he Grand Canyon River Guides Association, as our bylaws proclaim, is dedicated to
1) “protecting Grand Canyon,” 2) “providing the best possible river experience,” and 3) “setting the highest standards for the river profession.” These lofty goals would be best accomplished through wilderness designation.
For example:
Goal One: Wilderness designation of National Parks provides the highest degree of legal protection for lands, native biodiversity, and the human experience### dependent on wild conditions.
Goal Two: Wilderness designation would preserve the type of experience unique to and dependent on Grand Canyon's natural environment. Grand Canyon, as we all know, is the most beautiful place on earth. Here the Colorado River provides the longest stretch of wilderness whitewater in at least the lower 48 states. Protecting the Canyon's wilderness character assures the river experience we all cherish.
Goal Three: Protecting the Grand Canyon and providing opportunities to experience conditions and qualities unique to this wonderful place define guiding's “highest” professional standard. How else would you define it?
So, why don't “we,” the Grand Canyon River Guides, support wilderness in Grand Canyon? Well, wilderness means the end of motors on the river (you can't guide without a motor…?). Wilderness, they tell me, sounds the death knell of the professional guide. Wilderness means the end of the guiding world as we know it…right?
Actually, wilderness designation, good for the canyon, would be good for guiding. It would mean more jobs for boatmen and a longer season. For example, the current user day allocation is derived from wilderness alternatives presented in the 1980 Colorado River Management Plan (crmp) and Environmental Statement. That plan called for a six-month season (mid-April to mid-October) with two commercial launches a day. For argument's sake only, assume a maximum group size of 20 passengers on the river for 14 days and you end up with approximately the same current level of commercial use. One important difference is that rather than one or two motor boats (and boatmen) per trip; there would be five rowing boats per trip and ten commercial boats (and boatmen) leaving Lees Ferry each day. That's about 140 boats (boatmen) on the river on any given day for a six-month season. Twelve trips per year would insure a steady income and assure complete burnout.
Of course, that happy scenario depends on launching and filling every trip. Although the goal of any allocation is to establish limits, not set use targets, guides have a genuine concern regarding their livelihood (passengers are necessary to conduct commercial trips). Currently, most outfitters depend on short motor trips to fill most of their allocation and they cringe at the thought of having to sell 14-day trips. The fact of the matter is that the preponderance of current oar-powered use consists of shorter exchange or partial trips anyway. We can have short or long trips with or without motors.
Fortunately, conversion to oar-powered trips presents a few challenges, but no obstacles to a viable guiding community. First of all, commercial boating in Grand Canyon is safe regardless of type of craft. The most recent safety study confirms this and also demonstrates that, contrary to general assumptions, oar-powered craft enjoy a better safety record regarding serious injury than motor rigs.
Cost is another criticism of longer oar-powered trips. As mentioned above, much of the current oar-powered use consists of shorter (three to nine-day) trips. In any event, commercial trips are expensive, more so per day than many cruise line vacations. When cost is interjected into the argument, the concern really lies with commercial trips in general, not oar-powered trips in particular. According to recent studies, about half of current clients make over $100,000 a year. Since most Americans don't make that kind of money, our concern should focus on providing guided trips to a larger public and still retain the existing high level of professionalism.
In the Fall 1998 edition of the boatman's quarterly review, I presented ways to “expand the spectrum” of commercial trips. In summary, the proposal suggested using a significant portion of the current commercial allocation to reach special populations currently disenfranchised by physical, social, or economic barriers. These populations include youth groups, educational groups (university students), the physically challenged and other folks with disabilities. The Park Service should establish, as part of the wilderness and river planning process, a workgroup or panel to identify additional “special populations.” Once these populations are identified and concession contracts completed, the outfitter would work with special advisory panels of experts to develop and implement the program.
For example, the educational advisory panel could consist of representatives of regional or national colleges and universities. This group would develop the selection criteria, curriculum and schedules for students participating in the program over the life of the concession contract. The proposed collective effort would assure equitable access by avoiding dominance of any single institution or organization.
Seeking grants and other funding support would become another essential role of the advisory panel. The concessioner would then run the trip at cost only (including staff, equipment, and supplies), that is at a price substantially less than the traditional outfitter charges. The Park Service would create similar concessioners and advisory panels for youth groups, physically challenged and other currently disenfranchised groups. Another frequently requested concession service, support trips for kayakers and other boaters who prefer the company of a qualified guide, could be offered. This would differ from the current traditional service in that a group (similar to a private group) could actually hire someone to lead the trip. Of course, the traditional outfitted trip would be offered, but it wouldn't consume the lion's share of the allocation. All these recommendations combined broaden the spectrum of commercial services, providing guides with a diversity of employment opportunities.
Its important to remember that private river runners also represent a broad diversity of socio-economic levels. Their plight (10- to 20-year waiting list) is well known and must be resolved. Reverting back to (and slightly modifying) the 1980 wilderness plan allows increasing private launches to two trips a day (four total including commercials) increasing their access by about 75%. Additional winter launches allowed under this wilderness alternative could further increase their allocation.
The scenario presented above is offered as food for thought. It is only one out of many possible wilderness alternatives that will emerge during the Grand Canyon wilderness and river planning process. I believe it demonstrates that wilderness protection benefits the Canyon, the visitors, and the guides. This particular proposal explores ways to expand current commercial emphasis to include a broader representation of Americans, provide relief for the privates, as well as assure long-term employment for river guides. I hope it dispels some wilderness myths and sparks a lively, productive debate.

Kim Crumbo
Southwest Forest Alliance
P.O. Box 1033
Grand Canyon, AZ 86023
520-638-2304
kcrumbo@swfa.org