On page five you will find a letter from Dave Yeamans, a lifetime member of gcrg, who took exception to some of my remarks in the last bqr. Dave, if you don’t know him, is also Vice President of the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (gcpba), and has been actively involved in river issues for many years. He was a guide for Bus, Don, and Ted Hatch in the late ’60s and early ’70s.
I’ll take a few moments to dispel some of Dave’s mis-perceptions about the stand we’ve taken on various issues, but—since he also objected to the tone of my remarks, I’ll begin with an apology. I did not intend to be offensive in speaking my mind, and if Dave (and others) find that I was, it was certainly a mistake on my part, which I regret.
Gcrg does not claim to be the only organization that “sees the big picture,” and we welcome, and appreciate, the contributions to the planning process from other organizations and individuals with differing views. But our “big picture” begins—and ends—with protecting Grand Canyon: we don’t think that’s the only issue, but it’s at the top of our list. We also believe it should be at the top of the list for the National Park Service (nps), and have said so in our formal comments on the plan.
If I implied that the four parties to the “historic agreement”—Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (gcpba), Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association (gcroa), American Whitewater (aw), and Grand Canyon River Runners Association (gcrra)—were attempting to exert “authority” over the planning process, it’s not because of what they said, but rather the manner in which it was revealed in a press release in the days just before the end of the comment period.
It was easy to get the impression from the press release—which made it into a number of newspapers—that the principal problems of the management plan had been solved by agreement of the interested parties. The positions of other organizations—including gcrg’s and organizations representing wilderness advocates—were ignored.
(Gcrg doesn’t do press releases. However, my Op-Ed piece, reproduced in the last bqr, also was in the papers during the closing moments of the comment period. It was clearly an opinion piece, and—in any event—it certainly was not labeled a “historic breakthrough;” I did not imply that others were on board with the views expressed. Just the opposite was the case—and the point—of my comments.)
As for “joining the process,” gcrg was actively involved in trying to “Protect Grand Canyon” before there was a gcpba, a gcroa, or a gcrra.
With regard to the big picture of “equal rights” for private boaters, we’ve consistently supported improvements in the way that private boaters are treated. As for “equal rights,” where we stand is open to interpretation: it might depend on what “equal” means.
During the public scoping sessions, a number of private boaters argued that a 50/50 split of the allocation was the only “fair” division. Some pointed out that if two people can’t agree on how to divide something—let’s say a pile of books, for example—a fair method would have one person divide it into two piles, and then let the other person have first choice.
It was assumed that this was a proper analogy for the split allocation in Grand Canyon, rather than the analogy of the division that two people—a large adult and a small child—might make when serving up food for dinner. That’s closer to the analogy that was used to divide the recreational use in Grand Canyon into a large commercial sector, and a smaller non-commercial sector, years ago under previous plans. Which of these analogies is more appropriate today was one of the hotly contested issues of the planning process.
Today everyone recognizes that the child has grown and has a bigger appetite. But the experts disagreed about whether it was even theoretically possible to quantify the relative level of demand for commercial and non-commercial use. Under the preferred alternative, the nps proposes to measure demand, and adjust the allocation accordingly. Mr. Yeamans, himself, admits that efforts to quantify demand have been unsuccessful: after describing attempts (with expert help) to address this problem, he writes “In the end we decided that there wasn’t a good way to measure demand.” [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/message/22493]
Gcrg, the outfitters, and gcpba all agreed the proposed mechanism to measure demand would be cumbersome and not likely to produce reliable results. When four organizations representing private boaters, outfitters, and commercial passengers agreed to endorse a 50/50 split allocation, and drop the controversial registration proposal of the nps, gcrg supported them in our comments to the nps on the management plan.
We think it’s time to recognize, in principal, that private boaters have as much right to see the canyon as do commercial customers, and move on to more difficult matters, and difficulties do still remain. The 50/50 agreement is a major advance for private boaters, but since commercial boating remains restricted under a user day system, and non-commercial boating is restricted by limits on the number of possible launches, it is impossible to make meaningful direct comparisons. Outfitters—and commercial passengers—continue to have the bulk of summer season launches, while private boaters have a virtual monopoly on winter trips. The shoulder season is shared, and more private trips will get on the river under the new plan than is the case today. The “Waiting List” is slated to go away, and something closer to “real time” access for private boaters will take it’s place. These are improvements, for sure.
Is this “equal” and “fair,” or perhaps only “separate and equal?” Surely there will continue to be differences of opinion about what is “equal,” “fair,” and “appropriate.” But I think private access to the canyon will improve, and it’s about time. At least under the “historic agreement” private boaters move from being perceived as a “peripheral nuisance” to “major players.”
Gcrg does not claim to own “the best possible river experience.” Everyone’s “best experience” is a little different, so we’ve tried to support the conditions that allow enough flexibility for people to get what they want, and need, out of the canyon and river experience. Consequently, we opposed shorter trip length requirements for both commercial and non-commercial trips. If you want to go fast, fine: but some folks (including those on motor trips) have a different experience in mind, and we only hope that what is available today will continue to remain available in the future. We also recognize that “once in a lifetime” is not enough for everybody (surprise!), and gcrg opposed the “once a year” rule proposed in Alternative H. While we have not endorsed all of the agenda of the gcpba, we have stood up for meaningful improvements on the issues affecting private boaters in Grand Canyon.

A couple of Dave’s points that I agree with:
“All the river advocates deserve our respect and not our subtle or overt calumny. After all, who was it that brought the great preponderance of those resource-damaging people down the canyon, anyway? It was you and I, not any of the smaller players. And now we rail at our little brothers for ruining the resource? Get serious.”
No doubt about it, we are the ones that made Grand Canyon River trips as popular as they are. I’m not blaming the impacts on our “little brothers”—they are ours as well, and we know it. All I (and gcrg) are saying is that it’s time we acknowledge this, and deal with it in a responsible fashion. And that means that “limits on use” as well as “limits of acceptable change” should have real meaning: changing the standards of protection to pacify folks unhappy with the current system is a sleazy and unacceptable solution. And we ARE serious about that....
And now—at great risk—I’m going to say something favorable about a just a few of the players in this process, and express my appreciation. I’ll qualify this at the start by saying almost everybody gets left out—the nps received nearly 20,000 comments from individuals and organizations, including at least 29 distinct form letters. So beginning with about 20,000 apologies...in alphabetical order—I’d like to acknowledge the contributions of the following:
Superintendent Joe Alston (and the nps crew): These guys and gals got a lot of crap from everybody for a system that just about everyone agrees needs to be fixed. Few critics have bothered to notice that the folks at the nps today inherited most of this from their predecessors, and aren’t personally responsible for the acknowledged shortcomings of the current system. Some of them—Steve Sullivan in particular—have tried to make interim improvements within the limits allowed by the last plan, and provide information and statistics so that people making comments and suggestions for changes would at least have some facts on which to base their opinions. Behind the scenes are a number of other folks, whose names you probably wouldn’t recognize, who have tried to understand the issues, follow the arguments, read the comments, and (in the end) write the best plan possible, knowing that a) nobody will be completely happy with it, and b) they’ll probably face lawsuits, if not worse, as a reward for their efforts. An inherently thankless task—but we should say “THANKS!” anyway, they deserve it.
Mark Grisham, Executive Director of gcroa: Mark sits in a seat perhaps even hotter than that of gcnp Superintendent Joe Alston. Mark has set out to find a solution that adequately addresses the divergent, and sometime opposing, interests of everyone who would use the river resource in the Grand Canyon. Mark believes that consensus is more promising than confrontation, and that the bottom line requires that you understand the folks with different points of view.
While there is an “outfitters association” the reality is that there is much diversity of opinion among outfitters, just as there is among non-commercial boaters. Trying to speak for, and represent, the views of all of them at the same time is probably more difficult than it looks. I have had differences of opinion with Mark on specific issues, but I have a deep respect for his courage and devotion to the idea that a good plan will address the interests of all parties, and involve compromise to achieve that end.
Richard Martin (and gcpba): Ricardo is the past President of Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, the editor of their excellent publication “The Waiting List”, a former mayor of Jerome, Arizona (in the good old days), and one of my most treasured friends.
I remember an interview in which Bill Clinton was asked about the most difficult challenges he faced as President. His response was, “Getting someone to tell me what I don’t want to hear.” If I screw up in what I say, write, or think, Ricardo will set me straight again without telling me I’m a jerk. I’ve tried to do the same for him. We’ve agreed to disagree about some things, and try to keep each other informed all the time; this has worked well for me, and (hopefully) for him as well.
Ricardo has been an excellent advocate for improving access for private boaters in Grand Canyon. At the same time, he’s made an outstanding effort to understand the interests of other users, and has tried to craft a solution in which everyone gets most of what they want, with as few compromises as possible. Like me, he has been somewhat of a “lightening rod” for his organization, catching flak from both ends of the spectrum.
At the same time, Ricardo has been the editor of “The Waiting List: A Forum for Canyon River Runners”—the Grand Canyon Private Boaters quarterly publication. I’m a life-time member of gcpba largely because I don’t want to miss an issue—just as many gcpba members have joined our organization because they want to keep informed by reading every issue of the Boatman’s Quarterly Review. If you are unfamiliar with “The Waiting List” you can look at it online here: http://www.gcpba.org/pubs/waitinglist/
Again, my apologies to the other 20,000 or so nameless players—you all deserve thanks for speaking up and weighing in on the issues.
Some other issues: aircraft noise in the Grand Canyon is not about to go away. Another series of public meetings is happening, and environmental advocates (including gcrg) are beginning to wonder when, if ever, “natural quiet” will be heard in the canyon. Air tour operators would like to re-write existing legislation in a way that would define the incessant background whine of aircraft as “natural quiet” and allow their businesses to grow even more in future years. Environmentalists are beginning to think that the “quiet” we heard 20 years ago—the reason for existing legislation—is better than the “quiet” we hear now, and maybe much better than the”quiet” planned for the future.
Colorado River water rights under drought conditions also remain in the news. There’s been some discussion about whether the recent drought in the Colorado River Basin merits special attention, up to and including changing the way water releases are being managed. Interior Secretary Gail Norton suggested that this was a problem best resolved by the states involved, and they held an unprecedented series of meetings to consider the matter. At the heart of the matter: the question of how much water should be released from Lake Powell.
Upper basin states want to reduce water releases from Lake Powell, which would give them additional flexibility if the drought continues. Lower basin states point to the recent wet winter, and say “No need to change anything right now.” Now that the stalemate is official, we’re waiting to see how it will be resolved by Secretary of the Interior, Gail Norton. The answer could affect flows through the Grand Canyon this summer—if the upper basin states get their way, water flows through the Grand Canyon will be less than last year, if the lower basin states win they will be the same...at least for now. The immediate answer could come as early as today, and be old news by the time you read this. The long run answer is likely be uncertain for years to come.

Drifter Smith