Clear all "New" markers Turn on extra data

Thread View Frames View Board View

Forum: RaftZone
Re: Judge Dismisses Case Against Park Service rich.p New
Date: Nov 28 2007, 15:02 GMT
From: rich.p

	Hi, Off-list questions about the decision prompt this additional post. What this means is that: Unless the case is appealed and the appeal succeeds, the current Colorado River Management Plan (lottery, 50/50 allocation of user-days to private boaters, small trip options, reduced motor use, etc.) will continue. The Park will continue to fine-tune the CRMP through its adaptive management process. The current plan will remain in effect through 2015, with a new planning process expected to start somewhere around 2013/14. Hope this helps. Rich Phillips VP, GCPBA gcpba.org http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages

Add Message

You've got to be kidding... TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

I have a question about the 50/50 launch allocation Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

You are right Gordo TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

I respectfully disagree that this is not the proper venue for this discussion, this is exactly what RZ was created for Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Ice Gordo New

Cold but not sold, and your access impereled TomMartin New

An adverse ruling and a book do not an injustice correct TomMartin New

I do agree with Rich on one aspect of venue, it's clear that this discussion has gone on elsewhere. Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Brilliant Idea and a One Sentance Position statement TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Not Bad TomMartin New

Details rich.p New

You have to save the document in RTF, THEN copy and paste from the saved document Gordo New

Rich, don't worry... Pinecricker New

<No Subject> rich.p New

<No Subject> Pinecricker New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Lots to comment on: Here's the agreement TomMartin New

Here We Go Again rich.p New

Agreement good for at least 6 more years TomMartin New

My appologies TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Rank and File vote on the arbitration TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Union example TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

wilderness and access TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Some facts: TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

I am a lawyer and I read the decision and I don't think you are mirage New

<No Subject> rich.p New

I stand by my statement. <NT> mirage New

4 way agreement missed out 17 other groups TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Simplisity and the Pill TomMartin New

Quick Follow-up rich.p New

Question for Tom Gordo New

National Park, Wilderness and River Traffic TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

You can't side step the facts TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Wilderness designation itself would not prevent motors from being grandfathered Gordo New

That's for Congress to decide TomMartin New

Is the issue the motors themselves or the fact that most motorized traffic is commercial? Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

It's Both TomMartin New

A couple more questions for you Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

That is similar to the verbiage used for motor use in the Main Salmon Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

I don't know if you missed it Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Motors are still allowed in the Everglades too, unfortunately. <NT> Pinecricker New

Add Message