I understand that RRFW hasn’t read
the proposed rules or maybe they want us to believe the rules are adverse to individual user rights for some reason of their own. These rules have nothing to do with individual use but rather govern guide and outfitter permitting and really, there’s not a lot here that is new.
The rules are already in place that require anyone taking a group into the backcountry to obtain a permit. If you are a guide or outfitter or chargd fees on top of what is already charged by the USFS, additional permits are required. Permitting makes sure everyone is on the same page as far as to where groups can camp, how many people can be in a group and how long they can stay. Most of these rules already exist & make good sense from a conservation standpoint. Anyone that has taken a group to Isle Royale knows that individuals or groups under a certain size get the prime campsites.
The major changes proposed are that youth, educational and religious groups could have the same Priority User permits that commecial guides & outfitters already have. Priority User in this context applies to how groups are permitted and not to groups having priority over individuals. In addition, clarification is made as to how guides & outfitter can broker services. All of this group permitting goes back to controlling high-impact use of the backcountry and there’s not a lot that’s new or that should cause anyone to complain.
Maybe what RRFW is complaining about is that they shouldn’t have to be treated as a group?
You appear to be talking around the
issue of giving outfitters preferential access for long periods.
every single thing I read on that site is a lie and you are a liar as well.
I am an SRP holder and it is my business to know the law. You sir do not, or choose not to know it.
Come back with some facts if you dare.
falco, I don’t think we can tell which
of us you are challenging. To whom does “outfitting” refer? The only thing I can tell from your post is that you disagree with what is contained in that link. I downloaded both the text in the link and the text in the government proposal to which the link refers. I will go read both again. Perhaps you wish to explain which assertions are most obviously false. I would be glad to be reassured that outfitters are not trying to get preferential access and control over public lands.