Tom Moody
engineer, activist, politician, commercial & private boatman, visionary

   Demilitarize the Canyon

   There's a battle going on in Grand Canyon that has little to do with the issues passionately debated during the review of the Colorado River Management Plan. It will have everything to do with the next review and those that follow. The battle is between big government and big business and the battleground is "bureaucratic regulation.” Over the past 25 years the number of outfitters has dropped from 21 to 16, the Comercial Operating Regulations (COR) has grown from 2 pages to 2 pounds. Is the experience any better for it? I think not. If we don't begin to change the essential structure that overlies the Grand Canyon experience now, we will end up with a handful of powerful corporate outfitters and an equally powerful NPS regulatory structure. The loser will be the unique canyon experience we now enjoy.

   How would we do it? Here's one idea. De-escalate the war, limiting the forces of all sides. Remove layers of bureaucracy and the most powerful incentives to maximize profits. Provide a structure that is more personal and flexible, driven by individual idealism instead of bureaucratic regulation or business principles.

   What we can do:

   1) Set new size targets for outfitting businesses, a maximum user day limit that allows individuals to make a good living while eliminating the temptation to maximize profits through growth.

   2) Give outfitters security in their contracts and allow the transfer of businesses through market mechanisms. This could include the potential for purchasing an existing commercial business and transferring user days to non-commercial use.

   3) Drastically reduce the number of regulations and financial reporting requirements currently overwhelming outfitter businesses. Similarly reduce the current NPS financial burden associated with oversight.

   How we do it:

   1) Do not punish outfitters who have evolved under current rules. Instead, when a company changes hands (or more than 50% of its stock), the new businesses must meet the new limit. Businesses smaller than the limit can grow. There would be 26 outfitters rather than 16. In fairness, family owned businesses transferred to immediate family members should be exempted.

   2) Replace the current prospectus system for concession contracts with one that guarantees the outfitter the right to do business while allowing the Park to punish (perhaps by penalizing user-days) outfitters who do not meet quality standards.

   3) Create a "fishbowl" public process for reviewing and recommending river policy. Judgement by peers can be a powerful incentive to "do the right thing." Incorporate a self-policing component for commercial and non-commercial users that allows the Park to focus more on resource management and less on law enforcement.

   The current privates, guides, outfitters and Park staff are not to blame. In fact the stature of the guides organization, the proactiveness of the outfitters association, the grassroots efforts of the private boaters, and the passion of current park personnel provide the necessary elements to make this bold step. If something is not done, a decade from now may see only a handful of outfitters the likes of Disney, Microsoft and R.J. Reynolds. The opposing regulatory structure will be equal in size. River trips will continue but the experience will be dictated by new product development and market share rather than by changing people’s lives. The Park must ensure a valuable visitor experience and protect the resource. Outfitting businesses must do the same and be profitable. Lets apply some natural checks and balances in the system before its too late.