RMI loosing control

[chris]

Oh, hell. In order.

Merv - why in the world would I talk to paying clients like that? I don't speak to five year olds like I do adults, or speak to climbers like non-climbers or speak to you like I do my girlfriend. Get real.

I work really hard not to speak disparaging about independent climbers, Merv, really. I think that spending 100+ days up on Rainier allows a lot of the RMI guides to see some incredible things, burns them out a little bit towards the end, and jades them too. I don't work for RMI any longer, but I have in the past and probably will again in the future.

CJ - of course RMI is going to fight this kicking and screaming. That's called good business.

Climbzalot - I thought the IBP was the new process for managing private companies on public lands, in an effort to get away from the concession concept? And I can't find any evidence on the net about the other guide service not being permitted to guide on other routes. Mt. Rainier Alpine Guides offers a circumnavigation trip. I'm curious of their permits simply make it more economical right now to only offer the one trip up the Emmons?

JoshK - this is whole issue is the National Park's historical mismanagement of private business on public lands. Not just here, but in other Parks too.

[cj001f]

CJ - of course RMI is going to fight this kicking and screaming. That's called good business.

Climbzalot - I thought the IBP was the new process for managing private companies on public lands, in an effort to get away from the concession concept? And I can't find any evidence on the net about the other guide service not being permitted to guide on other routes. Mt. Rainier Alpine Guides offers a circumnavigation trip. I'm curious of their permits simply make it more economical right now to only offer the one trip up the Emmons?

 

mtnfreak-

It's a way to run a business. Not good business IMHO. Here's a link to an AAI summary of the management plan (MRNP has taken the offical copy off the web)

http://aai.cc/rainierinfo.asp

According to the above Emmons is the only route permitted for guiding if you aren't RMI.

 

http://aai.cc/rainierinfo.asp

[Climzalot]

Climzalot - I thought the IBP was the new process for managing private companies on public lands, in an effort to get away from the concession concept? And I can't find any evidence on the net about the other guide service not being permitted to guide on other routes. Mt. Rainier Alpine Guides offers a circumnavigation trip. I'm curious of their permits simply make it more economical right now to only offer the one trip up the Emmons?

 

The language in the IBP that is held by the 4 non-RMI'ers reads like this "Name of Use: Commercially Guided Summit Climbs of Mt. Rainier via the Emmons Route." IBP holders cannot guide summit climbs on any other route on the mountain. Other guiding activites can take place on the mountain (like the RAG trip) but they cannot summit and have to stay below a certain elevation, I believe 10,000 feet. This is done under a special use sort of permit and not a climbing concession or IBP.

 

IBP is not the new way of doing things in the park but rather an interim fix as the concession plan is evaluation and changed. If you look over the new draft version the commercial services plan and the preferred alternatives to the current concession plan, you will notice that all of the alternatives mention a certain number of concessioners and do not reference IBP's at all.

 

Coley

[Dru]

Can anyone legally guide me up Willis Wall?

[Alpine_Tom]

I almost didn't make it because I got stuck behind two cattle shows. (And due to the leaders persisting crampons problems, though it was nice to sit on the cleaver for an hour.)

A bit of a perspective check... if there were no RMI, probably a number of people would never climb Rainier. Which may or may not be a good thing (I have a tendency to think of it as a privledge that ought to be earned, not purchased, but that's just me.) But, like the Mountaineers, they do provide a safe way for people who want to climb, and who would probably do it regardless, to stay out of trouble. It's probably better to have two cattle shows than fifteen two or three person parties stumbling around, trying to pass each other, slipping and having gear trouble, getting hurt and needing rescues.

I sure can't imagine that RMI is any worse than any other guiding service would be if it handled that many clients. That they don't want to share shouldn't be surprising. Given the amount of business they seem to get, to loose a substantial amount of space on the mountain would be pretty hard on them (and on the guides they employ.) Big Lou certainly isn't getting rich of the concession.

[cj001f]

Given the amount of business they seem to get, to loose a substantial amount of space on the mountain would be pretty hard on them (and on the guides they employ.) Big Lou certainly isn't getting rich of the concession.

Judging by this years WSJ article on RMI he may well be getting rich - or at least doing quite nicely for himself.

 

Why wouldn't the RMI guides be employed at whatever concession ended up taking business from RMI?

[Squid]

I just wanted to correct the f'ing typo in the subject line- it was really irritating me. Carry on.

[Climzalot]

A bit of a perspective check... if there were no RMI, probably a number of people would never climb Rainier. Which may or may not be a good thing (I have a tendency to think of it as a privledge that ought to be earned, not purchased, but that's just me.) But, like the Mountaineers, they do provide a safe way for people who want to climb, and who would probably do it regardless, to stay out of trouble.

 

I think RMI does provide a service that benefits the public and one that should be offered. Their programs fit what a large number of guided Rainier climbers are looking for, a chance to stand on top without too much time and effort. As previously stated, RMI make's it possible to climb Rainier in a way that appeals to a certain percentage of the population who is either not interested or capable of attempting it in another fashion. The gripes I have heard most often don't relate to the client base that they cater to, but instead things like group size, attitude, courtesy to other climbing parties, imapct on the resource, lack of alternate choices, etc. Whether or not their methods can be deemed safe it sort of up for debate. Safer might be more accurate. Safer than letting folks run loose on the mountain unsupervised certainly, but managing large rope teams and numbers of people doesn't seem like it could ever be safer than smaller teams and ratios.

 

It's probably better to have two cattle shows than fifteen two or three person parties stumbling around, trying to pass each other, slipping and having gear trouble, getting hurt and needing rescues.

 

I dont think 15 two or three person parties is much of a reality on the mountain regardless of which alternative is chosen. The demand for guided trips on Rainier is such that trip sizes will more that likely be similar to what they are now for the non-RMI groups, 8-9 climbers with 2-3 guides. I also can't think of any advantage having two cattle trains would offer over any combination of smaller, well organized and led rope teams. I would be curious to know if anyone has had negative experiences with guided groups (other than RMI large teams) on Rainier.

 

I sure can't imagine that RMI is any worse than any other guiding service would be if it handled that many clients.

 

The manner in which RMI handles that many clients is one of the biggest arguments for why they could be called worse that other services. Groups of the size that theirs typically are aren't really found anywhere else in the guiding world that I know of. More people and less guides mean more profit for the company. RMI could employ more guides, have smaller ratios and smaller rope teams if they wanted, but their overhead would increase significantly and thanks to the lack of competition and regulation with regard to their trips, they have reason or incentive to want to do shrink their profitability.

 

That they don't want to share shouldn't be surprising. Given the amount of business they seem to get, to loose a substantial amount of space on the mountain would be pretty hard on them (and on the guides they employ.) Big Lou certainly isn't getting rich of the concession.

 

Rich is also open for definition. No one is really getting rich in the guiding industry when modern standards for the term are considered. The amount of revenue that is generated by RMI clients is colossal when compared to other trips and other companies. Owners and operators of most guide companies would say that Lou is doing pretty well for himself, comparatively rich. As for the loss of work for guides. This is a complex issue. The overall demand for guides shouldnt be affected too much in one way or another. Remember the number of people wanting to be guided on Rainier and the availability of guiding days wont be changing drastically, just (if an alternative is adopted) RMI's slice of them. The demand for guides and employees on the mountain may even increase if the new concessioners run smaller trips and smaller ratios.

 

Many sub issues can and I am sure will come out of the thoughts above. I think the heart of the issue should continue to be protection and conservation of the resources (the mountain) and the best possible service offered to the public.

 

Coley

[chris]

Actually, the 1:3 guide:client ratio is used by almost every guiding service on glaciated peaks that I'm aware of. 3:9 is the norm on Rainier, Baker, Denali and elsewhere, though I'm aware of guide services using 2:6. Mt. Rainier Alpine Guides just announced a 1:2 ratio for next year, but I'm unsure what their total group size is.

I had the unique pleasure of working for a smaller guide service this summer in the Sierra's that only guided 1:1 or 1:2, depending on the technical difficulty. It was a great experience.

Thanks to Coley for straightening out my bent understanding on the IBP/concession issue on Rainier. I'm looking forward to the future!

I do disagree with one last item, though. The preferred alternative does decrease the total number of guided man-days allowed to occur in a given year. Go figure.

Chris

Edited September 23, 2004 by mtnfreak

[cj001f]

I do disagree with one last item, though. The preferred alternative does decrease the total number of guided man-days allowed to occur in a given year. Go figure.

Chris

Chris-

Has RMI ever been limited by the allowed number of man-days? If they currently have no limit have they come close to the limit that will be imposed?

 

Guiding on public land is a priviledge, subject to the publics demand for such a service (and currently they do demand). You seem to act like it's a right.

[chris]

As I understand it (and we know how wrong I can be) concessionaire guide services - not just on Rainier, but also at Yosemite and Grand Teton - are limited to how many people they can have at certain locations for certain times. For example, RMI is limited to the number of clients it is allowed to have camping overnight at Camp Protection, Camp Muir, and the Ingraham Flats. Their season can last as long as they wish it too, as long as the Park administration concurs. The permitted guide services are given a total number of "man-days" a season, and once those are used, their season is over.

CJ, I've already spoken about my stand on guiding on other threads - I placed a pretty long rant on the original Rainier Guiding thread last year. I think the public has a right to be guided if they wish to. I do believe that I, legally and legitimately working as a guide with a client, have every right to be on a route as you do.

[Climzalot]

Actually, the 1:3 guide:client ratio is used by almost every guiding service on glaciated peaks that I'm aware of. 3:9 is the norm on Rainier, Baker, Denali and elsewhere, though I'm aware of guide services using 2:6. Mt. Rainier Alpine Guides just announced a 1:2 ratio for next year, but I'm unsure what their total group size is.

 

When I mentioned 3:1 I guess I was going on the assumption that folks would consider 9:3 & 6:2 = 3:1 and opted for stating the highest climber to single guide ratio. 4:1 is allowed on Rainier by the Park but most services opt for smaller ratios. Denali allows up to 4:1 (or 8:2) but requires 3 guides for a 9 climber trip. Ratio's are not specified by land managers like Mount Baker Snoqualimie NF, groups sizes are though. Some companies advertise up to 5:1 ratios for courses and climbs involving moderate glacier travel. All this is beside the point I guess. Just items of note.

 

The preferred alternative does decrease the total number of guided man-days allowed to occur in a given year.

 

The alternatives all do call for a reduction in allowed man or user days, however, the limits suggested are still well above actual use and won't really keep companies from running trips if one assumes that the total number of guided climbers requesting Rainier trips stays about the same or increases slightly. RMI has used about 1/2 of their allowed days in past seasons.

[Skeezix]

More people and less guides mean more profit for the company.

 

You mean, more people and FEWER guides. By using "less" you are confusing count and amount.

[mtnnut]

Here is a standard passage that you can use to provide more of an explanation. From Ultralingua:

USAGE: In common usage there is confusion between fewer and less, as expressions of quantity. Fewer should generally be used for countable objects, and less for qualities or substances measured more abstractly. Thus, for example, one would refer to "fewer people," "fewer questions," "fewer dollars," but to "less help," "less money," "less milk." Expressions such as "there are less people who..." are not uncommon, but are generally considered incorrect.

[fas]

Hmm, the policeman is correct on GRAMMAR, but needs to work on spelling.

[Duchess]

I know a a few climbers off hand who have only made it up because of the cattle paths and/or following RMI up in bad weather. My main climbing buddy is an RMI guide. These things are true. There ARE some indepentent climbers that only make it to the top from RMI traffic.

I don't think it is being disrespectful at all. Those indepentent climbers that I know said first hand they only made it up because of RMI.

 

I think "climbers" is too generous a name for those that only make it up because they follow RMI?????