am very glad to see GCRG tackle the allocation issue- one that has the potential to blow the river community apart at the seams. My perspective took shape in the 1960s when I was somewhat involved in the “war” between noncommercial champions like Fred Eiseman and Joe Munroe, on the one side, and Martin Litton who sometimes conveniently forgets that he, too, first came to the river on a private trip. I may be somewhat unique among contributors to Perspectives II in that about half of my fifty-odd Grand Canyon river trips have been private and half commercial.

   What I want to do here is offer a philosophy for thinking about allocation. It begins with the assumption that the river corridor is wilderness (park policy to the contrary notwithstanding) and should be managed as such. I think a Grand Canyon river trip should be one of the premier wilderness experiences on this planet.

   I next suggest that the core of any definition of Wilderness is the idea of the uncontrolled. This implies a degree of uncertainty, risk and self-reliance. Wilderness should be as unlike civilization as possible. Now, my train of thought continues, a commercial guide detracts from the wilderness aspect of the experience. Sure, people on commercial trips have a great time, but the guides provide an element of security and control that works against wilderness. Guides (like myself!) decrease risk, limit opportunities for self-sufficiency, reduce pride in achievement and, in a sense, eliminate discovery. A safari experience is not a wilderness experience. So, if society determines to manage the river corridor as wilderness and for the realization of wilderness values, then noncommercial trips should be favored over guided and outfitted ones. Don't, of course let every yahoo who shows up on the creek (preparation, even licensing, is an important part of any wilderness experience), but definitely get rid of the nine year- actually 19.7 years if you do the math -wait. And make the commercial ticket more difficult than one phone call and a credit card.

   Finally, one question for all the guide members of GCRG. For your own pleasure, right now, would you opt for being a customer on a commercial safari or participating in a private, do-it-yourself river journey? What does your answer reveal about the issue under scrutiny here?

   I say maximize the wilderness values of one of the world’s great wildernesses: ban motors, lower total user numbers and at least bring noncommercial use up to fifty percent of visitor allocation.

   Reprint of an old article- ca. 1975, from a publication up north -from Rod Nash.

   Over the years, as outfitters have competed for clients, they have vied with each other to see who could provide the most comfortable camps and the best meals. As a result, clients have come to expect- even demand -the ultimate in luxury (the Waldorf treatment). Of course, that is not what wilderness is about. People who demand such treatment should go to mountain resorts where they can enjoy the outdoors from under an electric blanket. Certainly outfitted users and the non-outfitted user should use the wilderness under the same rules.

   So what should the outfitter's role be? ...The outfitter is, or should be, an expert in living and traveling the old way. The outfitter/guide relationship with his client should be as a teacher and guide, rather than as a waiter, servant and inn-keeper. The client should be involved in the adventure to the fullest extent possible. This would include learning about stock use and care, packing, setting up and striking camp, camp cooking, wood gathering, and etc. In other words, the trip should be the clients' and they should share responsibility for its success or failure. I'm convinced most guests will get a great deal more enjoyment and personal satisfaction from such a trip as opposed to a trip where they are waited on hand and foot. There are some of the "fat cats" who presently demand the Waldorf treatment that will drop out. They will be replaced by others who want to be involved. Under this approach, the employee to guest ratio will normally be reduced, thus cutting overhead.

   For those outfitters and their clients who don't want to give up the plush camps with running water, carpeted tent floors, dining tables, etc., there will still be a great amount of National Forest land outside the Wilderness where these kinds of operations can be permitted. Those outfitters who feel more comfortable there can continue in their roles of waiters, servants and inn-keepers.

   In closing I'd like to emphasize our desire to be a good partner and neighbor with the outfitting industry in these trying times. It makes our job even more challenging to balance all the resources. We don't want to make hasty decisions that have long-term negative effects on outfitters, but to provide enough balance to keep wood products mills operating, grass for livestock, habitat for the wildlife and fisheries and etc... The list is endless, but I know we can provide for the outfitter and emerging tourist industry on the Nez Perce.

   Outfitters are wonderful people.