No to floating in Yellowstone
- Thread starter RobG
- Start date
Nemont
Well-known member
RobG
Well-known member
Thanks Ben, I hope that is true. I'm not new to this issue as I first heard about it 15 years ago when I was on the BOD of Idaho Rivers United which had an emphasis on recreation boating. While IRU (as a whole) wasn't pushing Yellowstone back then I had an opportunity as part of Trout Unlimited to be a part of a dam re-licensing alongside American Whitewater who is the main advocate behind this bill. The re-licensing was for the Bear River in SE Idaho and TU was arguing for minimum flows below the dam. This would help make the river more natural which would help set the stage for recovery of the Bear River cutthroat.
American Whitewater, on the other hand, (and to my dismay IRU) was arguing for recreation flows. Unfortunately, they didn't want them during the spring which would mimic natural runoff and be good. Nope, they wanted them in the middle of the summer because that is when whitewater was rare. The big whitewater festival would would boost the economy of Grace, they argued, even though the tiny town of Grace didn't want the chaos for a week during the summer. Their legal argument was that they had just as much right to the river as other recreation groups - an argument they have used with great success. They also argued that they would do less damage than the fisherman and we were elitist snobs that just hated kayaks. This overlooked the fact that our proposal would come at the expense of the fishing experience below the dam, which was mostly clear springwater and offered challenging fishing for hatchery trout. I'm a little sensitive to the crap of an argument if you haven't noticed.
Worse was that they were so shortsighted they could not see that they were putting up another barrier to a more natural river. Ranchers would be reluctant to make sacrifices when recreationist were harming it for entertainment purposes. And, if people (probably not even longtime residents of Grace) did become dependent on the money generated by the carnival, this would create the summertime scouring flood would never end because it "would harm the people who depend on it."
They claim this negotiation in Yellowstone is just for rivers like the Snake on the south side of the park, but it is obvious that they just "want to stick the tip in." A quick internet search reveals stuff like "At stake is far more than whitewater’s crown jewel in the Grand Canyon and Black Canyon of the Yellowstone, a Class V self-support run that until now has only be run by “pirate” paddlers." and "But [Rob Lesser, who poached the Grand and Black canyons of the Yellowstone twice in his kayak] says it will likely be an uphill paddle, and that multi-use, instead of placating a handful of adrenaline-crazed whitewater kayakers, will be the way to approach it... Think pack rafters traveling the Yellowstone backcountry via the river systems…it offers such a richer experience.”(http://www.canoekayak.com/environment/bill-introduced-open-boating-yellowstone-national-park/ and also look at http://www.hcn.org/issues/150/4872/print_view).
This proposal has zero potential to help the Yellowstone ecosystem or enhance the wilderness aspect of it and the people behind it have proven time and time again that their support of conservation only happens when it is coincidental to their goals. That "richer experience" can be experienced by anyone using their feet or horseback and you can only take away from that experience.
American Whitewater, on the other hand, (and to my dismay IRU) was arguing for recreation flows. Unfortunately, they didn't want them during the spring which would mimic natural runoff and be good. Nope, they wanted them in the middle of the summer because that is when whitewater was rare. The big whitewater festival would would boost the economy of Grace, they argued, even though the tiny town of Grace didn't want the chaos for a week during the summer. Their legal argument was that they had just as much right to the river as other recreation groups - an argument they have used with great success. They also argued that they would do less damage than the fisherman and we were elitist snobs that just hated kayaks. This overlooked the fact that our proposal would come at the expense of the fishing experience below the dam, which was mostly clear springwater and offered challenging fishing for hatchery trout. I'm a little sensitive to the crap of an argument if you haven't noticed.
Worse was that they were so shortsighted they could not see that they were putting up another barrier to a more natural river. Ranchers would be reluctant to make sacrifices when recreationist were harming it for entertainment purposes. And, if people (probably not even longtime residents of Grace) did become dependent on the money generated by the carnival, this would create the summertime scouring flood would never end because it "would harm the people who depend on it."
They claim this negotiation in Yellowstone is just for rivers like the Snake on the south side of the park, but it is obvious that they just "want to stick the tip in." A quick internet search reveals stuff like "At stake is far more than whitewater’s crown jewel in the Grand Canyon and Black Canyon of the Yellowstone, a Class V self-support run that until now has only be run by “pirate” paddlers." and "But [Rob Lesser, who poached the Grand and Black canyons of the Yellowstone twice in his kayak] says it will likely be an uphill paddle, and that multi-use, instead of placating a handful of adrenaline-crazed whitewater kayakers, will be the way to approach it... Think pack rafters traveling the Yellowstone backcountry via the river systems…it offers such a richer experience.”(http://www.canoekayak.com/environment/bill-introduced-open-boating-yellowstone-national-park/ and also look at http://www.hcn.org/issues/150/4872/print_view).
This proposal has zero potential to help the Yellowstone ecosystem or enhance the wilderness aspect of it and the people behind it have proven time and time again that their support of conservation only happens when it is coincidental to their goals. That "richer experience" can be experienced by anyone using their feet or horseback and you can only take away from that experience.
Last edited:
Maybe we should look at Jet Boats on the Yellowstone too.
Nemont
Well-known member
Fine by me, just leave the Missouri below Fort Peck alone because the jet boat makes duck hunting way easy down there.
Like I said, I go to the park once every other year, I would like it to stay like it is as much as possible so when I take my grand children there in the future it is still a place of amazement.
I just find the logic interesting in regards to how people think their position is the only right one on the issues.
I find human nature funny
Nemont
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
It is not a right or wrong moral issue. It's a matter of conservation perspective. Human nature is funny in that it creates all sorts of disparate attitudes, all of which are right for the respective individuals holding the attitudes. I respect that, but that does not mean I cannot oppose some of those attitudes.
What has been attempted to express is the disdain for the attitude that "we should have access to and be allowed to pave, pound, and otherwise make use of any natural resource that suits our desires for money, good times, or whatever appeals to us." It's the "we" mentality that manifests an attitude that earth's features really didn't matter until "we" came along to enjoy and won't really matter after "we" are gone. It's now and it's ME, ME, ME! Carpe diem!
What's funny is that I've seen/heard this from most of the wolf lovers out there.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Wow! That's pretty lame, Ben. Those are dots difficult for me to connect.
Waterways to wolves .... HUH??!
Waterways to wolves .... HUH??!
Not lame: Same argument is made that by keeping federal control of wolves, we conserve them better than under state control.
People generally place the resource ahead of their own interests mostly because it fits the view they support. "We can't delist wolves because they will suffer at the hands of cruel masters and be exterminated again!" is the exact same sentiment as "Yellowstone needs to be protected at all costs from the infringement of new recreational opportunities because they will hurt the waterways!"
The reality in both cases is that, with wolves, the states have adequate plans in place to ensure the future viability of wolves, and in terms of Yellowstone boating, the Park has the necessary regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure the future ecological viability of the park should boating be allowed.
There's no trust in people or the processes established to manage.
People generally place the resource ahead of their own interests mostly because it fits the view they support. "We can't delist wolves because they will suffer at the hands of cruel masters and be exterminated again!" is the exact same sentiment as "Yellowstone needs to be protected at all costs from the infringement of new recreational opportunities because they will hurt the waterways!"
The reality in both cases is that, with wolves, the states have adequate plans in place to ensure the future viability of wolves, and in terms of Yellowstone boating, the Park has the necessary regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure the future ecological viability of the park should boating be allowed.
There's no trust in people or the processes established to manage.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Equating my rhetoric to that of "wolf lovers" ... you certainly do know how to raise someone's dander.
Is that your perceived role or do you have a genuine position on any issue?
Is that your perceived role or do you have a genuine position on any issue?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
This thread is not about the regulatory management already in place for YNP. It is about proposed federal legislation to "force" boating access on YNP.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
When Jellystone pops it's cork, all this whining will be for naught!
Nemont
Well-known member
That may be one of the best statements I have read on this site. One thing is sure Ben, you are not running for any office.
Nemont
Nemont
Well-known member
Wow, touch a nerve?
So are conservationist and hunters immune to the ME, ME, ME attitude you detest so much? I can point to many, many issues that both are out to get the most for themselves.
I really don't care if they never allow a boat in the any of the waters inside the park and I believe that this is a BS piece of legislation because I don't believe congress is a good manager of much. I however didn't see a provision to pave anything or pound or destroy anything in the proposed law. I have no problem with you opposing such an event but the debate around why rafting should not be allowed, period is not a pure as it is being protrayed.
The attitudes are interesting to me.
I get the same kind of laugh from the purist who don't want any oil and gas development in their back yard but bitch, whine and moan about the cost of gas to fill their Tahoe to be off to the ski slope.
Nemont
I am not electable. Too many skeletons in my closets.
Rob, however, would make an excellent legislator. So would you.
RobG
Well-known member
Unconfirmed news just in is that American Whitewater has abandoned their support of the Lummis Bill.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
No, not at all. It's no knee-jerk reaction. I maintain that attitude each and every day, calmly, rationally.
It's taken almost seven decades and continuous monitoring of the development of the west, and Montana in particular, to evolve.
I agree with your cynicism of the "purist" with the season ski pass and the new Tahoe. But hey, we're not talking about the Bakken ... this is Teddy Roosevelt's legacy, the first national park and up til now, really pretty well protected in the outback.
You know little of me ... no need for much gas, no ski lifts, as I ski uphill ('mostly cuz I have litttle control downhill) outback where there may be some wildlife to see and the absence of crowds.
It's not opposition to an "event" ... it's opposition to an ideology of dismantling protections for pristine areas for the sake of a "ME" attitude that you seemingly endorse because you believe it's embraced by both sides of the issue. That I find amusing and interestingly foreign to my logic set.
Last edited:
Nemont
Well-known member
You want a medal or a chest to pin it on. Show me where I endorsed anything. Funny you state I don't know you, well pretty obvious you don't know me either. Pot meet kettle.
Nemont
Hem
Well-known member
Teddy Roosevelt is an American hero.Anybody who enjoys the outdoors and our National Park system owes him a huge debt of gratitude.Yellowstone and the outlying communities are doing just fine profiting from the Park as it is.I rather like looking at the Madison uncluttered as i drive to Madison Junction in a line of traffic.Its reassuring to know that a stone throw from the road things are mostly as they always have been.Where else does this exist? Its simple logic without an attitude or agenda.Just an opinion.
