The Problem

      I believe that the public has suffered for years because of the limitation of a monopoly concession. Prices have been higher than they would have been with competition. Perhaps more importantly, the public has missed the benefits it gets when concessionaires work in competition with each other. One benefit is the sharing of ideas on state-of-the-art guiding procedures by staff members; in contrast, when guide services work in isolation, they have a tendency not to progress in teaching of technical/safety procedures. Another benefit is that side-by-side operations always want to be the best, so customer care and program content tend to rise to very high levels of quality.

      RMI is not a bad company, and their guides are not bad guides. I believe they have simply suffered from guiding in isolation and have evolved to a group size and style of guiding that prevents the public from having the best possible experience in a guided climb of Mount Rainier.

      Summary of alternatives under consideration: The Park recently published a draft Commercial Services Plan which, when finalized, will guide commercial activities at Mount Rainier National Park for the next five to ten years. The plan offers four separate alternatives in the categories of guided climbing (as well as guided wilderness use, and guided alpine wilderness use) and two alternatives for managing other commercial services. The alternatives also establish new limits on the level of commercial use in the park to ensure opportunities for all visitors.

      While there are four alternatives for mountain guide services, only one of them (#3) will result in substantive change for the climbing public. Unfortunately, that does NOT appear to be the alternative that the Park will select, unless you and other climbers make your views known.

      This letter merely summarizes the four alternatives under consideration. You may review the entire plan by downloading it here or by going to http://www.nps.gov/mora/current/CSPfast.pdf. This is a long document and if you want to move right to the mountaineering section, scan down to page 36.

Here is the National Park Service's outline of the alternatives. Please see the comments and analysis that follow the table.

• One concession with up to 8452 clients and guides on the Muir/ Disappointment Cleaver Route; in 2001, RMI had 4145 clients and guides on the mountain allowed to climb in two groups of 12 together for a total of 24 per climbing group, and up to a total of 59 persons per day on the Muir route. There is no limit on trip length. If 8452 persons went on trips averaging 4 days, the total would be 33,808 user days.


• On the Emmons, instead of the current four Incidental Business Permits for the Emmons (AAI, Rainier Mtn. Guides, Alpine Ascents, and Cascade Guides, which combined have a total of 190 use days per year), there would be a higher number of Commercial Use Authorizations (CUA's) on the Emmons because a moratorium on permit issuance would be lifted.

Favorable results:

• hard to identify any.

Unfavorable results:

• no meaningful options for the public for guided climbs or instructional courses
• no incentives for the primary concessionaire to improve its services or lower its prices
• a likely over-use of the mountain and degradation of the resource

Summary of Alternative #2:

• sole concession on the Muir Route with annual limit of 4000 clients and guides
• four concessions on the Emmons, Kautz, and other specified routes with an annual limit of 340 clients and guides for each concession

Favorable results:

• hard to identify any

Unfavorable results:

• no meaningful options for the public for guided climbs or instructional courses
• no competition to pressure the primary concessionaire to lower prices
• no incentives for the primary concessionaire to improve its services
• no sharing of guiding technique and safety information between the primary concessionaire and any other company

Summary of Alternative #3:

• Three concessions, each with an annual limit of 1333 clients and guides per year on the Muir route, 160 on the Emmons, and 100 on the Kautz.
• 18 Commercial Use Authorizations for independent, certified U.S. and international guides to bring up to four clients each for a single trip (total use = 90 persons).

Favorable results:

• competition is likely to lower the price of services
• competition is likely to increase the quality of programming and customer service
• cooperation among guide services including the sharing of information and ideas on guiding and rescue techniques is likely to strengthen the guide services (this is the experience on mountains like Mt. McKinley and Mt. Baker where competing guide services have worked side by side for many years with good results).

Unfavorable results:

• difficult to identify any unfavorable results for the public
• unfavorable for RMI (annual gross receipts would drop from an estimated $3.5 million to about $1.2 million if they retain one of the new concessions).

Summary of Alternative #4:

• One concessionaire on the Muir route with annual limit of 3000 clients and guides per year.
• One concessionaire on the Emmons and Kautz routes and a few other selected routes with annual limit of 900 clients and guides per year.
• As in Alternative #3, 18 Commercial Use Authorizations for independent, certified U.S. and international guides to bring up to four clients each for a single trip (total use = 90 persons).

Favorable results:

• Competition has the potential to lower the price of services, but the big difference in guiding days between the two companies (a 3:1 ratio) may limit this effect.
• Competition has the potential to increase the quality of programming and customer service, but the big difference in guiding days between the two companies (a 3:1 ratio) may limit this effect.

Unfavorable results:

• No pressure on the primary concessionaire to lower prices.
• No incentives for the primary concessionaire to improve its services.

Additional unfavorable results:

• No meaningful options for the public for guided climbs or instructional courses because of the vast difference in guiding days allocated to the two concessions.
• No significant sharing of guiding technique and safety information between the primary concessionaire and any other company because only two companies will have any overlap, and their total potential for overlap on the same route will be limited to 100 client/guide slots out of an annual total of 4000.

      If people do not write about the benefits of healthy competition between companies who are guiding the same route and the need to give a choice to the public, continuance of a sole concession on the Muir route is likely despite the conclusion of Park Service field staff members that three concessions would benefit the resource and the public interest.

Please submit a written comment (download the park service comment form) on your views of these alternatives to:

Superintendent Dave V. Uberuaga
Mount Rainier National Park
Tahoma Woods, Star Route
Ashford, Washington 98304-9751

Comments will also be accepted via e-mail at: mora_commercial_services@nps.gov.

      All written public comments must be postmarked by November 25, 2003, but they are reviewed as they arrive, so please submit them as soon as possible to help keep this plan from getting derailed!

I would also be interested in reading your comments, and I invite you to send me a copy by mail or email.

Sincerely,

Dunham Gooding, President
dgooding@aai.cc

American Alpine Institute, Ltd.
1515 12th Street Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 671-1505

More Information and Useful Links

• TribNet.com article
Seattle Times article
• Seattle PI article