Attn: those who ski/bike/climb or kayaking in our National Parks

[Foggy_Goggles]

Petition to open the Yellowstone to boating

Here is Amercian Whitewater' take:

Yellowstone should protect opportunities for people to visit, touch, experience, and enjoy the very qualities that makes the parks unique and special. This requires balancing access for all visitors with the goal of protecting the natural resources and visitor enjoyment. In order to achieve its mission, Yellowstone should manage all visitor uses based on impacts to the environment. Activities with documented negative environmental and social impacts, such as snowmobile or jet ski use, should be tightly controlled. Less intrusive activities such as hiking, canoeing, and kayaking should be permitted.

If you believe that the taxpayers' land should be availible for taxpayer user, please sign the petition. Kayaking on the Yellowstone now, what next?

[lemon boy]

jet boats?

a flippant but serious question.

Is kayaking the camel's nose for more intrusive uses? Ystone already allows so much motorized access that I don't think kayaks would be a problem but I do worry about the camel's nose effect with respect to other uses.

I really hate when folks use the terminology of taxpayers getting to "use" "their" land in a recreational manner they see fit precisely because I do think that regulating activities to some extent is entirely valid.

Just some thoughts, not directed at anybody or intended to poo poo the idea. Want to generate discussion.

[Foggy_Goggles]

It's a "no motors" area. Fishing, hiking, biking etc. are already allowed. I, nor the boating community in general, are advocating permits recreational activities with greater enviromental impact. Kayakers simply want equal access to these other activities.

If you want a case study on jetboats, their clientele and enviromental impacts, check out the Main Salamon outside Riggins, ID. They'll roll up stream at 40mph plus and rafters and kayakers are expected to get out of the way.

[lemon boy]

[ 's Advocate]
So as long as you get yours it is okay?

Was it really closed for "no good reason" or has there been a change that made the rule no longer applicable? Why the rule in the first place.
[/dick]

[Foggy_Goggles]

Good questions prick boy!

Basically, the river(s) was closed to boat access as a way to moderate fishing. By requiring fisherman to hike it, it was thought pressure on the fish could be reduced.

http://www.rivergeek.com/permits/yellowst.html

In my own words, there is no basis for the ban. The impacts of whitwater boating, are substantially less than other allowed activities. I see it like the MTBs in a wilderness area debate. If your against use with any impact, ban horses also, but don't single out one form of recreation without any logic.

[Ireallyliketoski2]

[ 's Advocate]
So as long as you get yours it is okay?

Precisely, I'm glad someone finally agrees with me.

[Ireallyliketoski2]

Good questions prick boy!

Basically, the river(s) was closed to boat access as a way to moderate fishing. By requiring fisherman to hike it, it was thought pressure on the fish could be reduced.

http://www.rivergeek.com/permits/yellowst.html

In my own words, there is no basis for the ban. The impacts of whitwater boating, are substantially less than other allowed activities. I see it like the MTBs in a wilderness area debate. If your against use with any impact, ban horses also, but don't single out one form of recreation without any logic.

I thought the ban on bikes was because they are mechanical, not so much because of the impact, and that is the same reason why bolting is banned in the wilderness areas.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Precisely, I'm glad someone finally agrees with me.

I like to think I'm making a rational argument, no? Shouldn't the decicion whether or not to allow a particular activity on public land be made primarily on the enviromental inpact of said activity? Doesn't in make sense to favor access for activities with the least amount of negative impact?

I'm not saying kayaking should be allowed everywhere (although it pretty much is). I'm just not aware of sound rational that would allow hiking and fishing but disallow kayaking. Where is the additional impact or the justification for the ban?

[SkiingBear]

I suspect that part of the NPS's problem with Kayaking is the danger inherent to the sport. Take BASE Jumping for example, minimal impact on the environment, but banned in Yosemite. The argument could be raised that whitewater can be safe for those that are experienced, but regulating users on the river would be like trying to keep gapers off the best runs and/or away from BC gates at a resort...tough to do. That could lead to a problem with a group being allowed on the river, and then an accident happens...who let that person on the river in the first place?

Not trying to keep boaters off, I personally would love to see the river opened up to kayak/canoe use. I've always assumed that part of the reason boating was restricted was the danger/liability.

[Foggy_Goggles]

I thought the ban on bikes was because they are mechanical, not so much because of the impact, and that is the same reason why bolting is banned in the wilderness areas.

Very true on the nature of the ban. But seriously, folks don't leave their chainrings and gripshifts in the wilderness. I must be missing the comparison.

[CS]

I thought the ban on bikes was because they are mechanical, not so much because of the impact, and that is the same reason why bolting is banned in the wilderness areas.

Bolting isn't banned in the wilderness. The FS tried to pull that a few years back but the climbing community got pretty pissed (rightfully so) and the idea was rescinded.

I don't get some of the National Park policies where they allow horses go on all the trails but mountain bikes can't. The whole idea that bikes do more damage is absurd. I really don't get how boating a river (uh, in non-motorized boats that is) could be seen as harmful.

[lemon boy]

thanks foggy just tryin to get a better handle on the issue. I am very wary in general of just opening stuff up willy nilly. Would that I fucking could get horses banned, I really dislike them in general but much prefer them to motorized and see the Horse folks as a valuable ally in that more important fight. I also fucking hate those online petition things, do you have the email for the wonk responsible?

IRLTS- I think you missed my point. Plus, I would conceed that of all uses, boaters are among the naturally least impactful (and not-mechanized) of all. That and I happen to know that as a general class of people, no user group is quite as dedicated to low impact travel and their passage is already allowed in some of the most enviromentally sensative areas of the US, in large part b/c they are so respectful.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Petition Letter

To: Suzanne Lewis - Yellowstone Park Superintendent
Dear Suzanne,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that you allow permitted, seasonal access for whitewater kayaking on the Yellowstone River between the bridge near Tower Junction and Gardiner, MT. We believe that permitted, seasonal access should be granted only after a careful and honest assessment of the potential impact that kayaking may have on the ecosystem in this river corridor is completed. This section of the Yellowstone, flowing through the incomparable Black Canyon, is a world-class kayaking run that is unique to this area and it simply cannot be compared to other stretches of the Yellowstone below Gardiner, or to any other river system in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Whitewater kayaking fits well with other self-powered, low impact recreational activities currently allowed in Yellowstone and we look forward to working constructively with members of the Park Service regarding access to the Black Canyon of the Yellowstone for whitewater kayakers.

Wonk's Email: created by The Hydrologic and written by David Schroeder (thehydrologic@yahoo.com)

I agree that online petitions are pretty weak. They enable comments without effort and eduction. I fear that they create an enviroment where by the side with the biggest email database can simply collect the most "votes" to support their opinion. That being said, refusal to sign an online petition (absent a more detailed comment) is a "vote" for the other side.

I found another blurb from AW detailing the NPS's "response" to the prior request for access.

Evaluation of Superintendent Finley's Decision
The decision cites the Park's review of the 1988 analysis and 1950 decision, stating: “We have reviewed these past decisions and the ecological and visitor use rationale that was used to make them and have determined that the decision was based on sound reasons that support continuing the closures today.”
The decision asserts that the preservation and potential impairment of park resources as core responsibility of park managers. It goes on to define “impairment” as an adverse impact on one or more park resources or values that interferes with the integrity of the park’s resources or values, or with the opportunities that otherwise would exist for the enjoyment of them by the present or future generations.

The connection to whitewater canoeing and kayaking, and scientific justification of both assertions is tenuous at best. Neither assertion is supported by Park Service or other peer reviewed scientific literature on the potential impacts of limited whitewater recreation as presented in our proposal.

The park found, without evidence, that opening Yellowstone’s rivers had the potential to:


1. adversely impact park wildlife,
2. adversely impact historical and archaeological sites,
3. conflict with other park users,
4. impact vegetation,
5. require infrastructure development,
6. create sanitation hazards, and
7. create safety hazards.

Black Canyon:
1. Statement: Important low elevation wildlife habitat used by variety of species throughout year. Claimed Correlation to Boating: displacement of wildlife. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.
2. Statement: Numerous prehistoric archaeological sites are located along this river segment, some of which have been adversely impacted by existing recreational uses and bank erosion. Claimed Correlation to Boating: none provided. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.

3. Statement: Trail along segment is popular with fishermen and hikers. Claimed Correlation to Boating: new use may conflict with existing users. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.

4. Statement: Trampling vegetation at access points may increase the amount of disturbed or denuded vegetation. Claimed Correlation to Boating: Trampling could occur at access points. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.

5. Statement: Safety of boaters and rescue personnel is of serious concern. Claimed Correlation to Boating: swift, deep, cold stretch of river for SAR personnel. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.


Gardiner:
1. Statement: presents wildlife concerns, bighorn sheep use the river for feeding and watering below the 45th parallel and other wildlife use the riparian habitat along the river. Claimed Correlation to Boating: displacement of bighorn sheep. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.
2. Statement: presents visitor concerns, segment is popular with fishermen and photographers. Claimed Correlation to Boating: conflicts would occur. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.

3. Statement: presents vegetation damage concerns, damage to thermophyllic algae could occur in vicinity of proposed put-in at Boiling River. Claimed Correlation to Boating: none provided. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.

4. Statement: creation of spectator sport. Claimed Correlation to Boating: spectator sports are inconsistent with park purposes and add to traffic congestion. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.


Lamar:
1. Statement: crosses important wildlife habitat. Claimed Correlation to Boating: displacement of wildlife. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.
2. Statement: section is popular with fishermen, birdwatchers, wildlife viewers, and photographers. Claimed Correlation to Boating: conflicts would occur. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.

3. Statement: creation of spectator sport along road, which is visible from road. Claimed Correlation to Boating: spectator sports are inconsistent with park purposes and add to traffic congestion. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.


Lewis:
1. Statement: area provides important wildlife habitat. Claimed Correlation to Boating: displacement of wildlife. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.
2. Statement: section is popular with fishermen, from Lewis Falls to the head of the Lewis River Canyon. Claimed Correlation to Boating: conflicts would occur. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.

3. Statement: creation of spectator sport at Lewis Falls, which is visible from road. Claimed Correlation to Boating: spectator sports are inconsistent with park purposes and add to traffic congestion. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.

4. Statement: Lewis River Falls is a popular scenic pull-out. Claimed Correlation to Boating: conflicts would occur and add to traffic congestion. Evidence or Documentation of Potential Adverse Impact: none provided.


Other:
1. Statement: issues were documented in 1988 analysis and review of that analysis compared to proposal indicates that potential adverse impacts would occur. AW Response: 1988 analysis was founded on innuendo and was not performed using a realistic assessment of use or impacts. The report simply examined unlimited and uncontrolled use of all Park rivers, including an emphasis on heavy commercial use. Our proposal is for public access to about 5% of the Park's rivers, does not allow commercial use, and is based on a realistic assessment of demand.
2. Statement: proposal encourages additional use at time when the park already has concerns about existing uses. AW Response: Our proposal is both constructed under and advocates for the paradigm that all Park uses should be evaluated under a low impact evaluation. Under such a system, river use would likely have the least impacts to the ecology and terrestrial environment. River use is most consistent with a low impact ethic. If the park implemented the evaluative paradigm we proposed, then that would provide a baseline for evaluating other more controversial uses such as snowmobile use.

3. Statement: Looking at ways to reduce or mitigate the impact of visitor uses, not add impacts to the Yellowstone ecosystem. AW Response: See AW's response to Statement 2 above.



Posted: November 14, 2001 by Jason Robertson

Contact: Jason Robertson
MANAGING DIRECTOR
204 B Philadelphia Ave
Takoma Park, MD 20910
E-mail: Jason@amwhitewater.org
Phone: 301-502-4610

[lemon boy]

no no

I want suzanne lewis' email address.

[grizzle6]

If you want a case study on jetboats, their clientele and enviromental impacts, check out the Main Salamon outside Riggins, ID. They'll roll up stream at 40mph plus and rafters and kayakers are expected to get out of the way.

Roger that. I guided on the M.F. of the Salmon for a couple years and had several opportunities to run the Main Salmon as well. The feeling between the two rivers was completely different. Granted, they are two very different rivers, but the lack of noise and commercial activity generated by jet boats on the M.F. was so refreshing.

[Foggy_Goggles]

no way!!!

suzanne_lewis@nps.gov

You should really check out this Goggle thing, I'm amazed at the info they have. It's almost like they've taken all the stuff on the intraweb and made it searchable. Neato!

[lemon boy]

hey fuckface, you want me to write a note or not?

[Tippster]

If Snowmobiles are OK, then why not kayaks? Seems like a no-brainer to me... but I'm blonde (and the 'Bilers prolly have more political clout than a bunch of paddlers.)

[Foggy_Goggles]

hey fuckface, you want me to write a note or not?

Please, cum dumpster.

[lemon boy]

see fluffer, now yer cunting up your own thread

[shane-o]

I wondered a bit about the horses-in, bikes-out issue when I was in high school and ND was considering creating a new wilderness area. If I remember right, the language behind the bicycle prohibition had to do with "mechanical transport." At the time, my opinion was that the wording of the wilderness act was flawed and that "motorized transport" or some other sort of filter based on the nature of the power source would more accurately express its intent.

It doesn't appear that the filter for allowable and non allowable activites in wilderness areas was entirely impact-based. I have yet to see a convincing argument that horses have less trail impact than mountain bikes given equivalent usage levels. The only argument I can come up with is that the cumulative impact of biking is greater when there is substantially more of it, but that argument essentially leads to banning popular activities in order to reduce usage rather than those specific activities' impacts, which isn't the way I read the intent of the act. As for livestock grazing having a smaller impact than mountain biking, I've never seen anyone even try to make that argument. I think the answer here is in historical use and politics. Horses, pack animals, and livestock use were common in these areas prior to the creation of the wilderness act and were thus seen as acceptable uses, and those user groups presumably had greater lobbying power. If there even were any mountain bikers when the act was passed, I doubt they had any political voice. The grazing issue may have been a compromise necessary for the bill to pass due to the agricultural lobby. Essentially the bill wrote the status quo from a previous generation into law. And human society seems to love the status quo.

Given that there's more going on than pure impact management, it's also worth thinking about the phrase, "mechanical transport," and trying to figure out why skis are legal and bikes aren't. I believe the definition has been clarified to specifically apply to wheeled applications, which helps avoid that difficulty. On the other hand, an exception has also been made to allow wheelchair access, and I find that problematic for the wheeled-transport definition. What's the difference between a bike and a wheelchair? Gearing? Static stability? Rider position? Number of wheels? Maybe it's time to put training wheels on a hand-cranked recumbant mountain bike and have a go.

My point is that all too often envionmental impact considerations take a secondary role in these decisions due to the greater political concerns of preserving the status quo and satisfying powerful lobbies.

[boobookitty]

Bolting isn't banned in the wilderness. The FS tried to pull that a few years back but the climbing community got pretty pissed (rightfully so) and the idea was rescinded.

I don't get some of the National Park policies where they allow horses go on all the trails but mountain bikes can't. The whole idea that bikes do more damage is absurd. I really don't get how boating a river (uh, in non-motorized boats that is) could be seen as harmful.

I wonder if it has to do with the ease with which wilderness areas can be accessed by bikes. Most equestrian trail riders ride the trail at a walk, maybe a trot once in a while. That's pretty slow compared to how fast bikes can move (think of all the times you've passed horses on the trail). In one day, proficient cyclists can likely get deeper into the wilderness than someone on horseback, unless the horse is hauling at a trot or canter--which would tear up the trail more than a bike. Perhaps the idea is that by not allowing mountain bikes, the number of users, and the amount of terrain accessed is reduced (think of how many people actually ride horses into the wilderness areas).

Edit Shane-O beat me to it

Also, I wonder if there are some archaic laws floating around out there that have been grandfathered in from back in the day. Like horses used to be one of the best forms of transportation, they're animals, and therefore why not allow them in wilderness? Until the cycling community and the boating community raised a voice, no one had assessed the rules in every area?

Also something to consider: When does wilderness lose it's quality of being wilderness? How many trails, how much human use, how much clearing, camping, etc. needs to happen before the wilderness simply becomes park? If an area is truly wilderness and truly worth protecting, should it remain as wild and untouched as possible?

[Blurred]

Here's my take, paddling kayaks, canoes, and even a raft or row boat is acceptable and low impact on the park. they're quiet, and move in a natural flow.

Bikes are unacceptable because they stress the wildlife. Take for instance you come ripping down a singletrack around a corner doing 20 mph and there's a bear and her cubs, or any other animal. That's just not a good thing. At least snowmobiles make noise and give animals some warning of your presence, even though I also disagree with snowmobiles in the park as well.

[boobookitty]

Ya, that noise adversely affects wildlife, probably more than any of use can comprehend. It drives them deeper into their habitat, which is becoming smaller, giving them less area to retreat to, making them more exposed, overpopulated for the acreage, food supply, etc....

[Blurred]

Ya, that noise adversely affects wildlife, probably more than any of use can comprehend. It drives them deeper into their habitat, which is becoming smaller, giving them less area to retreat to, making them more exposed, overpopulated for the acreage, food supply, etc....

The animals actually adapt quite well to autos, etc. in the Summer, that's why you don't have to leave your car to see about every animal the park has to offer. However, in the Winter, some dumb redneck chasing animals on a sled when they're already weak, cold and hungry is beyond lame.