Grand Canyon Permits Moving To Recreation.gov

[cactuscat]

Finally!

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/news/bac ... online.htm

[xsproutx]

Man. Mixed feelings here. Yay for moving into the modern era but, at the same time, I feel like we're going to run into the same issue we see elsewhere where the ease/cheapness of booking means a lot of placeholders without people canceling: IE, the same as so many campgrounds being half empty even though they show fully booked. I feel like the archaic system made that a bit difficult at least.

[azbackpackr]

@xsproutx
That's exactly what I was thinking. They need to figure out a way to fix that problem. I actually had a campground reservation one time and tested positive for covid the day I was leaving and ended up staying home. And I was unable to cancel the campground reservation online, and I was unable to figure out how to get a hold of anyone at the campground which was in the Coconino national forest, pine grove, because it was on a Sunday. I tried, but I was unable to accomplish the cancellation. There's something wrong with that system.

[ShatteredArm]

@xsproutx
Totally. I'd expect reservations within the corridor and other areas covered by this to become nearly impossible to come by. They're already hard enough to get!

Remaining use areas and dates will be requested by working directly with staff at the Backcountry Information Center.

I'm not really clear on what this means - are they going to keep the fax system in place, or is it just going to be call them up and see what they can do for you?

[ShatteredArm]

Also, I'm assuming this is also going to involve that BS "lottery application fee", which is a big no for me.

[hikeaz]

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2 ... sssuw96GI4

[hikeaz]

@azbackpackr
wreck.gov actually Disincentives cancelling so that someone else can use the site/reservation...as they charge $10.00 to cancel and open up the asset to someone else.

[xsproutx]

@hikeaz
Eh, the customer still gets a refund of the overall fees which is going to be more than that 10 bucks in almost every case, so it's not really a punishment. It IS absolute BS, but if you spent, say, 100 bucks, and you have to choose between getting 90 back or nothing, it's not really a disincentive.

At least, that's my understanding. I think most of the problem areas are where fees are low enough that people just book and forget about; plenty of people can just eat 100-200 bucks without thinking about it too much. Historically, parks and campgrounds have tried to just raise prices to prevent this but that doesn't really work either as plenty of people have a lot of disposable income so all it does is prevent locals from enjoying their backyards and keep people with lower disposable income out, which is crap obviously.

Personally, I think there needs to be a system of something like, "If you don't cancel within 48 hours, and then are a no show, you're charged 4x" or something. It's a pretty complicated problem, though, and I'm sure there are issues with that I haven't thought of.

[azbackpackr]

@hikeaz
Well, in this case, I would have gotten $30 back, (after $10 fee) and I could have used it. But I was attempting to cancel the DAY OF my reservations, and apparently, that's verboten. I felt bad, because I felt the campground host would be unhappy at the empty site, but I didn't know the name of the concessionaire to try to call, plus it was Sunday.

As for Grand Canyon permits, I agree with all the comments. It's going to create a lot of problems, some we likely haven't even foreseen. I would guess there are people in the Backcountry office who are unhappy about it.

[azbackpackr]

@ShatteredArm

or is it just going to be call them up and see what they can do for you?

Good question.

[cactuscat]

Well, at least I'm happy about it!
Glad I don't have to live with such negativity.

[big_load]

I'm not sure how it will affect me yet. I've been very fortunate to have friends wrangle the permits for my recent Canyon trips.

[azbackpackr]

@cactuscat
Debating and discussing issues that affect us is not negative. We have experience with recreation.gov. sometimes good and easy, and sometimes not so easy. I see no harm in looking at things from different points of view to see if maybe it could be done better. Maybe someone will listen to our suggestions. There has to be a reason there is a lawsuit.

[ShatteredArm]

@cactuscat
No offense, but dismissing what I think are valid concerns by just calling it "negativity" is not very productive. Is there a particular reason you're happy about it?

Let's see if you're still happy about it after your first half dozen attempts at applying for a permit and coming up empty-handed.

[ShatteredArm]

More info in the FAQ:

https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/ ... stions.htm

Notably, there will be a $10 charge to apply for the early access lottery. 750 successful applicants then get to book an itinerary before reservations become available to the rest of the public, at which point I assume it's a free-for-all.

Notably, many use areas I had always assumed can fill up during peak season (North Bass, Tanner Beach, Nankoweap, Tepeats/Deer Creek) are not covered by the reservation system, so I'm assuming booking those will involve franticly trying to get through to a ranger on a certain date.

[tibber]

Just an FYI: Our experience with rec.gov and Glacier Park actually went pretty well this summer. We, first of all, got a lot of permits. But then there was a bear issue at one of our campsites so we decided to come up with a Plan B so that we could still get our backpacking in. We got the alternate choices and, of course, the bear issue was resolved, so we just canceled those permits. Altho, a little late so we did end up eating the cost which of course, we wish would go to the Park but I guess that is not necessarily the case.

Overall, based on glacierchat, no one has complained about the rec.gov with its first year in full force. It seemed fairly easy to modify, add or cancel.

So hopefully it will go as well with the Grand Canyon.

[hikeaz]

To me it seems ironic that the NPS et al who is notorious for pleading poverty, but give over half the user fees away to wreck.gov, a private company. At the same time they raise the fees up about 400% in cases - so... Who pays? - You do...and how! The most egregious is the their newest shake-down, where users are induced to pay for the possibility they may be 'chosen' for the right to pay (again) for an actual permit. These lotto fees are kept by wreck whether you receive the right to a permit or not and are not applied to the actual permit cost (of which they get over 50%) in the rare case you are 'accepted'.

[chumley]

@hikeaz I could be wrong (it happens! shhhhh!) but I don't believe that permit fees were ever supposed to support any of the things that NPS pleads poverty about. Entrance fees are the primary revenue source collected from users at the parks where they are collected. (I would be interested to know the percentage of $ collected at parks for backcountry permits vs. entrance fees). GRCA however, I believe, has pushed the original purpose of the permit fee to extreme limits. It no longer pays just for the administration of the permit or is limited management of the backcountry users and use areas.

A backcountry permit in Yosemite is a moderate fee that applies to an entire trip, regardless of length; it pays for administering a permit. In GRCA there's the administration fee and subsequent nightly charges, as if you are staying at a campground or a hotel. To the point that a backpacking permit that I apply for is rarely under $100. I haven't sampled if other national parks typically charge the nightly backcountry fee or if that is unique to GRCA. Then again, most other parks don't have a steady stream of people who couldn't care less about the park and are there just to destroy the place on their quest of ping pong bragging rights or whatever -- a management nightmare which is presumably where a significant portion of the backcountry permit money goes. If there was a $5 toll to cross either of the river bridges, the actual backcountry permit prices could probably be reduced by 90%.

While backcountry permit fees in my opinion should not be used for anything except administering the permit system itself, the charges associated with the new wreck.gov system as I understand it, is ridiculous.

[nonot]

While I don't like the fees, nor the new system, I would point out that one of the purposes of permits is to ensure enough campsites are available at the designated areas. This is a problem somewhat unique to GCNP, as in Yosemite it generally isn't the case that most camping is limited to a site like Hermit for a large section of the park, where camping is limited to specific locations and quantities. (Besides things like the 2 mile radius around the High Sierra camps.) So in some defense of GCNP the nightly camping fee does make some sense, at least in the regulated areas in order to track/count the site users, but for the truly wild GCNP areas I do not think they should charge a nightly fee, since that is generally all off-trail anyway without defined campsites.

[xsproutx]

I haven't sampled if other national parks typically charge the nightly backcountry fee or if that is unique to GRCA

I've backpacked through many of the National Parks in the West and it's a bit of a mixed bag. Some have nightly rates. Some parks will have a mixture, as well, where they'll have an area outside of a main corridor where it's a blanket permit. Also have oddballs like Arches that is a blanket permit with a max stay. Some like Bryce, you have to reserve each night at a specific place, but you don't pay extra per night (this is a bit new for Bryce). Seems to be a pretty even distribution from what I've seen in the West but back East? It's almost always a nightly fee