Some Ideas - 11/13/08
PROPOSAL FOR REDUCING CAMPSITE CONFLICTS AND ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR RABBIT BOATING ON THE WILD SECTION OF THE ROGUE RIVER
PROBLEM – Large float groups on the Rogue River have a limited number of appropriately sized sites where they can camp. These sites are often occupied by smaller groups which results in campsite uncertainty, campsite competition and user conflicts. The practice of sending a raft ahead to secure a campsite (rabbit boating) has become a necessary practice for large groups in order for them to be more certain of getting an appropriately sized site. This practice creates unwelcome divisiveness on the river and decreases the sense of solitude that is important for all Rogue floaters.
GOAL – Eliminate the need for rabbit boating by providing large groups a higher level of certainty that they will have an appropriately sized camp.
We propose adopting one or more of the following four possible solutions, each with its own level of complexity and effectiveness.
OPTION A: Physically identify each of the major campsites with a sign that gives the name, river mileage and designated group size for the camp.
This proposal would aid river users by letting them know where they are on the river and, in conjunction with an up-to-date campsite list, would help them locate and use an appropriately sized camp. It would eliminate confusion about campsite identity and capacity. This proposal might not significantly reduce the need for rabbit boating because it would not restrict small groups from occupying large sites (it would just make it more obvious that a small group was using an inappropriately sized camp) nor would it eliminate competition between large groups.
This proposal requires the BLM and Forest Service to inventory campsites, create and place signs, (wooden posts, vertical strip signs or small plaques), create and add campsite language to permits and to educate permit holders about using appropriately sized campsites.
OPTION B: Designate certain sites for use by large groups only.
This proposal would designate certain, specific campsites for use by large groups only. It would reduce campsite competition because instead of competing with EVERY OTHER GROUP for large campsites, large groups would only be competing with other large groups. Large groups would be able to communicate and coordinate campsite use with other large groups on the river, which would result in slightly more campsite certainty and would reduce the need to send a raft ahead to secure a camp. Uncertainty would still exist due to layovers and mistakes. The number and selection could be adjusted annually to match demand and to avoid any sense of exclusivity.
This proposal requires the BLM to add a clearly worded stipulation sheet to the face of each permit, to educate groups when they pick up their permit at Rand, to post signs similar to the bear education or fire restriction notices in Rand, at the portal kiosks and at the large camps and to have river rangers educate and enforce the policy during patrols.
OPTION C: Create a voluntary campsite reservation option for large groups and large sites.
This proposal would consist of a campsite sign up sheet at Rand on which large groups could sign up for specific large camps when obtaining their permit. It would effectively eliminate the need for rabbit boating by giving large groups a very high degree of campsite certainty. Uncertainty would still exist due to mistakes; however implementing a portion of Option A (identifying and signing the large sites only) would effectively eliminate all uncertainty. Approximately 10 of the 51 already inventoried sites (20%) would need to be designated as “large group only” sites. The number and selection could be adjusted annually to match demand and to avoid any sense of exclusivity. The minimum group size needed in order to qualify as a large group could also be adjusted to ensure efficient use of the large sites.
This proposal requires the BLM to maintain a simple, one-page campsite sign-up sheet at Rand, to add a clearly worded stipulation sheet to the face of each permit, to educate groups when they pick up their permit at Rand, to post signs similar to the bear education or fire restriction notices in Rand, at the portal kiosks and at the large camps and to have river rangers educate and enforce the policy during patrols. It could also be supplemented with a sign at each of the large sites.
OPTION D: Create a voluntary campsite reservation option for both large and small groups and both large and small sites.This proposal would effectively eliminate the need for rabbit boating by giving large groups a very high degree of campsite certainty while also providing the same degree of certainty to small groups who choose to know in advance where they are going to be camping. Uncertainty would still exist due to mistakes; however implementing a portion of Option A (identifying and signing sites) would effectively eliminate all uncertainty. Approximately 10 of the 51 already inventoried sites (20%) would need to be designated as reservable large group sites; anywhere from 8 to 12 of the 51 already inventoried sites (15 to 20%) would need to be designated as reservable small group sites. The number and selection could be adjusted annually to match demand and to avoid any sense of exclusivity.
This proposal requires the BLM to maintain a more complex campsite sign-up sheet at Rand, to add a clearly worded stipulation sheet to the face of each permit, to educate groups when they pick up their permit at Rand, to post signs similar to the bear education or fire restriction notices in Rand, at the portal kiosks and at the large camps and to have river rangers educate and enforce the policy during patrols. It could also be supplemented with a sign at each of the reservable sites.
These proposals come from river outfitters. We’ve met with the Oregon Whitewater Association and the NWRA Board and have taken their thoughts into consideration when coming up with these proposals.
Category: Campsite Congestion
November 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am
I am hopeful that one of these 4 options will be adopted by the BLM. I do not think that Option A will make much of a difference. My first choice is Option D. Thanks for taking the time to write up this proposal and create this BLOG.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:25 am
THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. Which campsites are designated as “large”? What happens if a smaller group camps in a campsite designated as “large”? How big does a group have to be to qualify as “large”? Are medium groups always forbidden to use certain campsites? What happens on the times when there are lots of small and medium groups but only a few large groups? What happens if two groups want the same campsite for the same night? What happens if one group totally disregards the plan? What happens if another group is camped in the site that you have reserved? 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? If not, what do you do then?
If a campsite reservation plan is implemented, would “rabbit boating” be prohibited? Who would enforce this prohibition? How would “rabbit boating” be defined?
November 16th, 2008 at 9:05 am
[...] 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 [...]
November 17th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I have not seen a proposal that I would be
willing to support, and the numerous possibilities for strategies and
specific details are quite impossible for me to address at this time,
so I will make just a few general comments:
1. I am not convinced at this time that there is a problem that
requires a solution.
2. Do you want an open discussion among river users, or do you simply
wish to seek comments on your proposals? I do not believe that the
current blog format is optimal for promoting understanding, agreement,
and a sense of equal participation.
3. I suspect that at this time many groups have not had the
opportunity to meet and develop views that represent the group
positions on the issues that you raise. When you receive the views of
an individual, you must be clear as to whether those are the views of
the individual, or the individual is representing the views of her/his
group. I am a member of Riverhawks, but at this time I am expressing
my personal views.
4. I am a little confused about the problem that you see to be in
need of a solution. If the problem is seen as congestion, I do not
believe that reserving sites will reduce congestion. If a reservation
means that only one group can use a site, and the reservation is
honored by others, that may reduce any congestion at the reserved
site, but shift any congestion that may exist to other sites. If the
problem is conflict, I do not believe that reservations will reduce
conflict. I believe that your blog currently identifies some
conflicts that that may result from the reservation system itself. I
also believe that reservations may potentially increase the intensity
of any conflict because of the sense of right and entitlement a
reservation can produce. I do not agree that the reservation system
on the Middle Fork is without problems. Furthermore, the idea that
you have to use a site your group has reserved, even if it has already
been occupied, is a certain recipe for conflict. You often refer to
common courtesy. Perhaps common sense (and a little education) along
with common courtesy are all that are needed for any problems you may
see at this time. Finally, if the problem that needs solution is
rabbit boating, reservations do not solve that problem for me. My
issue with rabbit boating is that a group that is behind me on the
river is able to “reserve” a site at which my group arrived first as a
group. Your proposals simply make reserving sites ahead of a group
more convenient.
5. I believe that a reservation system for large groups (mostly
commercial groups) will promote division between private and
commercial users by effectively giving special privileges to
commercial users.
6. As one of my old bosses used to say, maybe you need to change
“set”. If there is a problem, maybe the problem is that commercial
groups are so large that they have trouble finding camp sites on the
Rogue River.
Mike Andrews
November 18th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Mike, here are some thoughts about your comments. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns.
1. I am not convinced at this time that there is a problem that requires a solution.
If you are mainly doing small private trips and understand how the system works, then the current system works well for you. Private groups that want to float down the Rogue with large groups or that don’t know the river very well think there is a problem.
The problem for outfitters is speeding. We would prefer a system in place that assures us an adequately sized camp without the need for speed boating.
I know that some privates have a problem with speedboating and I’d like to address the root of the problem. The problem is that small groups (commercial included) take large camps.
2. Do you want an open discussion among river users, or do you simply wish to seek comments on your proposals? I do not believe that the current blog format is optimal for promoting understanding, agreement, and a sense of equal participation.
I would like an open discussion and the blog is an attempt at that. I’ve met twice with the general membership of the Oregon Whitewater Association and once with the board of the NWRA. The blog is a way to communicate with everyone that’s asked me to keep them updated.
I’d be open to other suggestions about an open dialogue. I would like some agreement between private boaters and commercial outfitters before suggesting a plan to the BLM. If there is strong opposition, then it makes no sense to bother the BLM with ideas.
3. I suspect that at this time many groups have not had the opportunity to meet and develop views that represent the group positions on the issues that you raise. When you receive the views of an individual, you must be clear as to whether those are the views of the individual, or the individual is representing the views of her/his group. I am a member of Riverhawks, but at this time I am expressing my personal views.
I understand. Thanks for the clarification. Another person chose the username “Riverhaws.” Does he represent the views of Riverhawks or are those his personal views?
4. I am a little confused about the problem that you see to be in need of a solution.
The problem, as I see it, is that during the busy months of June, July, and August the camps are not used efficiently and some groups are left with an inadequate camp for their group. This causes tension between rafting trips of all types and sizes.
- If the problem is seen as congestion, I do notbelieve that reserving sites will reduce congestion.
Do you have any other things we should consider? Would you support labeling camps?
- If a reservation means that only one group can use a site, and the reservation is
honored by others, that may reduce any congestion at the reserved site, but shift any congestion that may exist to other sites.
I think what will help is if large camps are used more efficiently. If either a large groups or two small groups shared the large campsites there would be fewer problems.
- If the problem is conflict, I do not believe that reservations will reduce conflict.
I was at the Rogue River Ranch this summer when there was a large amount of conflict between private parties. Many of them were first time boaters on the Rogue and really wanted a reservation system for at least some of the camps.
- I believe that your blog currently identifies some conflicts that that may result from the reservation system itself. I also believe that reservations may potentially increase the intensity of any conflict because of the sense of right and entitlement a
reservation can produce.
I can see your point here. I would think that if someone had a “reservation” that they would have an upper hand in camping somewhere. I do see how this could create conflict.
- I do not agree that the reservation system on the Middle Fork is without problems.
I’ve spent a lot of time on the Middle Fork and I would say most people really like that system. There may be some minor problems, but in my experience it is very little compared to the Rogue. All of the Idaho private boaters that I talk with don’t like the system on the Rogue. They are very happy with the partial reservation system that exists on the Main Salmon. (these are opinions that I’ve heard)
- Furthermore, the idea that you have to use a site your group has reserved, even if it has already been occupied, is a certain recipe for conflict.
There could definitely be conflict if someone camps in a site that is “reserved” by another group.
- You often refer to common courtesy. Perhaps common sense (and a little education) along with common courtesy are all that are needed for any problems you may see at this time.
This is always the solution and the BLM creates more and more paperwork to help educate private boaters about camp sizes. The problem is that the permit holder is rarely the trip leader and this information is not passed on to the group.
I agree that education will definitely help. At the very least the discussions we have and the meetings I attend help us understand the issues better and we’ll work together better under the current system.
- Finally, if the problem that needs solution is rabbit boating, reservations do not solve that problem for me. My issue with rabbit boating is that a group that is behind me on the river is able to “reserve” a site at which my group arrived first as a
group. Your proposals simply make reserving sites ahead of a group more convenient.
I can tell you that if we (ECHO River Trips) had reserved camps, we would not rabbit boat. Every outfitter I’ve spoken with agrees.
5. I believe that a reservation system for large groups (mostly commercial groups) will promote division between private and commercial users by effectively giving special privileges to commercial users.
I believe that a reservation system for large groups would allow more private users to travel in large groups and would greatly reduce the number of small camps used.
It is true that most private groups are in groups of 5 people or less. The problem is that the 31 groups last summer of 16 people or more had some real struggles with camps. Many will choose to go with smaller groups next time. This makes the problem worse. This year was the first since the BLM has been keeping track of group size data (at least 15 years) that the average private group sized dropped.
Would a small and large reservation system be a better idea?
6. As one of my old bosses used to say, maybe you need to change “set”. If there is a problem, maybe the problem is that commercial groups are so large that they have trouble finding camp sites on the Rogue River.
We are running businesses within the current permit system which allows us to travel in large groups. The larger group size allows for a less expensive trip which makes a rafting trip down the Rogue River affordable for families. We also find that the public we serve likes to travel down the river in large groups. Many are groups of families or would like to meet other families with kids.
I’m sure the average private boater doesn’t care if we stay in business, but we love what we do and would like to continue doing it. The public that we serve would agree.
In addition, our customers bring a substantial amount of tourism dollars to the local hotels and restaurants. The outfitters support local business and are fervent supporters of river conservation efforts. (please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeoF4-27y3E for our most recent effort about communicating the Save the Wild Rogue Campaign)
November 25th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I grew up rafting the Rogue, but now live in Idaho and raft primarily Idaho rivers. Every few years I’m lucky enough to get back to my “roots” on the Rogue. So, I’ve experience with both systems and both have their own issues.
One thing that I haven’t seen addressed in anyone’s comments is what assigning campsites means to the schedule in floating down the river. If you assign campsites, that means you must be in that site on your designated day. I don’t know about the majority of boaters, but I have a few different boating groups and the one thing we’ve all enjoyed about the Rogue is the ability to take 4-5 days and just wing it. We might take a layover day 1, or on day 4, or we might just simply do 5 really short days. One day we had an injury on our trip and we were afforded the luxury of taking a day off to allow him to heal enough that we could continue downriver. We couldn’t have done that on the MF.
It seems to me that the Rogue kind of has its own culture, and most of us understand it. It is the people with no Rogue experience who complain. The first time I did the Rogue with Idahoans, they did complain about it because they were used to the MF system. However, now they enjoy the way things are run on the Rogue just for that—it is the Rogue and that’s just the way it is. I think that they appreciate the flexibility that I described above as much as they appreciate not having to worry about a campsite on the MF.
So, as I’ve stated, assigning campsites means that you have to be in your campsite that night for the system to work. Additionally, it also most likely means that if you are in an assigned campsite, you cannot do a layover day there (most likely, based on scheduling). Since the Rogue is a shorter trip, most people I know plan a layover day.
I do not claim to know the answer, and I can see both sides of the issue. I just wanted to bring an issue with assigned campsites to the table that I had not seen addressed.
December 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Over the past several months I’ve read all the ideas and comments posted on this site. Quite a few good points have been made, but I have come to think a different approach might yield more satisfactory results. The necessary starting point is an accurate definition of the problem, which I don’t think has yet been set forth. Over the last 20+ years that I’ve been boating the Rogue, I’ve seen a large number of campsites go away. A few examples: Zane Grey and Gleason Bar are all but gone; Wildcat, Missouri Creek, Solitude and the Tate Creek sites are shadows of what they once were; all along the river many useable sandbars have disappeared. Other experienced boaters could no doubt expand at length on this list. To my mind, a more accurate definition of the problem is that the number and quality of places to camp have shrunk considerably. All the sand that used flow downriver yearly to make good camping places is parked behind the dams upriver. Issues that others have described as problems can more correctly be seen as symptoms of the underlying real problem: there aren’t as many places to camp, large, medium and small, as there used to be.
Many writers before me have commented on Options A through E, pointing out the shotrcomings, pitfalls, complexities and new issues that could arise from any reservation or group size limitation system. If there were more and better sites, I believe the majority of the symptoms that led to the rise of this forum would largely disappear. I realize that this means dealing with both BLM and The USFS, and all too often when they aren’t hidebound they are budget bound. I’d propose that stakeholders who have personal relationships with BLM and USFS personnel who supervise the river contact them to explain this idea. If people inside the bureaucracy can be brought on board, the battle is more than half over.
Last year BLM finally issued a great campsites map, the first update since 2002. That was a start. I think that a campsite improvement program is the next logical step. I usually boat with a small group (4-8), and a number of times we’ve “made” a site: pulling up alfalfa, rolling rocks, leveling a tent pads with an oar or paddle, etc. Here’s my rough idea on how I think this could work: BLM/USFS surveys the river (early May?) to determine spots to improve, large medium and small, using no more than shovels, picks, rakes, and limbing saws.. Then (mid May?), previously organized volunteer trips under BLM/USFS employee direction improve specific stretches on the river. I think contacting western rafting organizations for volunteers would be very successful. I’d be happy to participate if they’d buy the food for a 4-5 day trip. As soon as the trips are done, an updated detailed campsites map is prepared for distribution to the boating public, and BLM at Rand strongly promotes use of the upgraded sites and appropriate site selection for group size, like they did with the ‘08 map.
I like this approach because it’s simple. Previous writers showed how any reservation/group size system is inherently complex. If the program focused on small and medium site improvement, there would be much less impetus for smaller groups to claim larger sites. All most boaters want is a nice place to camp without having to rush downriver to get a spot. Further, I think PETT toilets have made campsites with outhouses much less of a priority; I’d like to see all outhouses go.
Well, for better or worse, there’s my two cents on this issue.
Bruce Wray
December 16th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Bruce,
Thanks for your comments. I spoke with the NWRA board and they suggested that adding camps and permanent outhouses as a solution. We took that to the BLM meeting last month and they were pretty clear that they couldn’t add any new camps or outhouses.
As I understand it, they (or we) can’t go in with picks or shovels to expand or make new camps. I’ll send the BLM an email and ask to be sure.
I agree with you that the camps are shifting and that there are fewer good camps. PETT toilets are also great for getting groups to camp at the smaller and medium sized camps that don’t have the outhouses. The BLM told us that 4 major outhouses (I forget which) will be removed over the next 2 years. That may help too!