Boatman's Quarterly Review

boatman’s quarterly review ReganRegan Dale Dale the journal of Grand Canyon River Guides, Inc volume 18 number 2 summer 2005 Prez Blurb • Dear Eddy • Farewell • GTS • GCY • Ocotillo Stewardship • Take Me to the River • Old River Gravels • Back of the Boat GCRRA • Wild Lands • King Yucca • Books boatman’s quarterly review Prez Blurb— …is published more or less quarterly by and for Grand Canyon River Guides. n page five you will find a letter from Dave Grand Canyon River Guides Yeamans, a lifetime member of gcrg, who took is a nonprofit organization dedicated to Oexception to some of my remarks in the last bqr. Dave, if you don’t know him, is also Vice Presi- Protecting Grand Canyon dent of the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association Setting the highest standards for the river profession (gcpba), and has been actively involved in river issues Celebrating the unique spirit of the river community for many years. He was a guide for Bus, Don, and Ted Providing the best possible river experience Hatch in the late ’60s and early ’70s. I’ll take a few moments to dispel some of Dave’s General Meetings are held each Spring and Fall. Our mis-perceptions about the stand we’ve taken on various Board of Directors Meetings are generally held the first issues, but—since he also objected to the tone of my Wednesday of each month. All innocent bystanders are remarks, I’ll begin with an apology. I did not intend urged to attend. Call for details. to be offensive in speaking my mind, and if Dave (and others) find that I was, it was certainly a mistake on my Staff part, which I regret. Executive Director Lynn Hamilton Gcrg does not claim to be the only organization that Board of Directors “sees the big picture,” and we welcome, and appreciate, President Drifter Smith the contributions to the planning process from other Vice President Joe Pollock organizations and individuals with differing views. But Treasurer Lynn Hamilton our “big picture” begins—and ends—with protecting Directors OC Dale Grand Canyon: we don’t think that’s the only issue, but Tiffany George it’s at the top of our list. We also believe it should be at Jocelyn Gibbon the top of the list for the National Park Service (nps), Bert Jones and have said so in our formal comments on the plan. Jayne Lee If I implied that the four parties to the “historic Marieke Taney agreement”—Grand Canyon Private Boaters Associa- Gcrg’s AMWG tion (gcpba), Grand Canyon River Outfitters Associa- Representative Andre Potochnik tion (gcroa), American Whitewater (aw), and Grand Gcrg’s TWG Canyon River Runners Association (gcrra)—were Representative Matt Kaplinski attempting to exert “authority” over the planning Bqr Editors Katherine Spillman process, it’s not because of what they said, but rather the Mary Williams manner in which it was revealed in a press release in the days just before the end of the comment period. Our editorial policy, such as it is: provide an open It was easy to get the impression from the press forum. We need articles, poetry, stories, drawings, release—which made it into a number of newspapers— photos, opinions, suggestions, gripes, comics, etc. that the principal problems of the management plan had Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Grand been solved by agreement of the interested parties. The Canyon River Guides, Inc. positions of other organizations—including ’s and Written submissions should be less than 1500 words gcrg organizations representing wilderness advocates—were and, if possible, be sent on a computer disk, pc or mac ignored. format; Microsoft Word files are best but we can trans- (G doesn’t do press releases. However, my Op-Ed late most programs. Include postpaid return envelope if crg piece, reproduced in the last , also was in the papers you want your disk or submission returned. bqr during the closing moments of the comment period. It Deadlines for submissions are the 1st of February, was clearly an opinion piece, and—in any event—it May, August and November. Thanks. certainly was not labeled a “historic breakthrough;” I Our office location: 515 West Birch, Flagstaff, az 86001 did not imply that others were on board with the views Office Hours: 10:30–4:30 Monday through Friday expressed. Just the opposite was the case—and the point—of my comments.) Phone 928/773-1075 As for “joining the process,” was actively Fax 928/773-8523 gcrg involved in trying to “Protect Grand Canyon” before E-mail [email protected] there was a , a , or a . Website www.gcrg.org gcpba gcroa gcrra With regard to the big picture of “equal rights” for page 2 grand canyon river guides private boaters, we’ve consistently supported improve- to “real time” access for private boaters will take it’s ments in the way that private boaters are treated. As for place. These are improvements, for sure. “equal rights,” where we stand is open to interpretation: Is this “equal” and “fair,” or perhaps only “separate it might depend on what “equal” means. and equal?” Surely there will continue to be differences During the public scoping sessions, a number of of opinion about what is “equal,” “fair,” and “appro- private boaters argued that a 50/50 split of the allocation priate.” But I think private access to the canyon will was the only “fair” division. Some pointed out that if improve, and it’s about time. At least under the “historic two people can’t agree on how to divide something— agreement” private boaters move from being perceived let’s say a pile of books, for example—a fair method as a “peripheral nuisance” to “major players.” would have one person divide it into two piles, and then Gcrg does not claim to own “the best possible river let the other person have first choice. experience.” Everyone’s “best experience” is a little It was assumed that this was a proper analogy for different, so we’ve tried to support the conditions that the split allocation in Grand Canyon, rather than the allow enough flexibility for people to get what they analogy of the division that two people—a large adult want, and need, out of the canyon and river experience. and a small child—might make when serving up food Consequently, we opposed shorter trip length require- for dinner. That’s closer to the analogy that was used to ments for both commercial and non-commercial trips. If divide the recreational use in Grand Canyon into a large you want to go fast, fine: but some folks (including those commercial sector, and a smaller non-commercial sector, on motor trips) have a different experience in mind, and years ago under previous plans. Which of these analogies we only hope that what is available today will continue is more appropriate today was one of the hotly contested to remain available in the future. We also recognize issues of the planning process. that “once in a lifetime” is not enough for everybody Today everyone recognizes that the child has grown (surprise!), and gcrg opposed the “once a year” rule and has a bigger appetite. But the experts disagreed proposed in Alternative H. While we have not endorsed about whether it was even theoretically possible to all of the agenda of the gcpba, we have stood up for quantify the relative level of demand for commercial meaningful improvements on the issues affecting private and non-commercial use. Under the preferred alterna- boaters in Grand Canyon. tive, the nps proposes to measure demand, and adjust A couple of Dave’s points that I agree with: the allocation accordingly. Mr. Yeamans, himself, admits “All the river advocates deserve our respect and that efforts to quantify demand have been unsuccessful: not our subtle or overt calumny. After all, who was it after describing attempts (with expert help) to address that brought the great preponderance of those resource- this problem, he writes “In the end we decided that damaging people down the canyon, anyway? It was you there wasn’t a good way to measure demand.” [http:// and I, not any of the smaller players. And now we rail at groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/message/22493] our little brothers for ruining the resource? Get serious.” Gcrg, the outfitters, andgcpba all agreed the No doubt about it, we are the ones that made Grand proposed mechanism to measure demand would be Canyon River trips as popular as they are. I’m not cumbersome and not likely to produce reliable results. blaming the impacts on our “little brothers”—they are When four organizations representing private boaters, ours as well, and we know it. All I (and gcrg) are saying outfitters, and commercial passengers agreed to endorse is that it’s time we acknowledge this, and deal with it in a 50/50 split allocation, and drop the controversial regis- a responsible fashion. And that means that “limits on tration proposal of the nps, gcrg supported them in our use” as well as “limits of acceptable change” should have comments to the nps on the management plan. real meaning: changing the standards of protection to We think it’s time to recognize, in principal, that pacify folks unhappy with the current system is a sleazy private boaters have as much right to see the canyon as and unacceptable solution. And we ARE serious about do commercial customers, and move on to more difficult that.... matters, and difficulties do still remain. The 50/50 agree- And now—at great risk—I’m going to say something ment is a major advance for private boaters, but since favorable about a just a few of the players in this process, commercial boating remains restricted under a user day and express my appreciation.

Load more