Posted by Dona Hilkey on December 25, 2007 at 4:56 PM
This post is partially in response to the concerns of Don Grall posted 12-14-2007.
We are outfitters permitted to operate on the Blanco District of the White River National Forest in Northwest Colorado.
We have carefully read and considered the new proposed directives for Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding Special Use Permits and Insurance Requirements published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2007. We have also obtained and studied the draft of the US Forest Service Handbook concerning new rules for Special Uses.
We challenge those of you who are inclined to comment about the new rules to read these documents and to take the time and give outfitters the courtesy of learning about our permits and how the Forest Service handles them.
As you learn more about us, you should understand that we serve clients who seek our services. They choose this way of accessing and using forest lands. Many of them would not, without our help, be able to enjoy the outdoors. The Forest Service undertands and recognizes ours is a legitimate part of their recreation programs.
You will learn the following:
Outfitters are required by USFS to be registered by the state in which they operate. This registration has many requirements, including posting of a performance bond, proof of insurance, proof of First Aid and CPR training, and proof that the outfitter is or can be permitted to operate on public or private lands. USFS permitted outfitters are issued special use permits for specified durations of 1 to 10 years. All permits are updated yearly. These permits are a contract, considering the background, ability, performance history, business ability, profitability, safety records, emergency plan, resource protection, and permit compliance. The permit limits each outfitter to certain specified activities, done in an approved manner. Permits specify the number of use days for each activity and limit the number of participants.
Permittees must estimate use early in each season and prepay the required fees to the USFS, actual use and fees are adjusted after the use season when additional fees and/or penalties are paid for use and/or non-use. Resource use, campsites, performance, and comments of clients are used to generate performance summaries each year. A point system is used to determine whether permits are to be continued and whether the permit is priority or temporary. Both the state outfitter registration and the USFS Special Use permit are subject to dsciplinary action, probationary continuation, and revocation. The outfitter must be in good standing with both agencies to continue business.
If you choose to become knowledgeable about outfitter permits, you will learn the new rules do not grant anything additional to outfitters. New rules will make it less difficult for for USFS administration, and in some cases, permittees to administrate permits and determine fees. New rules will enable non-profit groups to seek more and different uses of the forest. The new rules will require higher levels of insurance for Forest permittees.
A final set of facts about outfitters
Outfitters are allocated only 15% of the total use in forest compartments.
Public users may use or do anything/everything outfitters use or do without permits.
Outfitters are limited in the area they can provide services or operate. The public is not.
A "Priority" permit does not relate to a difference in what the outfitter is permitted to do and what John Q. Public is permitted to do. The term priority permit is a level of the outfitter's permitted use.
So----let's be fair. Limit your comments to what you know about.
Has outfitter activity or the special use permit process hindered your Forest use? Do the new rules really suggest such will happen?
Thanks for listening,
Ron and Dona Hilkey
Meeker, Colorado
Posted by Don Grall on December 26, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Thanks for posting your views on this. I do hope you are right about the public not being limited in using any areas that are deemed to have heavy use, where outfitters have been granted permits to provide access to those who want, or need, help. I have no qualms with outfitters, they provide a valuable service to those who want their expertise and experience.
I don't believe this proposal will impact people using most forest lands, but I do believe it has the potential to further impact access by private individuals in areas where rivers are used to access the lands in question.
As a whitewater kayaker and photographer, yes, I personally have had my access limited in the following areas: Colorado River (Grand Canyon NP), Colorado River (Westwater Canyon), Middle Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho(Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness), the Selway River (Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho), the Yampa River and Green River (Dinosaur NP). All of these rivers require permits that are applied for well in advance of anticipated use, with applicants subject to a lottery-style drawing. All of these rivers are under the care of either the NPS , the USFS, or the BLM. Over the past 34 years that I have been accessing these areas, useage rates have skyrocketed and in turn access has been limited in favor of commercial outfitters despite numerous lawsuits that have tried to make the access more equitable, with the Grand Canyon being Exhibit A.( www.rrfw.org/crmp.php )
It is my belief that the various government agencies favor commercial interests because they would prefer to manage a smaller group of users (outfitters) than a larger group of individuals (its only human nature to want to limit potential headaches). I am not blaming the outfitters for this situation, it rests on the shoulders of goverment agency managers looking for the easy way out, rather than the equitable way.
Because of my experience with the aforementioned government agencies, I can not readily accept a proposal that could easily be re-interpreted by these agency managers to suit their ideas of how someplace should be managed. When useage escalates, they most assuredly will infringe on the rights of the private individuals since by definition, we do not present a well organized front to protest the potential erosion of our rights.
I hope you can see, my concern is not with outfitters! It is with the government agencies that will be overseeing any laws created by this proposal. Outfitters are wonderful, responsible people who have the best interests of the land in their business model, and I have personally used their services on rare occasions where certain dangers require specialized equipment.
I'm just wary whenever a government agency decides to propose new regulations, because even though there may not be an immediate impact, the potential future impact of "new interpretations" could easily be problematic to many.
I hope your outfitting business has a prosperous New Year and the USFS makes an attempt to equitably administer any new regulations not only in regards to the current proposal but the future ones as well.
Discussion
1 repliesWe are outfitters permitted to operate on the Blanco District of the White River National Forest in Northwest Colorado.
We have carefully read and considered the new proposed directives for Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding Special Use Permits and Insurance Requirements published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2007. We have also obtained and studied the draft of the US Forest Service Handbook concerning new rules for Special Uses.
We challenge those of you who are inclined to comment about the new rules to read these documents and to take the time and give outfitters the courtesy of learning about our permits and how the Forest Service handles them.
As you learn more about us, you should understand that we serve clients who seek our services. They choose this way of accessing and using forest lands. Many of them would not, without our help, be able to enjoy the outdoors. The Forest Service undertands and recognizes ours is a legitimate part of their recreation programs.
You will learn the following:
Outfitters are required by USFS to be registered by the state in which they operate. This registration has many requirements, including posting of a performance bond, proof of insurance, proof of First Aid and CPR training, and proof that the outfitter is or can be permitted to operate on public or private lands. USFS permitted outfitters are issued special use permits for specified durations of 1 to 10 years. All permits are updated yearly. These permits are a contract, considering the background, ability, performance history, business ability, profitability, safety records, emergency plan, resource protection, and permit compliance. The permit limits each outfitter to certain specified activities, done in an approved manner. Permits specify the number of use days for each activity and limit the number of participants.
Permittees must estimate use early in each season and prepay the required fees to the USFS, actual use and fees are adjusted after the use season when additional fees and/or penalties are paid for use and/or non-use. Resource use, campsites, performance, and comments of clients are used to generate performance summaries each year. A point system is used to determine whether permits are to be continued and whether the permit is priority or temporary. Both the state outfitter registration and the USFS Special Use permit are subject to dsciplinary action, probationary continuation, and revocation. The outfitter must be in good standing with both agencies to continue business.
If you choose to become knowledgeable about outfitter permits, you will learn the new rules do not grant anything additional to outfitters. New rules will make it less difficult for for USFS administration, and in some cases, permittees to administrate permits and determine fees. New rules will enable non-profit groups to seek more and different uses of the forest. The new rules will require higher levels of insurance for Forest permittees.
A final set of facts about outfitters
Outfitters are allocated only 15% of the total use in forest compartments.
Public users may use or do anything/everything outfitters use or do without permits.
Outfitters are limited in the area they can provide services or operate. The public is not.
A "Priority" permit does not relate to a difference in what the outfitter is permitted to do and what John Q. Public is permitted to do. The term priority permit is a level of the outfitter's permitted use.
So----let's be fair. Limit your comments to what you know about.
Has outfitter activity or the special use permit process hindered your Forest use? Do the new rules really suggest such will happen?
Thanks for listening,
Ron and Dona Hilkey
Meeker, Colorado
I don't believe this proposal will impact people using most forest lands, but I do believe it has the potential to further impact access by private individuals in areas where rivers are used to access the lands in question.
As a whitewater kayaker and photographer, yes, I personally have had my access limited in the following areas: Colorado River (Grand Canyon NP), Colorado River (Westwater Canyon), Middle Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho(Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness), the Selway River (Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho), the Yampa River and Green River (Dinosaur NP). All of these rivers require permits that are applied for well in advance of anticipated use, with applicants subject to a lottery-style drawing. All of these rivers are under the care of either the NPS , the USFS, or the BLM. Over the past 34 years that I have been accessing these areas, useage rates have skyrocketed and in turn access has been limited in favor of commercial outfitters despite numerous lawsuits that have tried to make the access more equitable, with the Grand Canyon being Exhibit A.( www.rrfw.org/crmp.php )
It is my belief that the various government agencies favor commercial interests because they would prefer to manage a smaller group of users (outfitters) than a larger group of individuals (its only human nature to want to limit potential headaches). I am not blaming the outfitters for this situation, it rests on the shoulders of goverment agency managers looking for the easy way out, rather than the equitable way.
Because of my experience with the aforementioned government agencies, I can not readily accept a proposal that could easily be re-interpreted by these agency managers to suit their ideas of how someplace should be managed. When useage escalates, they most assuredly will infringe on the rights of the private individuals since by definition, we do not present a well organized front to protest the potential erosion of our rights.
I hope you can see, my concern is not with outfitters! It is with the government agencies that will be overseeing any laws created by this proposal. Outfitters are wonderful, responsible people who have the best interests of the land in their business model, and I have personally used their services on rare occasions where certain dangers require specialized equipment.
I'm just wary whenever a government agency decides to propose new regulations, because even though there may not be an immediate impact, the potential future impact of "new interpretations" could easily be problematic to many.
I hope your outfitting business has a prosperous New Year and the USFS makes an attempt to equitably administer any new regulations not only in regards to the current proposal but the future ones as well.