Proposed changes to Mt. Rainier guide services

[NEWSTIPS]

Hey there CC.com folks. It's your friendly (?) KING 5 lurker checking to see if a story idea that was suggested to me is a viable one for the climbing community.

 

The Everett Herald had a story on Saturday, Nov 22 about the proposal to open Mt. Rainier guide services to companies other than RMI. The link for the story is here http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/03/11/22/17777274.cfm

 

My question is this: How important an issue is this to the climbing community? I am considering doing a story on this proposal this coming Saturday, Nov 29 or Sunday, Nov. 30. Would any of you guys be willing/able to speak about this proposal and whether it's a good idea or a bad one?

 

You may reply here, or send e-mail directly to me at eberman@king5.com. Please include a phone number where I can reach you during this weird holiday week if you want me to call you back.

 

Thanks again for your assistance and please keep me abreast of any other stories that are important to the climbing community.

[willstrickland]

Do a forums search man...this was discussed here last week.

 

The short version: Concessionaire monopolies are bad. Option 3 is best. RMI is putting serious spin on the issue to try to defend their monopoly. YMMV.

[Jeremy]

Can you inform me on the spin?

[erik]

Jeremy said:

Can you inform me on the spin?

 

i wouldnt call it spin, but as expected(and i am sure anyone who was in their position would do) they are attempting to promote the option that gives them the most power. which i believe in most peoples mind is bullshit. so maybe spin could be interpeted as "promoting the idea that best supports their ideals, and prolly not that of the other potential conscenonaires.

 

i like how the rmi(??) is stating that removal of guides will limit the chances of people visiting "their" public land. i understand that there is a small contingent of climbers who would never be able to visit the summit without being taught some of the basic ideas with glacial mtneering but i do not see it as taking the chance for all peoples ability to visit the mtn. this is the same idea the feedemp opponents use. removal of the ability for all to see the mtn or wilderness. heh, i like how it works both ways.

 

anyways, i would like to see the complete removal of all guide services on all public lands. but since that will never happen, there needs to be a fair distribution of resources between the guide svcs. with no favoritism in any way. and ALL guides should be AMGA or equivilent(which i believe the AMGA has the easiest standards required?? i am not sure so correct me if you can) to guide on public land. maybe then it could become a legit business in the eyes of the rest of the country.

 

 

[NEWSTIPS]

Spin? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

I'm looking to do an informative story about the proposal and what merits and drawbacks each alternative has.

[NEWSTIPS]

NEWSTIPS said:

Spin? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

 

Oops. I see now you were talking about the spin mentioned in the posting below mine. Sorry. Guess I started drinking too early today...

[Fairweather]

willstrickland said:

Do a forums search man...this was discussed here last week.

 

The short version: Concessionaire monopolies are bad. Option 3 is best. RMI is putting serious spin on the issue to try to defend their monopoly. YMMV.

 

Will doesn't speak for all of us! I support Alternative #1...no change. NO, I'm not a guide. I just think RMI works well for the uninitiated, and I think it would be outrageous to split the pie three ways. If another guide service thinks they can do better than RMI, then let them bid for the exclusivity that the current system now calls for. Also, the proposed use limits are a step in the wrong direction.

[Billygoat]

Newstips, do a search, this issue was thoroughly discussed on this site a week or two ago.

[Thinker]

More info from the Mt Rainier forum here on cc.com

link

[NEWSTIPS]

Thanks for the input, guys. I have checked out the other thread (although admittedly, not until after I had made my preliminary posting).

[chelle]

NEWSTIPS - Personally I think it is about time that the RMI monopoly die. But there are stories of much higher interest IMO. As a group we've brought up the Fee Demo program and it's abuses almost everytime we've been asked for story ideas. When are we going to see a story about that?

 

It'd also be nice for someone to do a story on the environmental law and regulatory changes/repeals that Bush has done since entering office, and their impact on our environment. I think that this would be news the whole PNW would be interested in. See this thread for some discussion and links to articles in the print media.

[glen]

ehmmic,

 

I think those are great suggestions and second them. The Rainier one may be more direct and less complicated, but a clear cut and presumable well research article on environmental stuff would be great, and something that I would go out of my way to read or see depending on the media.

 

Of course, that type of reporting is notoriously lacking in the Seattle media. Seriously lacking...

[Fairweather]

ehmmic said:

NEWSTIPS - Personally I think it is about time that the RMI monopoly die. But there are stories of much higher interest IMO. As a group we've brought up the Fee Demo program and it's abuses almost everytime we've been asked for story ideas. When are we going to see a story about that?

 

It'd also be nice for someone to do a story on the environmental law and regulatory changes/repeals that Bush has done since entering office, and their impact on our environment. I think that this would be news the whole PNW would be interested in. See this thread for some discussion and links to articles in the print media.

 

NEWSTIPS,

 

Conversely, it would be interesting to do a story on the diversity of political opinion that exists throughout the climbing/outdoor community. I'm sure your editor has had more than her fill of evil President Bush stories placed on her desk, and writing about the environment in Seattle usually involves so much preaching to the choir anyhow.

 

Why not a story about environmental hypocrisy? Maybe totaling up the amount of gasoline used by "environmentally conscious" individuals persuing their frivolous endeavors in our local mountains....and throughout the world, for that matter? Or a story about the amount of dollars spent on outdoor gear by "socially conscious" folks versus the amount of money they donate to charity each year?

 

Set yourself apart! Challenge the comfort of your stodgy Seattle viewers and let those hate-filled emails hit your superior's in-boxes like The Columbus Day Storm. Trust me! You'll get noticed.

[j_b]

while we are on the subject of hypocrisy. what about finding out if there is a correlation between those people who extol the virtue of the free market every hour of the day and those who support monopolies in national parks?

 

anyhow, more seriously. one aspect that is little discussed is that guiding is a tough business and most companies usually pay low wages and turn out essentially no profit. this is the reason why so few companies stay in business for very long and why the level of professionalism is on average low (at least compared to our neighbors to the north and in europe). there are a few exceptions in the usa and those are usually the outfits that have a permit on very popular mountains (rainier, tetons, yosemite). mt. rainier is the largest mountain magnet in the us. rmi has benefited from this monopoly tremendously whereas all other nw businesses have struggled to stay alive or gone under. rmi has not had to diversify its offerings whereas other companies offer trips all over the northwest and the world just to make it from year to year. offering several concessions on mt. rainier would provide several businesses with the opportunity to rely on an assured income while they still would have to offer a complete service (glacier and rock, and cascade climbs). this would be good for the local guiding industry because it would guaranty some stability in the business and thus provide the basis for a higher level of professionalism. moreover, successful guiding (money wise) is very much due to clients returning after successful trips. if the company holding the concession doesn't entice mt. rainier clients with a variety of goals throughout the range (and again rmi does not have to do it), this is a lost opportunity for the industry and a loss of tourism revenues for the state of washington.

[JayB]

Another vote for option number three. I hope that everyone that wants to reduce RMI's heavy footprint on the mountain chimes in before the November 25th deadline expires.

[girlclimber]

i consider it a fairly important issue, but i don't see the point of doing a story on it after the deadline for public comment expires.

[snoboy]

You might be interested to compare and contrast to the Canadian system, which rarely grants exclusivity to guiding companies. (Heli/cat ski operations being the obvious, glaring exception)

 

One thing that comes from this is that guides are able to work with the same clients in various areas, and so able to build lasting realtionships, and return business.

 

Dunno, it might be an angle for you. :shrug:

[JoshK]

Fairweather said:

willstrickland said:

Do a forums search man...this was discussed here last week.

 

The short version: Concessionaire monopolies are bad. Option 3 is best. RMI is putting serious spin on the issue to try to defend their monopoly. YMMV.

 

Will doesn't speak for all of us! I support Alternative #1...no change. NO, I'm not a guide. I just think RMI works well for the uninitiated, and I think it would be outrageous to split the pie three ways. If another guide service thinks they can do better than RMI, then let them bid for the exclusivity that the current system now calls for. Also, the proposed use limits are a step in the wrong direction.

 

Yes, maintaining monopolies brought about and maintained through political connections, a sound idea indeed. I suppose you also support the uncontested contracts in Iraq given to halliburton and other similarly awful companies by our corrupt administration?

[snafflehound]

FWIW, here's what I can retrieve from my badly abused memory. , , = No guarantees on its accuracy.

RMIs' monopoly on the mtn. is out dated. After WW2 concessionaires couldn't make enough money in the National Parks to stay in business. The Govt. offered them an incentive to stay [meet the publics need for services] and make a buck. The existing concessioner was given preference over other bidders to ensure continuity of services. They would meet but not have to beat the other accepted bids. On another thread here RMI said something about having their contract extended multiple times. My numbers may be wrong but they are close. The last contract they signed was probably in 1985. [they run for 7 years]. At the first or second [2 yr.] extension of that one I think they were pulling down around 3 mil per year. The cost to them of doing business on the Mtn. was 1.5% of gross, maintain 2 buildings and make guides available for rescues if needed. If they're charging $6-700 for the service, around $10 goes to the Park Service. A good business to be in. When the Concessions Act [NEWSTIPS, look it up] was first enacted there was little competition for bidders 'cause no one could make any money. Now though, there's a high demand from the public, good money to be made [of which the park service should take a much bigger slice of i.e. get rid of the $30 to climb BS] and a long line of Guide Services willing to compete that are up to the task of meeting the publics needs. Which ever option that fits into is the one I prefer. Hmmm, around 1500 people go up Denali a year, half [?] may be guided, 5 or more Guide Services that meet the Park's standards and the publics needs. There has never been a limit on the number of guides on Mt Rainier, only a limit on who can profit from them.

What the f**k am I doing up so late. I'm going to be too sleepy to ski in a few hours. GONE!

 

[Fairweather]

JoshK said:

Fairweather said:

willstrickland said:

Do a forums search man...this was discussed here last week.

 

The short version: Concessionaire monopolies are bad. Option 3 is best. RMI is putting serious spin on the issue to try to defend their monopoly. YMMV.

 

Will doesn't speak for all of us! I support Alternative #1...no change. NO, I'm not a guide. I just think RMI works well for the uninitiated, and I think it would be outrageous to split the pie three ways. If another guide service thinks they can do better than RMI, then let them bid for the exclusivity that the current system now calls for. Also, the proposed use limits are a step in the wrong direction.

 

Yes, maintaining monopolies brought about and maintained through political connections, a sound idea indeed. I suppose you also support the uncontested contracts in Iraq given to halliburton and other similarly awful companies by our corrupt administration?

 

The guiding contract comes up for a bid every few years, and as far as I know, anyone can bid for it. Last time I checked, competitive bidding is within the boundaries of a free market.

 

I find it amusing, JoshK, that you are so partisan-driven you can turn virtually any issue in to Bush-hating rant.

 

 

[Rodchester]

The guiding contract comes up for a bid every few years, and as far as I know, anyone can bid for it. Last time I checked, competitive bidding is within the boundaries of a free market.

 

I find it amusing, JoshK, that you are so partisan-driven you can turn virtually any issue in to Bush-hating rant.

 

Yeah...don't know much about Gov't contracts uh?

 

The system has a built in preference for those already contracted. There has not been what is refered to as an open bid in many years. So to say there has been an actual competetive bid is bung. In fact even under this new proposed system, Lou's gang gets a prefernce.

 

I have heard some in the park refer to the proposed plan as the "Lou and two plan." RMI is in like Flynn and the two remaining spots are open for competition.

 

I'm not in love with any of the plans, but since these are the choices, I'll take the "Lou and two plan."

 

And why is it soo many people have such ahtred in thier hearts about Bush? I'm certainly no Bush lover, but come on.

[chris]

Snoboy, Canada is not a good example. Instead of giving out individual concessions in each park, National Parks Canada has given a nation wide management permit to the Association of Canadian Mountain Guides. The ACMG was the sponsoring association that assisted the American Mountain Guide Association develop its program and join the International Federation of Mountain Guide Associations (IFMGA/UIAGM).

Our Federal Government isn't ready to manage guided climbing at a national level, and perhaps never will be.

[chelle]

May not be ready to manage it, but if guiding was seen as a viable career as it is in Canada and Europe maybe the level of professionalism would increase and guides/companies could actually make money. Unfortunately it is viewed by our society as a fringe, slacker occupation between undergraduate and grad school or a way to avoid getting a real job altogether.

[Tod]

NEWSTIPS:I appreciate the fact that this has actually taken interest of KING5. You've probably got the info that you need by reading the other thread based on this subject. Many people (including myself) have sent in letters to the park service asking/demanding that the RMI monopoly be broken up. Even though no alternatives for guiding on the mountain really will satisfy all, option 3 does seem to be the closest. Because of RMI's history and political clout, contacts, friends, there is very little reason to believe that RMI would not be awarded a concession contract, even though other guiding outfits would be willing, able and want to offer guiding at just of high a quality (if not higher) at a better price to the public. RMI's political and monopoly advantage has given them the opportunity to gouge the public.Under Alternative 1, RMI gets 8,260+ permits for Muir (double 2001 limits of 4145 permits) and all other guiding companies are limited to Emmons and are only issued 192 permits. There are no commercial free areas under this plan. Under Alternative 3, 5,260 permits are split up among 3 guiding companies (1,753 permits each) and much of the lesser used routes are off limits to guiding. To me, splitting up the permits to three concessioners will create competition not only to be one of the companies to bid for a concession spot, but also competition for the public so they get a choice, a better deal, and likely better service since the guiding companies must now prove they are better than the other.On a side note, I think it's odd that Fairweather seems to be the only one that supports RMI's monopoly (i.e. alternative 1). Everyone is entitled to their view and I support Fairweather's right to an opinion. Does anyone else feel that RMI's monopoly is a good thing? Speak up because on this forum you don't seem to be heard.

What option do you prefer?Alternative 1 (1 concessioner guides Muir, Emmons, Kautz and other routes (RMI), climbing permits issued double)Alternative 2 (1 concessioner on Muir (RMI), 4 concessioners on Emmons, Kautz and other routes, slight increase in climbing permits issued)Alternative 3 (3 concessioners guide Muir, Emmons, Kautz and other routes evenly, slight increase in guided climbing permits issued, commercial free areas designated)Alternative 4 (1 concessioner guides Muir and other routes (RMI), 1 concessioner guides Emmons, Kautz and other routes, guided climb permits issued does not increase, commercial free areas designated)

[girlclimber]

A clarification on Alternative 1 - the number 8260+ represents how many people (guides AND clients) RMI is authorized to have on the Muir route in one summer. 4145 was the number of guides and clients RMI actually put on the route in 2001, not what they were limited to.