Answers to Some Questions About Campsite Reservations
Larry from the Riverhawks commented on our proposed ideas. He asked some questions about the options presented in a previous post regarding campsite congestion solutions. Here are some answers.
Which campsites are designated as “large”?
Our original proposal designated 12 camps of the 28 large camps: Lower Whisky Creek, Doe Creek, Tyee, Lower Wildcat, Horseshoe Bend, Battle Bar, Upper Missouri, Mule Creek East (Rogue River Ranch), Lower Half Moon Bar, Brushy Bar, Lower Solitude, and Middle Tacoma.
We spoke with boating groups and they expressed concerns that they would never be able to camp at these sites again, so our newest thinking is that the large camps designated would alternate each year.
What happens if a smaller group camps in a campsite designated as “large”?
If the camp is a “reserved” camp, then they would need to share it. Most groups would prefer not to share camps and would avoid “reserved” camps.
How big does a group have to be to qualify as “large”?
This is a great question. We picked 15, but are open other numbers.
Are medium groups always forbidden to use certain campsites?
Nope. The “reservable” large camps would make up less than half of the total large camps and they would alternate each year. Our idea for a large campsite reservation system would only apply in the highly congested period between June 15th and August 31st. It’s very easy to camp at your favorite campsite other times of the year when the Rogue is not as croweded.
If you did a Rogue trip today (November 16th), you’d have sunny skies, 60 degree weather, and the ability to camp anywhere you wanted. You’d also see waterfalls most people don’t, even more wildlife, and have fewer encounters with tamed bears.
What happens on the times when there are lots of small and medium groups but only a few large groups?
During the busy months of June 15th to August 31st, there are always at least 12 large groups on the water at any one time. We realize this plan could cause problems in the spring and fall months because some camps could go unused during that time, so it would not be implemented.
What happens if two groups want the same campsite for the same night?
If it is “reservable,” the BLM would need to come up with a plan for settling ties. They flip a coin on the Middle Fork and that works very well. It’s a tradition for outfitters on the Middle Fork to always concede the coin toss to private boaters.
What happens if one group totally disregards the plan?
It is very hard for the BLM to enforce rules on the Rogue River. There should be a common respect between boaters to follow the rules and work together. If a group did disregard the plan, then they’ll need to share that camp.
What happens if another group is camped in the site that you have reserved?
They will need to share. Large groups simply won’t be able to find another campsite downriver so there is not other option.
If someone is camped in the site you had reserved, could you camp in any other site, even if it was reserved by someone else?
Absolutely not. Unless there was a safety concern that forced a group to use a different camp and in that case, they would need to share. But that’s the case now. You MUST camp in a site that is reserved.
The Middle Fork of the Salmon has full campsite reservation system (every camp) and this isn’t a problem there.
If not, what do you do then?
Campsites are so scarce in the busy summer months, so large groups would want their “reserved” camps. It would not be okay to reserve a camp and not use it. Again, this is tough to enforce by the BLM, but a common courtesy between boaters.
If a campsite reservation plan is implemented, would “rabbit boating” be prohibited?
No. It would be very difficult for the BLM to enforce a prohibition on “rabbit boating.” This plan would simply eliminate the need for it.
Who would enforce this prohibition?
The BLM, but as I said above, it would be very hard for them to actually enforce any ban.
How would “rabbit boating” be defined?
It is very tough to define it. I would define it as sending boats ahead to hold a camp. The current system basically forces large groups into this practice. If a portion of the camps were reservable, then large groups wouldn’t need to send boats ahead to reserve camps.
A large campsite reservation system is just one idea for helping with the camping congestion problem on the lower Rogue River. Our common goal is to come up with a plan that will help eliminate the need to send “rabbit boats” down the Rogue.
Category: Campsite Congestion
November 16th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
So, according to your plan a private group of fourteen wouldn’t be able to camp at Lower Whisky Creek, Doe Creek, Tyee, Lower Wildcat, Horseshoe Bend, Battle Bar, Upper Missouri, Mule Creek East (Rogue River Ranch), Lower Half Moon Bar, Brushy Bar, Lower Solitude, and Middle Tacoma.
Few private groups exceed fourteen people, so essentially your plan would reserve Lower Whisky Creek, Doe Creek, Tyee, Lower Wildcat, Horseshoe Bend, Battle Bar, Upper Missouri, Mule Creek East (Rogue River Ranch), Lower Half Moon Bar, Brushy Bar, Lower Solitude, and Middle Tacoma for the exclusive use of commercial groups. Sorry, but this plan is DOA. I can’t think of any reason why private river runners would support such a plan.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I am curious. Since the Rogue is so nice in November, have you considered having the commercials run trips in November instead of August. As you have indicated the river is much less congested then and you probably would not have as many campsite conflicts.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
The campsite choices and large group size were picked to get the conversation started. We don’t want large groups to have exclusive use of certain camps so the “reservable camps” would change every year. Plus this is only during the congested months of June, July, and August. The rest of the year when there are not congestion issues, all campsites would be first come, first served.
We could also propose a small and large campsite system that makes 12 small and 12 large camps reservable. Again, those numbers are simply to get the conversation started. It could be 10 large camps and 20 small camps. And “large groups” could be defined as 14 or larger.
I’ve spoken with private boaters all over Oregon and here are the reasons they support a campsite reservation system on the Rogue.
- Many private groups like to know where they will camp.
- The current system makes it impossible to take a large private group down the river because small groups take the large campsites. Many private boaters would like to boat with large groups, but simply can’t because of the camping congestion.
- Private boaters don’t want to rush ahead to get camps each day. They would like to stop and hike at their favorite spots.
Finally, those large camps that can handle 30 person groups should be left to large groups whether they are commercial or private. As a common courtesy, group of 4 boaters should not take a site large enough for 30. More than half of all private boaters travel as a group of 5 or less. If they were camped at appropriate spots, then there wouldn’t be a problem. We’re working on a solution that would require camps to be used for the right sized group so there is enough camping for everyone in the canyon.
There is a campsite congestions problem that is caused by a small number of small-sized groups (both commercial and private) that monopolize large camps.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Hermit,
Yes. Many outfitters run trips in September, October, and November. I would like to do trips in the fall months, but we are a family oriented company (ECHO River Trips) and most of our guests come as groups of families. They choose the summer months since it’s easier to get their kids out of school.
I would love to hear more about what you think we can do to help relieve some of the campsite issues.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I believe that a reservation system is a real Pandora’s Box for the river managers. We can argue about whether or not private boaters want a reservation system, but what we really need before seeking to open Pandora’s Box is some data on what percentage of private boaters want to be required to reserve campsites (and why-do they feel forced to rush to get a campsite? are they reluctant to go in large groups because of campsite issues? are there other issues?). This information is important to identify if there is a significant problem. It is also important to be clear on the problem to determine what kind of solution is needed; for example, reservation of large sites only does not really seem to address the desire of a group to know (for sure?) where it will be camping.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Zach,
Thank you for putting so much effort into this. Going to meetings, starting a dialogue, and providing a public avenue for feedback via this blog is great. The issue as I view it is not so much “commercial” versus “private” as it is “large groups” versus “small.”
I am a commercial guide as well as a private boater (in fact I’ve done far more private trips on the Rogue than commercial) and no matter which trip it is, the pressing issues are always: Where are we going to camp? Will we find a camp? If we find a camp, will there be enough space for all of us?
When you are worried about these things it is difficult to enjoy the river the way you are supposed to. It sad to think that many folks float the Rogue and never get the chance to explore, hike or relax because they are worried about finding a home for the night.
I do think that campsite reservations would solve this issue. Thanks again for putting this together. I’m looking forward to hearing and reading the many opinions you are sure to receive!
Will Volpert
November 18th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
i’m a private boater and agree 100% that a reservation system needs to be implemented. i don’t, however, feel that a “voluntary” system would be at all effective.
blm or fs would be unable to enforce a “voluntary” system and you’d wind up compounding the problem rather than making things better. the answer is to get the blm and or the fs to commit to a reservation system themselves that they can actually enforce (i.e. you camp in a space not assigned to you - no permits for you ever again… which i believe is how it works on the mf).
while i’m quite thankful that zach has started the discussion, i simply don’t feel that a voluntary system would work. now if we’re discussion ideas for an actual enforceable system that the blm and fs will adopt internally as part of the permit system, then by all means, let’s hash something out.
November 18th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Zach: Thanks for creating this forum for discussion and taking the lead on a issue that is an issue for (at least) some Rogue River users.
mike brings up a good point. Some more data from a larger sample of Rogue boaters might help clarify whether this truly is an issue for the majority of the Rogue boating community. Perhaps an online survey could be developed (with questions developed by a group that included proponents and opponents of reserved campsites) and distributed out to the Rogue boating community.
I’ve guided and been a private boater on both the Rogue and the MF. Just this summer I was thinking that a reservation system on the Rogue would be great. The beauty of the reservation system is that you don’t have to worry about the destination for the evening. Therefore you can enjoy the day on the river to the fullest. You can check out that unnamed side creek you’ve always be curious about, fish till you can’t stand up anymore or just ship your oars and let the flow take you where it will. With the current system, unless you send a chase (aka rabid/speed) boat downstream to secure a camp, the uncertainty of the evening’s destination weighs on your mind throughout the day. It is a little bit of Russian roulette. Maybe you luck out and get a nice camp, maybe you don’t. Of course, everybody’s idea of a great river trip is different. I come down on the reservationist side.
I believe the system would have to be mandatory. All it would take would be one party that didn’t voluntarily follow the system to screw the whole thing up. Yes, the transition from the current system to a new system would be challenging, but after an initial re-education campaign we’d all follow the system, just like all of the other systems we’ve learned to use (online lottery permit application, SCAT machine, screw cap wine bottles, the list goes on and on)
I oppose the idea to put signs or markers at the camps. The maps are good. People can’t always read them but the camps are pretty darn obvious. Let’s keep the Wild Rogue as wild as it already is(n’t).
Thanks again for creating this forum. Let us know if you need any help with what this may become.
Cheers,
Chip Carroll
Portland, OR
November 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I oppose a reservation system whether it be mandatory of voluntary. However, I believe that there would be little difference between mandatory and voluntary on the Rogue. With a mandatory system, the issue is always enforcement. With the level of enforcement that is currently viable on the Rogue, a mandatory system would be essentially voluntary. Or is the implication that the BLM would refuse to give someone a permit because someone else said a site was inappropriately occupied? That could raise some interesting legal issues for BLM.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
It seems to me that the goals of a campsite reservation system should be to:
1. Eliminate the need to send a speed/rabbit boat ahead to secure a campsite.
2. Minimize the need to share camps.
3. Make the most efficient use of the campsites.
4. Provide peace of mind to large groups that they will have an appropriately sized camp available to them.
I would think that ALL river users (large group or small group, commercial or non-commercial) would benefit from 1 and 2 and that common courtesy would dictate support for numbers 3 and 4.
Option C achieves these goals without significant sacrifice. Small groups would be giving up the option of camping at certain large sites (where courtesy says they shouldn’t be camping anyway) and in return they would be getting a less crowded-feeling river trip (fewer rabbit boats) and a much lower chance of having to share a camp.
As for the “voluntary/mandatory” discussion, I think “optional reservation system” might be a better way to think of it. Groups would have the “option” of reserving camps or not reserving camps, (participation in reserving camps is voluntary - like on the Main Salmon; not mandatory for everyone - like on the Middle Fork, Lodore, Yampa, etc). Some sites would be designated as “reservable”, the rest would be first-come, first-served just like they are now. If you reserved a site while getting your permit at Rand, it would be “mandatory” that you used it. If you chose not to reserve a site, life on the Rogue would be pretty much like it is now, except that some sites would be unavailable to you because they had been designated as reservable, (and as noted, the number of sites can be adjusted as needed and the sites could rotate from year to year or even month to month if that made the plan more attractive).
As for enforceability, sure it would be hard for the BLM or FS to enforce the system on the river, but do we really need them to? It seems like a sad day when we need the government enforcing rules that are based on politeness (no racing for camps) and fairness (efficient use of campsites). Let’s not let the enforceability issue distract us; if we can find a fair system, it will enforce itself.
And I’m confident that we can find a fair system.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
In 2008 there were 50 private groups of fifteen or more people, out of a total of 1201 private groups. That means only 4.16 percent of the private groups would have been eligible to use the “large” reservable camps under the current proposal. The other 95.84 percent would have had to compete with each other to use the remaining camps.
I am in the process of getting similar data on commercial groups, but I suspect the numbers would be reversed if you counted the guests and guides. I’m estimating that at least 90 percent of commercial parties are comprised of 15 or more total people. In 2008 there were 483 commercial trips. If my estimate of 90% is correct, that would mean that 435 commercial trips had 15 or more people, and 48 trips had smaller sized groups. I apologize for using an estimate of commercial group size. I will post an update when I get better information. Apparently, I’m the first person to ask for this information from the BLM.
I am not too concerned about the 50 private parties that are competing with 435 commercial parties for the large reservable campsites. It is the boaters in groups of less than 15 that are really getting screwed by your plan. These boaters now have to find a place to camp without using Lower Whisky Creek, Doe Creek, Tyee, Lower Wildcat, Horseshoe Bend, Battle Bar, Upper Missouri, Mule Creek East (Rogue River Ranch), Lower Half Moon Bar, Brushy Bar, Lower Solitude, or Middle Tacoma. These sub-15 parties are 95 percent private, and only 5 percent commercial, so it isn’t too surprising that commercial interests support this reservation system.
So, lets review this. Ninety percent of the commercial parties get to reserve campsites so they won’t have to worry about where they are camping, and 95.84 percent of private parties get to fight over the remaining campsites. And remember, those private boaters can’t camp at Lower Whisky Creek, Doe Creek, Tyee, Lower Wildcat, Horseshoe Bend, Battle Bar, Upper Missouri, Mule Creek East (Rogue River Ranch), Lower Half Moon Bar, Brushy Bar, Lower Solitude, and Middle Tacoma because they aren’t large enough to claim a “large site”. There really aren’t very many good choices remaining for the groups of less than 15. For example, if a group of 14 people puts on the river with the intent to not go very far, where can they camp? They can’t camp at Lower Whisky Creek, Doe Creek, Tyee, or Lower Wildcat because these are reserved for large mostly commercial parties. I guess they can camp next to the commercial party at Whisky, or maybe with the backpackers at Rainey. But wait, there are all the other medium sized private parties competing with them.
So, please tell me again why you think this isn’t a commercial vs private issue. Your plan solves the problems of commercial outfitters by giving them a huge edge on getting the large sites, but it puts private boaters in a big bind if they are in that 8-14 size range. You can’t take away the large sites from 95.84 percent of the private boaters and say it isn’t a commercial vs private issue.
I would appreciate it if any commenters will identify any employment as a commercial guide. I realize that commercial guides are almost all private boaters as well, but it seems a little misleading for them to identify themselves as private boaters if they have been recently employed as commercial guides. I’m not saying anyone has done this, but I want to make sure commercial interests are identified. I have never worked as a commercial guide.
I am a member of Riverhawks, but the above are my personal comments and do not represent any position of Riverhawks.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Larry,
Thank you for your thoughts. I’ll be sure to respond to your comments thoroughly tomorrow.
I’ve presented the same data to the NWRA board and the Oregon Whitewater Association. At that time we didn’t have data for 2008, so I asked the BLM for 2007 data. In 2007 the average private boater group size was 6.02 and average commercial group was 11.58.
The 11.58 number does not include guides. In our proposal, the guides would not count towards the number needed (15) to reserve a camp. So we are proposing a plan that the average sized commercial group could not take advantage of.
This is not a commercial versus private issue. And I am especially concerned that you don’t care about the 50 large private groups that were put in an especially precarious situation due to a lack of large camps. While these may be a small percent of private groups, they are a much larger percent of private users. And they would be even larger if the system would allow campsites for larger groups.
Since the average commercial group size is 11.58, it would seem that fewer than 50% of commercial groups would be defined large groups. In addition some commercial permits limit group size to 10. Your assumption of 90% is a great exaggeration.
Your 95.84% number is a percent of groups and not percentage of private users. The most popular group size is 2 which skews this number greatly since 2 person groups rarely take the large camps. I have the same data and tomorrow I’ll calculate the percent (and number) of river users (instead of groups) that would benefit by the ability to reserve camps.
I represent ECHO River Trips. I am also an avid private boater.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Zack, I’ll save you some trouble. There were 767 participants on 50 private trips with fifteen or more participants, out of a total of 7009 participants. That works out to 11 percent of the total. This means 89 percent of private participants cannot use the large reserved sites. That is still a large percentage.
Not counting guides for campsite size determinations is something I must have missed when I read your plan.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Zach,
In looking at groups and group sizes we must distinguish camping from non-camping trips. For example, it would seem that guided drift-boat trips that use lodges would be commercial trips, but perhaps I do not understand correctly. We also must be careful in inferring numbers from averages. For example, the average of 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, and 1 is 85.9; it is obvious that half of these numbers are not 86 or less. We must look at the actual numbers.
Mike
November 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Larry,
Thank you for looking up those numbers.
I’d like to make a few comments about outfitter use to help explain why I don’t think it’s a outfitter versus private issue.
-Many commercial groups stay in lodges which greatly reduces the number of camps needed by commercial parties. Some outfitters exclusively run lodge trips and never camp.
- There are plenty of small and medium camps. There are 23 small, 21 large, and 7 extra large camps. Our idea is that 12 of the 28 large and extra large camp are reservable. This still leaves 39 camps for other parties of all types.
- The most common group size for private parties is 2 people, followed by 3 people. These small parties have many more options for camping beyond the 51 inventoried camps.
- There are many private parties that would like to raft the Rogue River in large groups and would like a reservation system. I understand that this is up for debate, so getting some data about this is our next priority.
- An average sized commercial party could not take advantage of the reservation system as it is currently defined.
You haven’t seen any official proposal from me. I visited the Oregon Whitewater Association general meeting and a NWRA board meeting with a proposal that has more specifics including how commercial guides are treated. I listened to their thoughts and we decided to talk more about other ideas so that exact proposal is not being discussed right now. I’d be happy to email you the presentation that I did so that you can see that we are trying to address the issues that you bring up about being fair to all parties.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Mike,
I agree. I was playing with the numbers this morning and found that I could distort them to say pretty much whatever I wanted to. And I bet you could do the same
November 20th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Zach, I talked to Abbie Josie this morning. She told me that you have already submitted a written proposal to the BLM on the subject of campground reservations. In the spirit of openness, would you mind publishing your proposal here? It would save us the trouble of a FOIA request.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Larry,
We sent her the “ideas” as mentioned in the very first blog post. We’ve already published the “proposals” (we’re trying to refer to them as ideas because we’d like to get broad support before actually “proposing” anything)
Our goal was to get an idea from her about what was possible. She hasn’t responded.