Did anyone attend the NPS meeting about Rainier visitors center?

[RA]

I couldn't go last night. Anyone have a summary?

cheers,scott

[W]

It wasn't specifically about the visitors center. It was a public comment/question forum for commercial use within the park.

Basically, there were representatives from RMI, the AAI's, and I presume CAG and MRAG (the latter four being the other guide services). Plus I think GSI, the park visitor services concession, I think was there too. There were not very many general public- maybe 20 at most. But I do think a wide range of views were presented, and after the open forum, people were allowed to write down more comments to be reviewed later. The NPS transcribed all forum comments and questions and this is a very effective tool in being heard by the government. If it gets written down, it carries a surprising amount of weight! It is logged and saved and used to make decisions.

Basically the other guide services were naturally in support of a competitive arrangement in allowing several guide service concessions.

One climber spoke up about not allowing an increase in numbers of guided user days, and also the issue was raised concerning the creation of "non-commercial use" areas/climbing routes.

Also, the future use of shuttles in the park both for climbers and for all general park users was discussed and a number of people spoke up in support of that.

[Rodchester]

I was there as well and concur with W's assesment. It was constructive.

I sensed a bit of tension between Todd B of AAI and Old Lou (but nothing big so don't blow it out of proportion) regarding the last time the bids for being "the" guide service was done.

It does appear that shuttles are going to be in Rainier's future, not just for climbers either.

Most seemed to agree that the users days should not be increased, at least by much, but rather that the "pie" should be divided up more equally.

Mike Gauthier was there and the diologue was good. It did not turn into a bitch session.

I stressed that they need to get the plan right as opposed to being on time and that guide services should be checked out every five years or so, weeding out the bad and allowing in the new.

[forrest_m]

i was there, too, and i just wanted to post to say "me too, what they said"

as rodchester mentioned, if the overwhelming opinion of this public meeting is reflected in the final plan, the future will hold a much more equitable distribution of guiding permits between various companies. however... it was made pretty clear that the park prefers to deal with fewer vendors, rather than more. yet new laws mandate more competition. thus, while it seems pretty likely that rmi will lose some portion of their share of the pie, it is not clear that the pie will be divided evenly among the other guide services. i got the sense that there is some support on the park planning team for having a "primary" guide service on the mountain.

in the post-official shmoozing, i heard an interesting idea that might make everyone happy: what if the guide services had a very significant decrease in their allowed permits on weekends... but were allowed a larger total number of client-days for the season on week days, when the mountain is largely empty. as it was pointed out, the mountain is not, on the median day, over capacity, but use is so concentrated on weekends that conflicts between guided groups and independent climbers are inevitable.

[To_The_Top]

I was there to make sure the independant groups did'nt lose part of the pie that the guides were looking to divide, and spoke about that, as did the guy just before me. It seems that the reservation system will change this year, where you will possibly have to pay up front, then if you decide not to go two weeks in advance you would get the refund. Also, you may reserve your place more than the two months ahead with this system. This would possibly eliminate groups loading the system up with reservations that groups might not show up for or would show up in reduced numbers. The independant climbers will not lose part of the pie, and as W stated showing up and requesting that that be the case helps ensure that we dont lose a spot to the guides.Forrest pointed out too that the guides will show more support for the weekday summit climbs.The Jackson Center aka UFO is going to be rebuilt, and generally the rustic nature of MRNP will stay as is (not many new consesionairs (sp). The forum like others said in prior posts did see interest in the shuttle idea and several climbers gave their input on that (it could work). Al asked about being locked in after coming back late, when the gate is shut, and it was pointed out that the front desk (Longmire Hotel) has the combo, which changes often, btw.Pretty constructive really and they are accepting written responses (See Mikes original post).Oh yah, there will only be smoking in the Muir hut at certain hours.TTT

[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: To The Top ]

[Doug]

I was there as well. The responses to this thread were mostly on the mark as to the nature of the meeting. Most of the local guide services were well represented, and it does appear that they really do want a slice of the pie in guiding on the mountain. One impediment may be that the park superintendent does have the final say in the prospectus that is issued to solicit bids for the next concession contract. He can also just give it to the incumbent at his own disgression. While I support a minimum guide presence on the mountain, I'm also in support of RMI (or any single source for that matter) of having a bit of competition.

I was impressed with the quality of statements and testimonials given by local climbers regarding the commercial use plan for the park. The overridng message seemed to be "keep it as undeveloped as possible". Where the crowd lacked in quantity, it made up for it in quality.

I'd like to see the Park hold a meeting with the local guide services to solicit their input regarding the feasablilty of "slicing the pie", and to solicit their solutions to it. I would guess that their main bitch right now is that RMI has the concession.