Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association
Mark Grisham, executive director

   Equal Suffering Is Not the Answer

   The Solution is Reasonable Access

   With cheery optimism and some foreboding, NPS planners at the South Rim have embarked on a two-year revision of the Colorado River Management Plan.

   The kick-off, three public workshops held in cities hundreds of miles apart yet populated by substantially the same people, are now behind us. Many of the folks I spoke with– privates, outfitters, and park personnel alike –were heartened by the obvious desire on the part of many to join in a diligent search for something better.

   In this spirit, Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association would like to offer one possible outline for an improved private river-trip permit process based on a reservations model. We believe there are management tools that if used correctly can produce a rough parity of access to the Colorado River corridor between the outfitted and boating publics alike. Producing this condition should be a central and primary goal of the CRMP revision.

   To be clear, we believe that the current allocation split between the outfitted and private boating publics is a more than fair representation of the size of these two user groups within the general population. We oppose reallocation. We do so particularly given our belief that better management of existing private trip demand can produce reasonable access to the Colorado River corridor within the Grand Canyon for those seeking this type of experience.

   Fundamental Conditions

   There are several immutable conditions with which all possible management options contemplated under the CRMP revision must contend. Here are just a few.

   Demand for both commercial and private Grand Canyon river trips will continue to exceed, as it has for years, the supply provided by the current recreational use allocation caps.

   The wait to obtain a private trip permit is unacceptably long. This year, the number of new applicants added to the list was double the number who can be awarded a permit. This is obviously an untenable situation.

   Setting aside for a moment the question of impact to other potential canyon users who have an equal right of access, even a massive reallocation of user-days to the private trip program would not solve the waiting list problem. Even a doubling of the private allocation, an unlikely scenario, would still leave a wait in excess of several years.

   In the Face of Overwhelming Demand

   So, where to go from here? A good place to start is with the realization that in a highly regulated system like that used at the Grand Canyon, demand can never be satisfied. It can only be managed.

   Could the outfitters sell more river trips to the public? Of course. Why then can the outfitted public get on the river with only a reasonable amount of planning?

   Here’s the answer. The outfitters and the National Park Service have learned over the years how to successfully manage the demand for commercial trips. It is a dangerous misconception to conclude that commercial demand is lacking because of the commercial passenger’s relatively speedy access to the river.

   A key to this successful management is the fact that only those who are ready to commit to specific trip dates and willing to put a sizeable portion of their good money down are allowed to lock up trip space, thus depriving others of that space. This is not the case on the private side.

   The Waiting List Is Now Self-Generating

   On the private side, the already lengthy waiting list breeds an ever-lengthening waiting list. The fact that a list exists motivates people to get on the list. Everyone knows that lots of people are on the private waiting list who may not now be able, ready, or qualified to actually be a trip leader on a Grand Canyon private river trip. But many of these people have been encouraged to get in line by the very design of the current system.

   There’s a game to be played so naturally people play the game. People get on the list to hedge their bets. As several private permit applicants freely admitted at the CRMP public workshops, folks who want a permit not only put their own names on the waiting list, they get their family members and friends on the list. They do so in an attempt to give themselves more options than they would otherwise have under existing regulations.

   This dynamic alone creates one of the current system’s most fundamental problems. Now, essentially the same group of people is able and motivated to occupy multiple places in the line. This clogs the system and denies more ready access to those privates less motivated to play the game.

   How many of the sixty-eight hundred names currently on the private waiting list actually represent basically the same group of boaters? The National Park Service won’t tell us. They probably don’t even know themselves. However, the available anecdotal evidence on this point is strong, and was recently re-enforced by the comments of many CRMP workshop participants.

   And now, in a very dangerous development, the waiting list itself has been transformed by government into a significant revenue generator. The more people on the list and the longer they wait, the more money the government collects. There’s a lot wrong with this picture.

   Challenges, Challenges

   Three distinct yet inter-related challenges await anyone trying to design a better private permit management system.

   First, we need to recognize that the current system is fundamentally flawed and cannot be repaired. A completely new system must be designed. It must be user-friendly, self-supporting, and readily administrable using available resources.

   Second, a fair means of transitioning to whatever new system is chosen must be devised. This will not be easy and could in fact prove to be the most daunting aspect of implementing any new private permit management system.

   Consider the fact that even if the current waiting list were closed today to new applications, it would take upwards of ten years to provide those already in line with a permit. If the park and the public are not willing to examine meaningful ways to confront this hard reality, all interested parties might as well simply suspend this discussion and bide their time for the next CRMP revision to take place in a decade or so.

   One component of a fair transition might be the need for the NPS to refund (gasp!) fees already paid by private boaters. As we all know, the government is loath to actually give the people’s money back.

   Third, that which is currently working well, namely the management system that governs the commercial side of the river’s recreational use allocation, must not be impaired in an attempt to fix problems.

   Like private boaters, the outfitted public care deeply about the Grand Canyon and will be actively involved in the CRMP revision process. The outfitted public (those who have completed and those now contemplating a commercial trip) is a sizable group and is populated by many active involved citizens from all over the country.

   These folks are imbued with a shared identity and constitute a potentially potent political force that will not stand idly by if their current rights and opportunities are brought into question.

   Equal Suffering Is Not the Answer

   I was astonished to hear repeatedly at the CRMP public workshops several self-described private boaters discuss their contentment with having to wait for a river trip, as long as everyone has to wait equally. But where is it written that unreasonable waits to get on the river are necessary, even in light of the obvious heavy demand for both commercial and private trips?

   An attempt to produce equal suffering between commercial and private boaters is not the answer to the CRMP revision. A much better goal is reasonable access to the river corridor for all who desire the Grand Canyon river experience.

   The Reservations-Based Management Model

   Providing reasonable access for commercial and private river users alike is possible. All it takes is a move to proper management of the existing demand for private permits and a move away from the current self-generating waiting list system. Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association suggests a reservations-based management model.

   A key component of this system is the opportunity afforded to all participants to join a “track” of groups that would advance forward along the calendar as cancellations and scheduling opportunities provide movement toward the present. A track is simply the list of all other trips of identical group size ordered by the date each reservation was made.

   Another key to greater access under this approach is the provision to allow for multiple private launches per day of smaller groups within the overall daily launch limit. This is how the commercial side works.

   For example, on any launch day one group of sixteen (or whatever number the private group size limitation ends up being), two groups of eight, or any combination of groups that would total sixteen passengers could launch. Multiple launches would have to be controlled with some restrictions, however, to limit on-river group contacts and congestion and to maintain resource protection and visitor experience goals.

   Because a greater number of smaller groups could launch within overall use limits, smaller groups would move forward along their track at a faster pace than larger groups, producing quicker access to the river. Smaller groups are easier to schedule than larger groups as there are naturally more spaces on the calendar where a small group would fit.

   How the Reservations Model Would Work

   The private trip applicant would contact the private trip reservationist to tentatively schedule the next available launch date (or if they chose, a launch date farther out in the future) for a specific group of participants and an announced trip duration.

   Receipt of a list of all the group’s members and the required trip deposit within an accepted travel industry timeframe such as ten to fifteen days would confirm the reservation. If trip deposits and the list of trip participants was not received on time, the reservation would be purged from the system to free up space for other bookings.

   Under this system, the trip leader concept is abolished. No longer would the group’s fortunes rise and fall with the fortunes of the original permit applicant.

   An individual either as the applicant or simply as a member of a group could only hold one trip reservation at a time. Each person waiting to do a trip would be afforded a single place on the launch calendar.

   A reasonable level of substitutions of group participants would be allowed up until the trip’s launch. But a transaction cost would be imposed to swap participants.

   This would provide a disincentive for booking until all the group’s participants were fully committed to the trip and would help prevent bookings well out into the future. Also the bulk of the original participants would be required to launch with the trip to receive the permit. This requirement would prevent speculation in private trip permits.

   At the time of booking, the applicant would inform the reservationist if the first available launch date was acceptable or if they wished to join their track. Doing so would place the reservation in a moving queue of trip reservations advancing toward the present.

   As each track moved forward, each reservation within that track would move forward. Cancelled permits (except perhaps those cancelled at the very last minute) would be used to advance the tracks.

   Each applicant who placed themselves in a track would also be afforded the opportunity to specify a desired launch window. If that window was reached by the forward movement of the applicant’s track, the applicant’s group would automatically be awarded the first available launch date within the specified window on the calendar. The applicant would then have the choice whether or not to accept the new, more recent launch date or to stick with the original launch date first confirmed when the reservation was made.

   The balance of the trip fees would be due at the time of final confirmation of the group’s launch date. Trips canceling after this date would forfeit their fees.

   There would be no yearly fee collection and no need to indicate continuing interest.

   An occasional newsletter could inform all customers of various trends associated with the speed of the various tracts and other relevant information. The Internet could also be used to provide information and a means for each group to check its status.

   Finally, a fully staffed reservation office utilizing an advanced computerized reservation system would enable a much higher degree of user-friendliness and applicant satisfaction with the system.

   Expected Results

   The reservations model is designed to allow greater access to the river for those applicants who are actually ready to put a trip on the water. It provides disincentives for those not ready to go but who are motivated under the current system to pay twenty-five dollars a year to stand in line.

   This system would guarantee everyone who wishes to accompany a trip down the canyon a known launch date and more options for scheduling the actually desired launch date than currently exist. The system would prevent the now common practice whereby essentially the same group of boaters occupies multiple places on the waiting list in an attempt to generate future trip options. In return, it offers much more ready access to the river.

   Only those ready to commit to a trip – with known dates and known participants – and willing to put down trip deposits would be likely to apply for a permit. Less people applying for a permit in the near term would produce greater access for those ready to go now.

   The costs associated with less than fully committed applications would be high. Thus potential applicants who need to wait until conditions are right for their trip would be discouraged from clogging the system while they wait. More ready access would provide people with assurance that they would no longer have to get on a list to make possible a trip at some distant point in the future; people would no longer be forced to hedge their bets.

   What would happen on the commercial side if at the end of each trip the participants were informed that if they were considering another trip sometime in the next ten years, they had better get on a waiting list now? People would say, “Hey, I’m not quite sure of my plans but I want to preserve the option for a future trip someday. I’d better get on the list just in case.”

   And almost overnight, a huge commercial waiting list and a tremendous roadblock to ready access to the river would be created.

   This has happened on the private side. The waiting list has become a self-generating, unwieldy barrier to ready access to the river. The current management scheme and all of its attendant annoyances – an unreasonably long waiting list, annual fees, continuing interest notification requirements, limited sign-up windows – should be abolished.

   There are better alternatives. While many details remain to be worked out, a private trip reservations-based model holds great promise in the effort to provide reasonable access to the Grand Canyon river experience for both commercial and private trip participants alike.

   GCROA, the non-profit trade association of the 16 Grand Canyon Outfitters, can be reached at: P.O. Box 22189 Flagstaff, AZ 86002, 520-556-0669, gcroa@gcroa.com