Mt Rainier Guiding Change

Many of you may or may not be aware of the past guiding situation on
Rainier, and current actions to change it.  The short of it is that Mt
Rainier has been commercially guided exclusively by RMI since the
beginning of time (not quite, but close).  Currently there has been
action proposed to change this to allow multiple guiding services to
work the mountain.  This new legislation may have benefits for guided
climbers and nonguided climbers alike.  I encourage any of you who
have climbed or simply care about Mt Rainier to read on and take
action.  What follows is a letter sent to me by a Mt Rainier climbing
ranger friend, who can describe the situation better than I.

Take care, climb hard, climb safe

Kevin, off to the Red 

So here's the deal:  
 
The policy makers at Mt. Rainier need, desperately need, to hear your
comments regarding the Commercial Services Plan.  This plan is an
effort to restructure the guiding situation on Rainier.  If you want
to see improvements in how guiding is run on Rainier, you absolutely
must let the park know your opinion.  So far, vested interests have
rallied the troops to tell the park that the current situation is
perfectly acceptable and nothing should change.  In other words,
public meetings have been stacked in favor of people who wish to
retain the present guiding monopoly.
 
If you feel otherwise, please send the park an email with your
opinion.
 
The comment period ends on November 25, 2003.  That is next Tuesday. 
Please take five minutes to look over the Commercial Services Plan and
send an email to the park.  In an effort to make this easier for you,
I have attached two letters to this email.  I wrote one, a friend
wrote the other.  If you agree with the position expressed in either
of these letters, feel free to insert your name at the end of that
letter and send that letter to the following email address:
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Please feel free to compose your own letter.  I am not trying to
convince anyone to follow the views expressed in the letters that I
have attached.  If you have a different opinion, great--just make sure
the Superintendent gets your email before November 25.
 
This is not a mass-mailing.  This comment period is one of the few
opportunities for a single individual to have a significant impact on
a major decision.  Just a couple of letters in support of breaking the
monopoly on Mt. Rainier--five, ten, twenty letters--may well be enough
to convince the Superintendent that the general public does not want
the monopoly to stay.  Your email--yes, you!--your email can make a
big difference.  So please write your own comment or forward along one
of the attached letters.  It is perfectly acceptable to send along one
of the pre-composed letters--it is just as valid as writing your own
letter.  If you don't have time to compose your own email, just send
one of these. (Again, only if you agree with what it says.)
 
The Commercial Services Plan can be found at the following web-site:  
 

http://www.nps.gov/mora/current/park_mgt.htm#CSP

 

Page 36 gives an overview of the Guided Climbing Alternatives.

 

Here is a quick synopsis of the Alternatives with the different annual
use limits (this total number is the maximum use each guide service
would be allowed per year, and the number includes both the guides and
clients):

 

Alternative 1:  No change from current situation.  One concessioner
(guide/client # cap:  8260 per year) guides all routes except the
Emmons.  Four smaller guide services split 192 spaces on the Emmons.
[Reference note** In 2001, RMI guided 4145 people on the Muir Route.]

 

Alternative 2:  One concessioner guides Muir route (4000 person limit
per year).  Four other smaller concessioners split Kautz, Emmons, and
other routes.  Each smaller concessioner would be allotted 340 people
per year (total:  1360).

 

[Alternative 3 is the Preferred Option that the NPS commercial
services plan committee decided was the best plan.  Nonetheless, in
order for the Superintendent to follow the committee's recommendation,
at least some portion of the public must say that they agree with the
committee's recommendation.  At present, that has not happened.]

 

Alternative 3:  Three equal concessioners get to guide the Muir,
Emmons, Kautz, and other routes.  The Muir Route limit is still 4000
people (1333 people per concessioner), and another 1260 people (420
per concessioner) are split between the Emmons, Kautz, and other
routes.  In addition, Alternative 3 allows for 18 private guides to
each run one trip per year on Mt. Rainier.  This totals another 90
people per year.  And Alternative 3 establishes certain no-guiding
zones on the north and west sides of the mountain (Liberty Ridge,
Sunset Ridge and Ampitheater, Tahoma Glacier, South Mowich Glacier).

 

Alternative 4:  One concessioner guides Muir route (limit 3000) and
other routes (100 total).  One other concessioner guides the Emmons,
Kautz, and other routes (total:  560 on Emmons, 240 on Kautz, 100 on
other routes).  18 private guides would each get one trip per year. 
And some routes would be restricted from guiding, but not as many as
in Alternative 3 (Liberty Ridge, Sunset Ampitheater, Tahoma Glacier).

 

 

Recap:  

1.  Please write a letter to the Park Superintendent.

2.  Letters are due by Tuesday, November 25.

3.  Send emails to this address:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

4.  You are encouraged to send one of the attached letters to the
park, if the letter agrees with your view.

YOU MUST PUT YOUR NAME AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LETTER. 

Otherwise, the letter is all ready to be sent.

5.  Please forward this email and these letters to anybody else that
you think should know about it.

6.  Remember, this is a rare opportunity for one single individual to
make a big difference.  Please do it!


Thank you for helping to make Mt. Rainier a better place.  I greatly
appreciate it.

 

Paul

Sample Letter:
David Uberuaga
Superintendent
Mt. Rainier National Park
Tahoma Woods, Star Route,
Ashford, WA 98304

Mr. Uberuaga,

Though I was not able to attend any of the public meetings concerning
commercial use of the park for which you serve as superintendent, I
would like to share with you some thoughts and wish them to become
part of the official record.

I have read over the Commercial Services Plan 2003 and would like to
commend you taking a responsible role in the management of Mount
Rainier National Park. In general, I support the Park's preferred
alternatives.  I feel strongly that it is crucial that guided climbing
alternative 3, or something very close to it, be implemented in order
to provide healthy and competitive guiding opportunities on the
mountain while being sensitive to the sensibilities of those who
choose to climb without the help of paid guides.

As a climber who has spent many days on various routes on Mount
Rainier, it is all too apparent that the current situation is
untenable.  The only question is exactly what changes would result in
the most positive outcome.  In the case of guided climbing, I support
alternative 3 for several reasons that are elaborated below.

National Parks should provide the best opportunities for the public
while protecting natural resources.  Currently, the public is being
shortchanged as a result the monopoly on guiding that continues to
exist while the protection of resources remain low priority for this
guide service.  I believe the first step to remedying this situation
would be the introduction of competition.  By creating a "controlled"
amount of competition the current concessioner along with a few others
could all thrive and spur on positive change in guiding practices. 
Alternative 3 is the most likely alternative to produce these results.

Alternative 1 is clearly unacceptable, as it will perpetuate the
current practices creating no positive change.  The current
concessioner will assume that they have no reason to make changes if
their lobbying efforts are successful in bullying the park into
granting them continued exclusive use of the public's land.

The selection of alternative 2 will make only a minimal difference,
while allowing one private entity to remain in firm, exclusive control
of the most popular and the most accessible climbing route on Mount
Rainier.  At the same time, alternative 2 will encourage greater usage
(perhaps overuse) of the more pristine routes by other guide services
that are prevented from operating within the more heavily used areas. 
This is not acceptable; as it will have the unintended consequence of
creating higher usage in minimally used wilderness areas that
currently provide opportunities for solitude.

This leaves alternative 3 and 4.  Of these I believe Alternative 3 is
far better.  Alternative 4 continues to leave one private entity in
firm, exclusive control of the most popular and the most accessible
climbing route on Mount Rainier.  At the same time it reduces the
total number of guided persons allowed to climb.  While this may
reduce the physical impact on the resources, it seems to hurt those
that require or prefer a guide service to recreate on the mountain. 
Such a reduction will likely result in a greater number of potential
clients unable to obtain a slot to climb while the laws of supply and
demand will cause the price for a guided climb to increase
significantly.  Without real competition, the rise in price could be
huge.  Of course, the guide service would not be pleased with this
alternative also.  Alternative 4 does, however, create guide-free
zones that seem very worthy concept.

This leaves only alternative 3.  This alternative seems to provide the
best option for the greatest number of interested parties.  First, the
allowance for three different concessioners to provide competitive
guiding services should help to bring up the quality of all services
rendered.  Under Alternative 3, the number of slot available for guide
services to climb in the Muir Corridor essentially remains very
similar to that seen in recent years, thus providing ample opportunity
to those requiring a guide.  In fact, it appears the total number of
slots that will be available annually to guides services in the Muir
Corridor is greater than that used by the current guide service in
2003.

Having now taken care of those preferring to climb with paid guides,
Alternative 3 also offers the independent climbers opportunities to
avoid guided parties and the energy the guides and their clients tend
to radiate on the mountain.  It is simply a fact that running into a
guided party, be it on a climb, a backpack or a day hike tends to
change ones experience especially when these guided party consists of
more than 6 persons.   I like Alternative 3's provision of guide-free
zones in that it helps to ensure opportunities for solitude as
required by the Wilderness Act.  I applaud and support the concept of
guide-free zones.

The single trip guide CUAs provided for by Alternative 3 is a novel
concept for federal agencies in the US as far as I am aware, but seems
to work well throughout many other countries.  I commend the Park on
moving in this progressive direction.

Good luck in making the changes that seem inevitable and thank you for
this opportunity to air my views.