a Middlefork/ Selway permit for about as long as it takes to get a Grand trip and am still waiting. The GCPBA would have a much higher membership and revenue base if they would concentrate on just one issue, allocation. Tim Why do we give a rats ass about how much commercial companies charge or who their cliental is? The issue is gaining an even ratio of pri- vate to commercial launches. photo by Alex Weaver Every time one commercial leaves the beach one private leaves the beach. If we don’t ON MATTERS OF OPINION stick to one goal we won’t gain anything. Who cares about y grouping the allocation issue with the motor ban issue who can afford what? If there are more private launches Bthe Anti-Motors Association is screwing up. Not only there are more affordable trips. We are already asking for are they asking for a chunk of the commercial user days to part of the commercial sectors allocation and now we want shorten the list, they want to take away the commercial to regulate their prices also? Focus on one issue or we will companies gravy, the motor rig. wait another 10 years for the next CRMP to gain anything. A close friend went on a Park bigwig trip in May Jennifer and the feeling she got from the Park is just what I stated, I am not interested in getting Commercials to the privates are just asking for too much. No one has shown change their pricing structure. However their pricing main- the Park that motors are a problem. No one has a problem tains a situation of economic discrimination against 80% of with them except some whining private boaters, which the Americans, this is unfair and is therefore a darn good reason park see as a nuisance. The Park doesn’t like private boaters. to shift user days to Privates. Chuck They use small overloaded boats. They do stuff like lay over at Unkar to pot hunt, need more heli-evacs, don’t know the WHERE IS IT? safest way to hike into some sketchy places like Elves so The last Waiting List I received was Volume 5, they get hurt more, it takes longer for the Ranger to check Number 4 - Winter 2001/2002. I hope you haven’t stopped out and give the orientation. All this adds up to the privates publishing it. It’s one of the best things my mailbox sees, costing the Park more money than the commercials. and I stop what I’m doing and thumb through it as soon as Should the Park get rid of motors there might be a it arrives. Keith REDUCTION of private launches to make room for all the extra trips that will be needed to fill the commercial alloca- Editors Note: Sorry Keith and everyone, we got so busy last tion. Commercial companies aren’t going to launch trips summer that publishing projects eddied out! We’ll do better. page forty six THE Waiting List

EVERYTHING BAG

T O U G H R I V E R S T U F F

800-421-7007 w w w . t o u g h r i v e r s t u f f . c o m page forty eight THE Waiting List Winter 2002 / 2003 Show Us Your Boats

hile looking for “something Wor another,” a busy Adam inadvertently shows us his boat!

ONLINE RIVER GEAR AUCTION April 15, to April 30, 2003 Boats & Boat Gear ~ www.gcpba.org

RAND ANYON US G C POSTAGE PRIVATE BOATERS ASSOCIATION PAID BULK RATE B o x 2133 JEROME, AZ Fl a g s t a f f , AZ 86003-2133 PERMIT #4 g c p b a @ g c p b a . o r g 9 2 8 . 2 1 4 . 8 6 7 6

Visit Our Website www.gcpba.org