<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Run, Rogue, Run</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rogueawareness.com/2008/12/run-rogue-run/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rogueawareness.com/2008/12/run-rogue-run/</link>
	<description>Updates about Oregon's Rogue River</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:31:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Zachary Collier</title>
		<link>http://www.rogueawareness.com/2008/12/run-rogue-run/comment-page-1/#comment-60</link>
		<dc:creator>Zachary Collier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogueawareness.com/?p=45#comment-60</guid>
		<description>Yes, those would also be solutions to the campsite problems. A couple things I should point out:

- The total private allocation is 72 for some days. And commercial allocation is 70 (not including guides) on other days.
- There is more private use than commercial use on the Rogue River.
- This shouldn&#039;t be a private vs commercial issue. 

Private groups are able to create starts on any given day if there is room in the common pool. Commercial groups are not allowed to do this. If the commercial outfitters wanted to take this to your level, they would petition to be able to create starts on any day. Or only allow private groups start trips only on days they have a lottery permit for (like all other permitted rivers).

The current permit system is in place to maximize the use by both private boaters and commercial outfitters. Reduction of use (by both commercial and private) is a very good solution to the problem. I doubt the BLM would support a plan that reduces use since they depend on the income generated by people going down the river. 

I&#039;d personally support a plan that reduces use by both commercial private users. Maybe cap commercial at 60 per day and only allow privates to go on dates they win in the lottery? I brought this idea up to both the NWRA board and the OWA general membership and both groups didn&#039;t like the idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, those would also be solutions to the campsite problems. A couple things I should point out:</p>
<p>- The total private allocation is 72 for some days. And commercial allocation is 70 (not including guides) on other days.<br />
- There is more private use than commercial use on the Rogue River.<br />
- This shouldn&#8217;t be a private vs commercial issue. </p>
<p>Private groups are able to create starts on any given day if there is room in the common pool. Commercial groups are not allowed to do this. If the commercial outfitters wanted to take this to your level, they would petition to be able to create starts on any day. Or only allow private groups start trips only on days they have a lottery permit for (like all other permitted rivers).</p>
<p>The current permit system is in place to maximize the use by both private boaters and commercial outfitters. Reduction of use (by both commercial and private) is a very good solution to the problem. I doubt the BLM would support a plan that reduces use since they depend on the income generated by people going down the river. </p>
<p>I&#8217;d personally support a plan that reduces use by both commercial private users. Maybe cap commercial at 60 per day and only allow privates to go on dates they win in the lottery? I brought this idea up to both the NWRA board and the OWA general membership and both groups didn&#8217;t like the idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry</title>
		<link>http://www.rogueawareness.com/2008/12/run-rogue-run/comment-page-1/#comment-59</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogueawareness.com/?p=45#comment-59</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that there is a problem with too many large groups.  I think I will propose that the BLM reduce the maximum group size to 15.  Additionally I think it is time for the BLM to reduce use to 60 privates and 60 commercials, which should include guides.  The BLM has been allowing up to 70 commercials a day plus guides in the summer months.  There is no legal basis for them to exceed an allocation of 60 per day.  I guess it is time to call them on this issue.

And, yes the group size can be changed if they open the campsite congestion issue to a public process.  It is just as legitimate as your proposal to reserve campsites.  If they open a public process on campsite congestion you can bet that reducing group size will be on the table.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that there is a problem with too many large groups.  I think I will propose that the BLM reduce the maximum group size to 15.  Additionally I think it is time for the BLM to reduce use to 60 privates and 60 commercials, which should include guides.  The BLM has been allowing up to 70 commercials a day plus guides in the summer months.  There is no legal basis for them to exceed an allocation of 60 per day.  I guess it is time to call them on this issue.</p>
<p>And, yes the group size can be changed if they open the campsite congestion issue to a public process.  It is just as legitimate as your proposal to reserve campsites.  If they open a public process on campsite congestion you can bet that reducing group size will be on the table.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zachary Collier</title>
		<link>http://www.rogueawareness.com/2008/12/run-rogue-run/comment-page-1/#comment-56</link>
		<dc:creator>Zachary Collier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogueawareness.com/?p=45#comment-56</guid>
		<description>Noah,

Nobody has bridged the idea of reducing allowed group size. I can see how that could a solution to the problem. 

I&#039;m trying to find a solution within the current permitting system. Any changes to the system would be very difficult to make.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Noah,</p>
<p>Nobody has bridged the idea of reducing allowed group size. I can see how that could a solution to the problem. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m trying to find a solution within the current permitting system. Any changes to the system would be very difficult to make.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: noahjeti</title>
		<link>http://www.rogueawareness.com/2008/12/run-rogue-run/comment-page-1/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>noahjeti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:38:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogueawareness.com/?p=45#comment-52</guid>
		<description>If there is inadequate camping space for the allowed groups, has anyone bridged the idea of reducing the allowed group size?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there is inadequate camping space for the allowed groups, has anyone bridged the idea of reducing the allowed group size?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: noahjeti</title>
		<link>http://www.rogueawareness.com/2008/12/run-rogue-run/comment-page-1/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>noahjeti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:27:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogueawareness.com/?p=45#comment-51</guid>
		<description>There is no information on Rogue Awareness website indicating who is posting that information.  What agenda is this site serving? I am not trying to imply anyone is up to anything but from looking at it I just can&#039;t tell. 

I would vote for option E, do nothing. 

Why should campsites with outhouses be available to only large groups?  If a small group has to spend $2.00 to clean out their groover the large groups shouldn’t be excluded. 

It doesn&#039;t bother me that the commercial trips or large groups are inconvenienced. A rabbit boat doesn&#039;t have any real rite to tell any group that pulls into a site that they can&#039;t camp there. When it comes to tent sites or kitchen sites, its first come first served. I think the rabbit boater needs to share the site or move on. If the rabbit sets up an entire camp I don&#039;t suppose anyone has the rite to ask that camp be broken to move. I’ve been in small groups set up on the periphery of large occupied sites and had no issues. IF there are a lot of folks on the river solitude isn’t really an option, (the state of mind that is).

A bigger issue, in my book, would be getting the scat machines available on a year round basis so that winter river runners can clean out their toilets.

This is a problem on the Deschutes as well as the Rogue. The requirement or obligation to carry out your waste out doesn&#039;t go away in the winter but the scat machines do. This sort of limits boaters to camping where there are toilets unless they want to visit a sewage treatment plant and clean out their toilets at home. This is not a pleasant experience.

Mike Babcock</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no information on Rogue Awareness website indicating who is posting that information.  What agenda is this site serving? I am not trying to imply anyone is up to anything but from looking at it I just can&#8217;t tell. </p>
<p>I would vote for option E, do nothing. </p>
<p>Why should campsites with outhouses be available to only large groups?  If a small group has to spend $2.00 to clean out their groover the large groups shouldn’t be excluded. </p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t bother me that the commercial trips or large groups are inconvenienced. A rabbit boat doesn&#8217;t have any real rite to tell any group that pulls into a site that they can&#8217;t camp there. When it comes to tent sites or kitchen sites, its first come first served. I think the rabbit boater needs to share the site or move on. If the rabbit sets up an entire camp I don&#8217;t suppose anyone has the rite to ask that camp be broken to move. I’ve been in small groups set up on the periphery of large occupied sites and had no issues. IF there are a lot of folks on the river solitude isn’t really an option, (the state of mind that is).</p>
<p>A bigger issue, in my book, would be getting the scat machines available on a year round basis so that winter river runners can clean out their toilets.</p>
<p>This is a problem on the Deschutes as well as the Rogue. The requirement or obligation to carry out your waste out doesn&#8217;t go away in the winter but the scat machines do. This sort of limits boaters to camping where there are toilets unless they want to visit a sewage treatment plant and clean out their toilets at home. This is not a pleasant experience.</p>
<p>Mike Babcock</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry</title>
		<link>http://www.rogueawareness.com/2008/12/run-rogue-run/comment-page-1/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:48:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogueawareness.com/?p=45#comment-50</guid>
		<description>I would like to see the details.  Which campsites?  What would be the limits for each campsite?  What formula would be used to determine the validity of a claim to a campsite?  What would happen if there was a dispute?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to see the details.  Which campsites?  What would be the limits for each campsite?  What formula would be used to determine the validity of a claim to a campsite?  What would happen if there was a dispute?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
