No to floating in Yellowstone

[RobG]

The Bozeman Chronicle gets it right, http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_de1cf64a-8fbd-11e3-9f0c-0019bb2963f4.html

Not sure why people be naive enough to think this would stop at boating. How about hang gliding? BASE jumping? Heck, even helicopter drops would have less potential damage (such as noxious weeds and other nasties) than boating. About the only thing unique about Yellowstone's larger waters is the ability to fish for native trout in a river without boats.

 

[Hem]

This is a horrid initiative.Imagine all the jack asses inner tubing.Count on a spiked death rate of drownings.Pristine waters muddled with drift boats,canoes,SUP's,kayaks,inner tubes,john boats.....and trash.This is downright stupid.

 

[RobG]

Hopefully it wouldn't get that bad, but the outfitters claim that insane carnival of boats on the Upper Madison isn't hurting anything.

 

[Redwood]

I've beat my head against this type of logic. Way to many examples were areas that once used to be fantastic for outdoorsmen get ruined by political/bureaucratic bs in the name of making it "fair" for everyone. Problem is, it ruins it for so many and so often caters to those that have no appreciation for what it is they have. If you want to float, in any watercraft, what is wrong with the already abundant options available. What about the guy that doesn't want to deal with the impacts of vehicles/atv/watercraft/etc. What about my rights, how about making it fair for me.

 

[Hem]

Just what i would enjoy, catching famed cutthroats with worn grooves in their jaw from excessive catch and release.Rafting in Black canyon would make me homicidal.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I am not opposed to allowing some floating in YNP or expand opportunity in GTNP, but that authority already rests with the National Park Service.

I see this just like when we fight the legislature over bills that rightfully belong in the Game Commission's wheelhouse. It's not a bad concept, but the bill suffers from congressional overreach.

 

[RobG]

I am not opposed to allowing some floating in YNP or expand opportunity in GTNP, but that authority already rests with the National Park Service.

I see this just like when we fight the legislature over bills that rightfully belong in the Game Commission's wheelhouse. It's not a bad concept, but the bill suffers from congressional overreach.

Unfortunately Ben, your opinion of what "some" is will be different from the interests pushing this. Even if it starts small and reasonable the number of boats will increase until they start causing problems. After all, if they aren't causing problems what reason do you have to limit their numbers?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Unfortunately Ben, your opinion of what "some" is will be different from the interests pushing this. Even if it starts small and reasonable the number of boats will increase until they start causing problems. After all, if they aren't causing problems what reason do you have to limit their numbers?

There are established processes and sciences that can be applied that would give us something similar to the Big Hole or Beaverhead. I don't want flotilla after flotilla either, but I think excluding non-motorized use where it makes sense is short-sighted, especially given YNP's history of allowing non-motorized craft. Utilizing existing date of user days, etc, can help establish a baseline. Limit floating to a certain number of parties a day, require permits, etc. It's not hard to control the traffic to protect the resource and allow some increased recreation where it makes sense biologically and socially.

Sorry buddy, but you are wrong on the internet and I will fight you until I have to go out with the wife.

 

[HSi-ESi]

How many rivers in the west have a permit system currently in place? This wouldn't be the first implementation of a permit system.

Would it need to be very restrictive? By all means, yes. Limit the put-ins, require substantial day use fees to support a quality program (Ranger presence, enforcement of rules (not just pack in/pack out rules, but also raft/vessel cleaning station prior to put in).

We do far more harmful things in the Park than float down a river. I think that with the correct program it would work well.

Most river-rats tend to be overly environmentally anal anyway (mostly due to crapping in 5 gallon buckets and high uses of LSD / MJ).

 

[Straight Arrow]

Then it will evolve into paved access ramps, kayak concession vendors, built-up picnic sites in areas now pristine, and on and on and on until YNP outback is overwrought, over-visited, over used and abused, and not nearly what it is today. Why do we continually have to pave, pound, and put to use every single acre and mile of everywhere just so somebody can have a self-satisfying "good time" !?

 

[RobG]

There are established processes and sciences that can be applied that would give us something similar to the Big Hole or Beaverhead. I don't want flotilla after flotilla either, but I think excluding non-motorized use where it makes sense is short-sighted, especially given YNP's history of allowing non-motorized craft. Utilizing existing date of user days, etc, can help establish a baseline. Limit floating to a certain number of parties a day, require permits, etc. It's not hard to control the traffic to protect the resource and allow some increased recreation where it makes sense biologically and socially.

Sorry buddy, but you are wrong on the internet and I will fight you until I have to go out with the wife.

Ben - Yellowstone's history of allowing non-motorized craft is to not allow them. You can't hang glide, bicycle, or even bring a wheeled cart into the back country. They banned boating (and not just fishing from boats) in the rivers 60+ years ago. This is just another can of worms waiting to be opened.

 

[RobG]

Then it will evolve into paved access ramps, kayak concession vendors, built-up picnic sites in areas now pristine, and on and on and on until YNP outback is overwrought, over-visited, over used and abused, and not nearly what it is today. Why do we continually have to pave, pound, and put to use every single acre and mile of everywhere just so somebody can have a self-satisfying "good time" !?

Yes, and you can't scientifically quantify any of those things. The limit is determined by which special interest has the most time and money to establish a boundary that they will later push.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The limit is determined by which special interest has the most time and money to establish a boundary that they will later push.

Exactly! Then along will come JBA, Jet Boaters of America, who will cry "discrimination" and lobby to open stretches of water to jet boating. (and with exponentially more money in jet boats than in non-motorized) My grandkids' children will then have no idea of the "pristine" nature of the outback stretches of YNP waters. But, who cares? Let's have fun today ... however we want to.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes, and you can't scientifically quantify any of those things. The limit is determined by which special interest has the most time and money to establish a boundary that they will later push.

Remind me again how the current crop of invasives got into Yellowstone?

I seem to remember something about wading anglers & their filthy gear.

 

[poco]

Probably have a lot less impact than the motorized traffic already allowed in the park. why not try it and see how it impacts things rather than just saying no! I also disagree with forcing it legislatively.

 

[RobG]

Remind me again how the current crop of invasives got into Yellowstone?

I seem to remember something about wading anglers & their filthy gear.

Ya Ben, what a solid reason to add more vectors.

 

[Straight Arrow]

poco, have you really seen YNP? If you hike merely one mile away from the pavement, it is an entirely different experience than motorizing the loops and seeing the prominent features.

Yes, it would likely have much less impact than the motorized traffic, but so would many other activities, but they also would detract from what "wildness" is trying to be preserved. It is a cumulative effect as well, based on the number and intensity of activities. Like many changes, the "try it and see how it impacts" attitude historically has only established the changes and then allowed them to evolve into something excessively unacceptable. Then they become modified in an attempt to create less adverse impacts, but usually far too late and with too much damage already sustained. Name one that reverted for the sake of protection that successfully restored a valued natural condition.

 

[RobG]

Probably have a lot less impact than the motorized traffic already allowed in the park. why not try it and see how it impacts things rather than just saying no! I also disagree with forcing it legislatively.

I agree with Straight arrow, but probably not at the margin. Vehicles even including snowmobiles are limited to highways which are already impacted. At minimum, boats will likely bring knapweed and other weeds into new remote areas where control will be difficult. From a biological point of view they probably represent far more risk than a number of new potential uses ranging from hang gliding to concession stands to drones buzzing around getting cool pictures and delivering beer.

 

[Straight Arrow]

.

...new potential uses ranging from hang gliding to concession stands to drones buzzing around getting cool pictures and delivering beer.

I hope those are not proposals you want Montana's newly appointed interim Senator to carry to DC for presentation his first week.

 

[RobG]

.

I hope those are not proposals you want Montana's newly appointed interim Senator to carry to DC for presentation his first week.

Isn't it nice knowing Rehberg's content flippin burgers these days.