he following is a letter sent to Christa Sadler by Richard Martin on behalf of the Grand Canyon Private Boater¹s Association (gcpba).

I want to comment on the viewpoints that you expressed in your current editorial (bqr Winter 98­99), ³And Another Thing,² as well as a response to the letter you co-authored that was published recently in High Country News. I hope you¹ll take a moment to consider my thoughts. I think most river runners would agree that a trip in Grand Canyon is one of life¹s finest experiences. No one has the need to pass judgement on the quality of another¹s presumed experience. I can assure you that I, and the vast majority of those that I communicate with, are not concerned with the question of whose trip is better. As our Mexican neighbors often say, ³Que le vaya bien,²‹That your trip be good.

I was chagrined to read a quote you picked from our ³Letters to the Editor² pages to republish: ³I know the quality of my trip far surpassed the quality of a commercial trip,² with no notation that we printed in the same issue a number of letters that both roasted and praised the gcpba for what other members of the boating community, rightly or wrongly, think our stand or goals as an organization might be. Your selection of a quote is basically out of context, from the entire two pages of letters.

Importantly, I think the inclusion of the quote furthers the process of driving a wedge between the various groups involved in the process of trying to create a fair and useful plan for the accommodation of the wide variety of people that want to share the river in Grand Canyon. I¹m sure widening this gap is the exact opposite of what you are hoping to achieve. Your presentation of the quote, in your context, seems meant to verify your conclusion that private boaters¹ ³... thinly veiled² agenda is to rid the river of commercial operators.

The cited letter, like many, was printed, not as an endorsement, but as a sharing of opinion. I think it is really valuable to offer all points of view, especially to our members and readers, because to do so serves as a reality check, by which we may measure our thoughts and activities. The inclusion of the forementioned quote in your editorial, to my way of reading it, seems to imply that the gcpba agrees with the author. Certainly some members of the public agree, and of course many don¹t.

I¹d like to discuss the opinion which you expressed, that the crmp process is coming down to a get-rid-of commercial-activities movement. These topics are discussed frequently within the electrohalls of the gcpba, and I can honestly say that virtually every one of our Board members accepts and respects the opportunity for the non-boat-driving public to have access to the river via commercial outfitters, enjoys the colorful world of river guides, and sincerely respects the outstanding job you guys do in facilitating wonderful experiences for your patrons.

Recently, we held an exhaustive planning meeting, which you and your board were invited to attend. During those meetings, we took a great deal of time to pound out and codify our thoughts on these issues. Our points of agreement are presented very clearly for all to see on page five of the most recent issue of The Waiting List. The second point on the page should be noted by you and my fellow members of gcrg; it reads as follows:

³All members of the boating public deserve fair, equal and timely opportunity for access to their river, and for that matter to all of their National Parks. That includes commercial patrons, as well as private users.²

When you say, ³There is a fear thatŠthere is a thinly veiled attempt to do away with commercial boating in Grand Canyon,² you may be right about the ³fear² part of the statement, but for most people involved in the crmp process, attempting to do away with commercial activity is not a factor or a goal we wish to pursue. Most of us recognize that everyone need not share the same desire to experience a trip the same way. Everyone doesn¹t have to want to row the boat, as a price for their legitimate right to be a trip participant, whether it be commercial or private. You know that quite a number of private boaters began their careers on commercial trips, and are really thankful that they had that opportunity to discover boating and the Canyon, and be led by experts.

We, the participants in this process, have gotten the wilderness/commercial/access/allocation/motors issues all mixed up together, and to some extent that is unavoidable because they are somewhat interwoven. But like the threads of a fabric, they may be separated, and each issue can stand alone. It is obvious that each also needs to be evaluated as part of the greater whole user environment. Lots of people are really passionate about the wilderness proposals, as your responses to your questionnaire published in the same issue of the bqr indicate. That passion extends far beyond just boaters. We all know that a number of those people see the commercial use of motors, helicopters, and scenic overflights as an impediment to the Colorado River being included in the protection of ³designated Wilderness,² and therefore, they must go. Except for an article published in an earlier issue of the bqr (which the gcpba declined to publish) rarely have I ever heard anyone express the opinion that commercial operations must, or should, go away. In fact, I myself, within the wilderness context, have tried to make sure on our pages that our readers understand the difference between ³wilderness compatible commercial trips² and ³non-wilderness compatible trips.²

I want you to be aware that a large segment of the ³private² boating population really don¹t feel very strongly anti-motor, they are much more concerned with the opportunity to have relatively easy access to the river. On the other hand, there are a significant number that think motor use is totally inappropriate, and not only in the Grand Canyon. We, like gcrg, do not always agree. I think that I can safely say, that as a group, we¹ve decided to let the nps decide that matter. What the gcpba board has agreed to do is urge ³motor use be restricted to levels in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964.² The Wilderness Act itself is subject to wide interpretation, and this issue will probably have to be decided in a court, once the nps has made its recommendations.

To most private boaters the commercial vs. private issue revolves around the way the user pie has been divided up for the past thirty years, heavily favoring commercial activities. This has resulted in an unacceptable waiting period for most potential non-commercial users. Not only that, but the realization by most is that they may never have an opportunity for a second or third trip. There is probably a significant pool of resentment directed toward what appears to be the easy ³credit card² access that some people enjoy, in preference to people who have prepared themselves, from their point of view, to get the maximum out of the opportunity. Certainly there are a number of private users, who are often characterized as ³abusers of the system,² who have done and will do many trips. And the same can be said of many commercial patrons, some who have done twenty or thirty trips. In essence, the Canyon has become home for the heart for many.

I read with great interest Louise Teal¹s book, Breaking Into the Current, describing the efforts of women to share their rightful place amongst the world of commercial boatmen in Grand Canyon. I think what we are seeing now is the enthusiastic private, or independent boater going through the same transition‹fighting for their rightful place in the Canyon. Just as the male dominated world of commercial boating had to make room for women as guides and leaders, now the commercially dominated world must make room for private river runners who have the skills necessary to navigate, be self-sustaining and the desire to immerse themselves in an exquisite experience and add their particular flavor, that will ultimately enrich the experience for everyone. Private boaters would like to see what they interpret as an unfair allocation and access system rectified. That doesn¹t mean eliminate commercial river trips.

Now we all find ourselves embroiled in a ³push push² argument. I¹m sure you can recall some of the absurd statements you¹ve heard directed towards private river runners at the various meetings you have attended and, of course, that goes both ways. The result is the inability to meaningfully communicate.

The task for all who really care about their fellow man is to figure out how to accommodate the desire of the many that are fit to self-guide themselves and still leave room for the those who have no desire to do so themselves, but wish to experience the richness of a Colorado River trip and the myriad of feelings that such an opportunity sets the stage for. This accommodation is a job that I know the members of the gcpba are dedicated to, and I am sure that many in the gcrg share that same dedication. I¹m positive that you do.

I hope I have clarified to some extent the misunderstanding of intentions that may have imbedded itself in the consciousness of the commercial river running community. Thanks for your time, and the good energy you are putting into this difficult task. It¹s kind of like weaving through ³rocks of opinion and feelings² at really low water.

Richard Martin

Both articles referred to in Richard¹s letter were a response to the fact that for the past several years, whenever the issue of private boater access to the Colorado River is publicized, commercial trips are demonized as the bad guys, the ones keeping all private boaters from easy access to the river, the ones catering to the rich and spoiled, the ones turning the experience into a Disneyland ride. Throughout the country, in the Washington Post, Salt Lake Tribune, High Country News, Arizona Daily Sun, and LA Times, articles are being read by people who have no knowledge of the community here in Grand Canyon. Those articles lump guides with outfitters as ³the commercial sector,² with no mention of some of the positive aspects of commercial boating. The articles referred to were in no way intended as a criticism of the private boaters or a negation of their concerns, nor were they intended to imply that the Private Boaters¹ Association is attempting to get rid of commercial boating. I apologize if they were interpreted as such. We simply tire of having our craft, our profession and our love reduced to such black and white terms.

Christa