Check out this link. Unbelievable.
USFS Proposals for Kayaking in Wilderness Areas
Printable View
Check out this link. Unbelievable.
USFS Proposals for Kayaking in Wilderness Areas
Your so called environmentalists at work. Checking off one user at a time until no one is allowed. :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:
eventually it will be no BC skiers or XC skiers... then no snowshoers... then no horses... then no hikers... the wilderness will be truly wild... and nobody will be there to appreciate it... and we'll cut it all down and build more condos.
FUCKING MORONS
kayaks have less moving parts than fishing poles
Wow. Thats fucking bullshit. I sent an email.
Trout Unlimited?Quote:
Originally Posted by P_McPoser
WTF? But it's ok to plant predator control cyanide bombs and fly helicopters to gun down predators in wilderness.
Pervasive culture?????????????? I'm not a kayaker, but come on.
Quote:
“The U.S. Forest Service has an opportunity to insure that the last protected stream in southern Appalachia does not join the pervasive monoculture of kayaking that has been methodically seizing control of every creek.”
Send your comments to the USFS project manager, John Cleeves, by SEPTEMBER 13th:
Via email: comments-southern-francismarion-sumter@fs.fed.us
I just sent them an email. Maybe you should post this in the main forum. It's worthy of it, considering the potential.
Yes, and once the trout fishermen are successful, the Sierra Club will be next in line to hash it out with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
I sincerely beleive that non of these organizations (except maybe some of the most extremist of the bunch) are actually motivated by environmental preservation. They are all driven by banning everyone but them selves from their chosen environment.
I'd be very interested to see what Trout Unlimited would do if we all joined tomorrow and lined up shoulder to shoulder and fished this river.
letter written.
I sincerely believe that American Whitewater posted a bunch of extremist crap written by opponents not the Forest Service to further stir up shit and create an even more polarized special interest block and further empower themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_McPoser
Like Trout Unlimited, the Sierra Club, the NRA, etc they have no interest but making themselves more money. It's nice to see people buy into that hook line and sinker.
And what is your association with American Whitewater?Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
I've been involved with AW for years and know some of their staff personally. Your characterization of them and their motives is extremely wrong.
Really? Compare that AW post with the actual Forest Service options. I notice you never bothered to link to those - or even the much less inflammatory American Whitewater request for participationQuote:
Originally Posted by cloudpeak
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/co..._display_full_
Whatever the actual motivations of the people involved the effect is the same.
I'm guessing that you're a fisherman from your posts in the Fishing forum. That's cool, but wilderness rivers should be available to people who fish and to kayakers. Kayakers are extremely low impact users. The USFS regulations should let hikers, fishermen, and kayakers use the rivers while managing the impact on the river basins.
Generally, I've never had a problem with Trout Unlimited. In this case, they're selfishly on the wrong track.
CJ, I never claimed that AW's point was the correct one or was altruistic, my letter that was sent was not pro-kayak, but pro-equal access. Did you read my letter? Oh, that's right.
I just read online hyperbole, which is what I judged :fm: :yourock:Quote:
Originally Posted by P_McPoser
cloudepeak-
i boat (some of my favorite memories are in a wilderness canoe area), surf, fish, hike, climb, ski, fly in planes, shit, fuck, love, the list goes on. sorry if that bursts your categories.
there are 6 options proposed by the USFSQuote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
3 propose to completely ban kayaking in that area
1 is heavily restrictive and bans kayaking in many areas
1 is moderately restrictive to kayakers
1 is minimally restrictive kayakers
proposal #5 or #6 are the only reasonably proposals
If you noticed, proposal #1, the most strict, is the current status, so 60% of the new proposals allow boating... and every one of the new proposals is an improvementQuote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I still find it curious why someone from Montana is leading the charge (mailing address for AW contact) and find it amusing that people living in CO, WA, and UT are arguing about rivers in Georgia that they've likely never seen and never will.
prec·e·dent /n. ˈprɛsɪdənt; adj. prɪˈsidnt, ˈprɛsɪdənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. pres-i-duhnt; adj. pri-seed-nt, pres-i-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA PronunciationQuote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
–noun
1. Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.
2. any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Kayakers are already banned in that area so the precedent has been set for 20+ years hasn't it :rolleyes:
the only people blithering about wilderness areas were some other retards in a letter writing campaign. Now we've 2 groups of them.
Break that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
They are not banned other places...
Bullshit, kayakers are only banned in the Chattooga headwaters. Not in "that area".Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
The Forest Service specifically asked for comments. Comments from anyone, whether they be from MT or anywhere else are going to help. Its about supporting a cause, who cares where the fuckin river is?
The renewal of the ban would draw attention to the situation again and may set a precedent for this to happen somewhere else.
You are seriously mistaken in your opinions of AW.
That area = Chattooga headwataers, dipshit. Unless you thought I was thinking of GeorgiaQuote:
Originally Posted by ridinshockgun
So they aren't a narrowly focused special interest group that gets money for representing the interests of whitewater lovers? Oh, that's right, the only evil special interest groups are the ones we don't like. Same with user conflict management.Quote:
Originally Posted by ridinshockgun
Having fun with this devils advocate stuff, huh?
I wasn't an English major but I would say that the word "area" is pretty ambiguous. Hell you could mean watershed, river, part of a river, county, region, state, country, etc, etc There is not one other river in that "area" where boating is banned and its only part of that river.
Announcement: if you cant read cj's mind you're a dipshit.
There are a lot of opportunities for paddlers that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for AW. Acces to a lot of other rivers that would not be very accessible, dam releases on riverbeds that were dry for decades, etc, etc. Sure, theyre a special interest group...but they do actually do something with the money they bring in. More like, they get money and use it to represent the interest of whitewater lovers. Your second description was at least a little more objective.
Devils Advocate? No, just pointing out this has absolutely fuck-all to do with the TGR pinata that is the Wilderness Act.
They all do.Quote:
Originally Posted by ridinshockgun
No, if you try the microparsing english callout you are a dipshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ridinshockgun
Its so fun though.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Why? Because AW is a national organization. It is currently headquartered in North Carolina but the National Access Director chooses to live in Missoula. Why is that so bad? The paid staff of AW is extremely small and they work on river access/flow issues all over the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
As for the issue at hand, I think it is very interesting on a variety of levels. I don't necessarily believe that any user group should have access to every single little corner of the universe, but this is a strange case. This section of river is THE ONLY SECTION UNDER USFS JURISDICTION WHERE KAYAKING IS ILLEGAL. In the whole country. Why? Is there any justification for this? Boaters and fishermen coexist just fine everywhere else.
I am not from the area, but my understanding is that boaters were instrumental in getting this area designated as Wilderness, whereas the fishermen were some of the biggest opponents.
Why should one user group be banned from one very very very specific area of PUBLIC land when their use is consistent with that area's designated management practices in the other 99.999999% of the USFS jurisdictions?
Don't feel like reading the whole thing, would prefer to comment with only half-baked facts, much more fun.
The Chattooga is really an awesome place. I only ran Section IV once, with NOC, with none other than Payson Kennedy as one of the guides. I believe it was the first river protected by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, in the early 70's. The preservation ethic was so strong there, that not even established hiking trails are permitted within 1/4 mile of the river, to maintain the wilderness character, which it does have...
AW has done some stellar work in the river world, imho the river safety articles/database pioneered by Charlie Wallbridge has been invaluable to those studying how to say un-dead while paddling. Unfortunately, again imho, they are very much an 'extremist' point of view on river access issues. Maybe that's just the way politics works today, but I find it hard to support, and not just in their case.
Out of state comments are sure nothing new in public comment periods. The largest % of comments on Yellowstone winter use came from California. If I were to comment it would likely follow some of my reasoning on my anti-Yellowstone kayaking thinking...while kayaks lead to little [not none, but little] physical impact to the riparian zone, they do impact the wilderness character of an area. That may or may not be important in different areas, but it is an impact. Balancing use/preservation/wilderness experience ain't an easy equation...
I wonder where the largest % of visitors come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tye 1on
Gosh... maybe the NATION shouldn't comment on how NATIONAL parks and NATIONAL FORESTS are run. :wink:
Don't be daft. The same logic could be applied to skiers in the Wilderness.Quote:
my reasoning on my anti-Yellowstone kayaking thinking... kayaks ... do impact the wilderness character of an area. That may or may not be important in different areas, but it is an impact. Balancing use/preservation/wilderness experience ain't an easy equation...
SOMEBODY PLEASE SHOW WHERE THE FOREST SERVICE IS USING THE WILDERNESS ACT TO JUSTIFY BANNING KAYAKERS!
Here's a hint: they aren't.
Definition of Wilderness, from that Act:
1(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."
I don't agree with your comparison to skiers. If an area has been closed to a type of use, and people enjoyed the 'outstanding opportunity for solitude', then imho they have a right to pipe up against additional use. While I think outdoor human-powered recreation is about the best use of any landscape, I think we too easily forget how scarce opportunities to experience Wilderness are becoming. Such scarcity wasn't overnight, but the aggregate of a lot of little increases in use....
//end of rant ;)
Let me tell you how the argument will be applied to skeirs:
"Backcountry skiing is primitive in the same way that kayaking is primitive. In old times they may have floated a wooden canoe down a flat river much in the same way Norsemen cross country skied.
Nobody was ripping up 45deg slopes or hitting class V water in the days of yore. These high speed snow hooligans are impacting my snowshoeing wilderness solitude experience that is so hard to find. They shouldn't be allowed to degrade the wilderness character of the area"
Crap, i'm out. Never been good at flaming, or thinking. Back to the Padded Room with me! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
Huh? What's up with the AW bashing? Less than a dozen individuals, mostly volunteer (and severely underfunded) group who are committed to reasonable whitewater access. Sounds extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f