We cannot overstate the fact that we need ALL GCRG members to let the Board know how they feel on these and other issues. The outline below is the outcome of many long hours of discussion by the board members and other interested parties. It is based on the best input we have received. If you feel strongly about these or other issues, it is imperative that you talk, call, write or e-mail us now.
It is essential that GCRG do its level best to provide the most coherent and positive input possible into this very important process. And you are a key part of making that happen. Read these two pages and let us know where you stand on these and other issues. Damn it.

I. OUR TWO PRIMARY CONCERNS
GCRG evaluates all issues and answers under the light of these two over-riding concerns.
1) Protect and preserve the natural resources of Grand Canyon.
2) Enhance the quality of the experience for all river runners.

II. NO INCREASE IN TOTAL ALLOCATION
We do not support an increase in the total number of people running the river. We feel that the Colorado River has already reached carrying capacity for river runners. Whether or not it can be shown that an increase will not damage the resource or the visitor experience, it is our belief that we must first solve problems that currently exist within the bounds of the present system.

III. ENHANCE QUALITY TIME AND REDUCE CROWDING
GCRG supports an allocation system that rewards offering the public sufficient quality time in the Canyon as opposed to the current system, which offers the highest profits to speedy trips and multiple exchanges. We support longer minimum trip lengths, especially for motor trips, which would enhance the visitor experience and reduce congestion thanks to increased flexibility where the tighter schedules are concerned. The practice of “double-dipping” of user days during passenger exchanges should no longer be allowed. GCRG recognizes that many issues concerning the visitor experience (crowding, noise, campsite availability, etc.) can be successfully dealt with through self-regulation and communication on the river. We encourage such actions and discourage any additional regulations that restrict the freedom and flexibility of a Grand Canyon river trip. In order to facilitate communication between all users of the river, we support increasing the educational efforts to both private boaters and hikers who use river campsites.
IV. WILDERNESS ETHICS
GCRG supports management of the river corridor and the visitor experience in a style consistent with the values and ethics outlined in the Wilderness Act, and we would like to see further education of guides, public and outfitters on the ramifications of Wilderness, Potential Wilderness and Wild and Scenic designation. We believe in the opportunity for a person to do a truly wilderness-oriented trip, during which they see very few other people and are subjected to a minimum of regulatory presence and technology. GCRG recognizes and supports motorized transport as being essentialto satisfying visitor use under the present allocation. Such “non-conforming use” was established before Wilderness recommendation and should be allowed to continue. We strongly support the outfitters in their current effort to move toward quiet technology and practices. We encourage the Park to vigorously pursue Wild and Scenic designation for the eligible portions of the main stem of the Colorado River and its tributaries in Grand Canyon.

V. PRIVATE TRIP ACCESS AND ALLOCATION
GCRG recognizes that the current system of access for the private river runners is not effective, and we acknowledge the need to reduce the waiting period for a private permit to a reasonable length of time, perhaps 3 to 4 years. We do, however, also recognize the need to assess and repair the present system before considering an adjustment in allocation. It is necessary to obtain detailed and accurate information about the character and specifics of the private waiting list (e.g., who is on the waiting list, how accurately does it reflect true demand, how pervasively is it abused and by whom, etc.). This may enable modifications of the current system that will help us move towards a more equitable system, one that satisfies true demand. Should changes be necessary, it may be possible to make those changes within the bounds of the current system. These changes might include: modifications in necessary cancellation time period, reworking how cancellations are handled, modifications in allowable qualifications for people on the list, movement towards a user-day system for private river runners— one based on number of people per day as opposed to number of launches. If it is necessary to make larger changes to the private permit system, a complete overhaul may be needed, one that may include considering a move to a reservation-based or some other system.

VI. REDUCE ENFORCEMENT AND BUREAUCRAT PRESENCE ON THE RIVER
The increasing presence of bureaucratic control and associated technology should be curtailed as they are inconsistent with Wilderness values and management, and can directly and negatively impact a visitor's experience. As stated in the Wilderness Act, the presence of rules and regulations, technology, and law enforcement must be minimal and low impact. Every attempt should be made to curtail the use of excessive regulation, inappropriate technology, and man-made structures. The NPS, oufitters and the public should recognize, maintain, and encourage the interpretive and self-regulatory role of river guides in the canyon and the essential role guides play in preserving the integrity of the resource and the visitor experience.

VII. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
GCRG suggests that the CRMP must not be a document set in stone, allowing for no future changes when social, environmental, political or economic necessity call for it. To assure that the CRMP is an evolving document, we support the formation of a Federal Advisory Committee composed of representatives from all constituencies to actively help the NPS obtain feedback on the CRMP throughout the life of this document and in preparation for the next revision. This panel may be modeled on the Adaptive Management Work Group currently in place for monitoring of releases from Glen Canyon Dam. Members might include people from the following constituencies: NPS, private boaters, outfitters, guides, commercial passengers, canyon researchers, canyon educators. This committee would be charged with providing recommendations for change to the National Park Service as situations and demands continue to evolve.

VIII. MAINTAIN A DIVERSITY OF OFFERINGS TO THE PUBLIC
GCRG supports maintaining a diversity of offerings within the commercial outfitter spectrum. Each outfitter should be required to offer cut-rate trips for those not presently being served; whether it be for educational trips or economically or physically challenged groups. We do not support a system or a trend that results in fewer and larger companies, which therefore offers fewer choices as to trip type and character. The maximum size of commercial companies should be capped or reduced. Small companies should be helped to remain economically viable.

IX. SOCIOLOGIC STUDIES NEEDED
We need reliable data. GCRG supports a reassessment of the visitor experience to find out what private and commercial passengers expect and what they are getting from the various types of trips. We are not aware of any sociologic studies that have been done to deal with this issue since 1975. Data from previous studies should be incorporated into any current or future studies.