Who is required to obtain a permit:Any organized, non-commercial, group conducting rim-to-rim and extended day hiking and running, including rim-to-river-to-rim, and rim-to-rim-to-rim that are operating in the inner canyon. The inner canyon is defined as the area below the Tonto Platform (Tipoff and Indian Garden) from the South Rim and below Manzanita Resthouse (Pumphouse Residence) from the North Rim.
Groups including, non-profits, schools, church groups, scouts, clubs, and other similar organizations will be required to obtain an SUP for their activity. Any group, regardless of size, which has advertised to the general public, required individuals to sign up prior to participation, or that has an organizer who has been compensated for their services (including subsidized participation in the activity), are required to operate under an SUP.
My husband did the R2R in May the Thur before Memorial Day (he has done it mutiple times) and is a trail runner... he starts at 4am on the S. side and was up at the top at 12ish.... While waiting on the other side I saw two other people that had done R2R on their way back to the other side and maybe 5 before 1pm... so wasn't the herds of them coming across .. he also went back over on Sat. and left at 4 again.. he goes up S Kaibab so I didn't get to see the activity on the other trail.. but when dropping my husband off there wasn't that many going over that early... was a couple of the N. Rim vans dropping off a couple of groups of 4 or 5 but no bus loads... have heard of a couple of bigger groups while waiting of about 15 or so... We are going back up on the first weekend of Oct for him to do it again... will see what it is like then too...
Dawn
--On the loose to climb a mountain, on the loose where I am free. On the loose to live my life the way I think my life should be...For we only have a moment and a whole world yet to see...I'll be looking for tomorrow on the loose. ---unknown--
hippiepunkpirate wrote: Does this mean that the Park is trying to push Xanterra out as a concessionaire? That's what it sounds like to me. From what I've heard from a few employees, Xanterra sounds like they're a little shady it terms of taking care of their employees up there, so I'm not sure if that would be a bad thing, but really what does they park have to gain from putting $100 million up to make the bidding more competitive? If they're not trying to push Xanterra out altogether, are they trying to garner extra income out of the contract long term by eating some money now to facilitate it?
Everybody has their own opinion about what the Park is trying to do A little shady probably would not be a misrepresentation, but I am not sure somebody else could come in and do better. It is a very unique environment here. Whether they put the money up or not, does not change the details of the prospectus. The franchise fee will be doubled regardless of whether it is Xanterra or someone else who is awarded the contract. The doubling of this fee coupled with all improvements that have to be completed in the next few years (demolishing of Maswik, El Tovar renovations, etc.) will mean that any company that comes in will be operating in the red for a few years. Plus, they would have to shell out their portion of the LSI. So, personally, I don't see anyone else bidding, but who knows.
nikorock28 wrote:
Everybody has their own opinion about what the Park is trying to do A little shady probably would not be a misrepresentation, but I am not sure somebody else could come in and do better. It is a very unique environment here. Whether they put the money up or not, does not change the details of the prospectus. The franchise fee will be doubled regardless of whether it is Xanterra or someone else who is awarded the contract. The doubling of this fee coupled with all improvements that have to be completed in the next few years (demolishing of Maswik, El Tovar renovations, etc.) will mean that any company that comes in will be operating in the red for a few years. Plus, they would have to shell out their portion of the LSI. So, personally, I don't see anyone else bidding, but who knows.
Why are they demolishing Maswik? It's a useful place. People go there a lot, eat there a lot. I've eaten there more times than anywhere else in the Park. What will replace it? It can feed a lot of folks all at once, and the food is actually edible (unlike Yavapai). More stupid gift shops all selling the same things?
There is a point of no return unremarked at the time in most lives. Graham Greene The Comedians
A clean house is a sign of a misspent life.
The winning bidder will also need to demolish six outdated Maswik South lodge units and replace them with standard rooms and rooms with kitchenettes by 2017.
Dawn
--On the loose to climb a mountain, on the loose where I am free. On the loose to live my life the way I think my life should be...For we only have a moment and a whole world yet to see...I'll be looking for tomorrow on the loose. ---unknown--
@chumley
After reading most of the posts on this subject and being an avid Grand Canyon hiker, the "interim measure" is like a trial balloon. I think we all will probably have to pay a fee/permit for any hike in the Canyon in the future. This will be how they will control the amount of people on the trails. Does anyone when the new General Plan for the park be introduced?
I think we all will probably have to pay a fee/permit for any hike in the Canyon in the future
Oh I thought that was covered at the front gate? ;)
NPS new proposals from webpage: Twenty bucks to get in, ten to look over edge, fifty to go to the bottom, another 50 if you come back up in same day...
The NPS is currently revising its 1988 Backcountry Management Plan through the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Organized, non-commercial, rim-to-rim and extended day hiking and running, are among the uses that will be addressed in the plan. The park expects to release a draft plan this fall for public review and comment. Special Use Permits will be issued for rim-to-rim and extended day hiking and running to protect park resources and the public interest until the plan is completed. Park staff will continue to monitor this activity and any associated impacts and may implement changes through the interim permit process if necessary.
Looks like it is being viewed as something of an experiment and will likely evolve as the problems with the process are identified.
I think it would be important for those who have strong objections to watch for this public review and comment period and make sure that you participate. The balance between personal freedom and protecting places like the canyon is a tough one to strike.
----------------------------------- Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.- Barack Obama
Joe's exchange is helpful. Although not directly asked, I think it addresses what I see as the stickiest issue, which relates to the question: "Have you required anyone to sign up in advance?" What constitutes "signing up in advance"? And is that--alone (i.e., in the absence of any compensation to the organizer, and in the absence of having advertised to the public)--enough to require getting a permit? Taken to its logical extreme, whenever a group of two or more people decide to do R2R, they have--at some level--"signed up" in advance.
Heidi's response makes clear that such an extreme interpretation is not what's intended. Rather: "If you can make your group by invitation only or a private friends group, the permit requirements wouldn't apply." So, as long as the group consists of individuals who were invited by means other that public advertising or are otherwise just a "private group of friends," the permit requirements don't apply (assuming no compensation).
Ultimately, it seems like the advance-sign-up element is largely an alternative restatement of the public advertising element.
Although nothing like a R2R dayhike/run has ever really been put together as a public HAZ event, I think it is exceedingly obvious that this rule is partially targeting groups getting together online. Are we really fooling ourselves that much to think that posting an event here on the HAZ forum does not constitute as advertising to the general public? Seriously, in the hypothetical situation that someone posted a R2R dayhike here, just about anybody doing a web search about the subject could run across the thread. HAZ is a free website, that anybody can access, and thus constitutes advertising to the general public. If this was a pay-to-access membership based website, it would be different. Furthermore, on our forum, it has an interface in which you click "commit" if you are planning on attending. That constitutes "signing up". We can pretend like it's in a weird gray area, but I think it's clear as day that we fall under this new rule. And since Joe cleared up the other gray areas, in all practicality it doesn't really affect us all that much. Like I stated at the beginning of this post, I don't think anybody has ever posted a R2R dayhike event here anyway. Any other Grand Canyon hikes that have come up as events have either been outside the BA/SK/NK "Below the Tonto" area that is under the jurisdiction of the new rule and/or have been backpacking trips which we now know for a fact are a completely different beast.
So how are they realistically going to enforce the no advance sign up rule? Ask you about it while you are on the trail, then pull out a tablet to run a Google search on you? One thing I didn't even know or think about until a friend pointed it out to me is that there are now coaches who will do online specific R2R training then will join you on your run for a fee.
@SpiderLegs
If there's a fee, it's not allowed without a permit. That's very clear.
How will they enforce that? The same way they enforce park entrance fees. (i.e. they don't/can't).
Rules are in place because most people will follow them. When new rules are implemented such as this, it can take years for people to become accustomed to them. The same thing is going on right now with Forest Service travel management rules which have closed lots of roads that people used to drive on. The FS acknowledges it will be 20 years before it really works.
In the meantime, only egregious violators will be flagged.
I'm not sure what my spirit animal is, but I'm confident it has rabies.
The new rules go in place next week. Will have to see what happens. I've been invited to a R2R2R that a friend posted before the new rules were released. So he's been trying to erase his digital tracks, but 95% of what he did was between friends via email. At the most there will only be 7-8 of us if I decide to go.
Route Editor
Route Scout
A little shady probably would not be a misrepresentation, but I am not sure somebody else could come in and do better. It is a very unique environment here. Whether they put the money up or not, does not change the details of the prospectus. The franchise fee will be doubled regardless of whether it is Xanterra or someone else who is awarded the contract. The doubling of this fee coupled with all improvements that have to be completed in the next few years (demolishing of Maswik, El Tovar renovations, etc.) will mean that any company that comes in will be operating in the red for a few years. Plus, they would have to shell out their portion of the LSI. So, personally, I don't see anyone else bidding, but who knows.
