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!

Bruce Wray

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.

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)

If a campsite reservation plan is implemented, would “rabbit boating” be prohibited? Who would enforce this prohibition? How would “rabbit boating” be defined?