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.

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

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.

Not counting guides for campsite size determinations is something I must have missed when I read your plan.

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.

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.

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.