No kayaks in wilderness?

[cloudpeak]

Check out this link. Unbelievable.

USFS Proposals for Kayaking in Wilderness Areas

[P_McPoser]

Your so called environmentalists at work. Checking off one user at a time until no one is allowed.

[summit]

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

[Dug]

Wow. Thats fucking bullshit. I sent an email.

[cj001f]

Your so called environmentalists at work.

Trout Unlimited?

[Trackhead]

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.

“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.”

[Trackhead]

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.

[P_McPoser]

Trout Unlimited?

Yes, and once the trout fishermen are successful, the Sierra Club will be next in line to hash it out with them.

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.

[P_McPoser]

letter written.

[cj001f]

Yes, and once the trout fishermen are successful, the Sierra Club will be next in line to hash it out with them.

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.

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.

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.

[cloudpeak]

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.

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?

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.

[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 participation
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/co..._display_full_

Whatever the actual motivations of the people involved the effect is the same.

[cloudpeak]

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.

[P_McPoser]

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.

[cj001f]

Oh, that's right.

I just read online hyperbole, which is what I judged

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.

[summit]

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 participation
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/co..._display_full_

Whatever the actual motivations of the people involved the effect is the same.

there are 6 options proposed by the USFS

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

[cj001f]

there are 6 options proposed by the USFS

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 improvement

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.

[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 Pronunciation
–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.

[cj001f]

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 Pronunciation
–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.

Kayakers are already banned in that area so the precedent has been set for 20+ years hasn't it

the only people blithering about wilderness areas were some other retards in a letter writing campaign. Now we've 2 groups of them.

[summit]

Kayakers are already banned in that area so the precedent has been set for 20+ years hasn't it

Break that one.

They are not banned other places...

[ridinshockgun]

Kayakers are already banned in that area so the precedent has been set for 20+ years hasn't it

Bullshit, kayakers are only banned in the Chattooga headwaters. Not in "that area".

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.

[cj001f]

Bullshit, kayakers are only banned in the Chattooga headwaters. Not in "that area".

That area = Chattooga headwataers, dipshit. Unless you thought I was thinking of Georgia

You are seriously mistaken in your opinions of AW.

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.

[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.

[cj001f]

Devils Advocate? No, just pointing out this has absolutely fuck-all to do with the TGR pinata that is the Wilderness Act.

Sure, theyre a special interest group...but they do actually do something with the money they bring in.

They all do.

Announcement: if you cant read cj's mind you're a dipshit.

No, if you try the microparsing english callout you are a dipshit.

[ridinshockgun]

No, if you try the microparsing english callout you are a dipshit.

Its so fun though.