No kayaks in wilderness?

[RootSkier]

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.

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.

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?

[Tye 1on]

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...

[summit]

Out of state comments are sure nothing new in public comment periods. The largest % of comments on Yellowstone winter use came from California.

I wonder where the largest % of visitors come from?

Gosh... maybe the NATION shouldn't comment on how NATIONAL parks and NATIONAL FORESTS are run.

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...

Don't be daft. The same logic could be applied to skiers in the Wilderness.

[cj001f]

SOMEBODY PLEASE SHOW WHERE THE FOREST SERVICE IS USING THE WILDERNESS ACT TO JUSTIFY BANNING KAYAKERS!

Here's a hint: they aren't.

[Tye 1on]

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

[summit]

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"

[Tye 1on]

Hush now. This is Flamewars 101. "Thinking" is across the hall, in that empty broom closet.

, i'm out. Never been good at flaming, or thinking. Back to the Padded Room with me!

[Yonder_River]

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.

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.