Yellowstone, Grand Teton National Parks Asked To Open More Waters To Canoeists, Kayakers

Lewis River Channel, Yellowstone, Marcelle Shoop copyright

The Lewis River Channel is the only river in Yellowstone National Park where canoeists and kayakers can paddle. Marcelle Shoop photo.

Canoeing or kayaking can be one of the most unobtrusive recreational pursuits in the national parks. They leave nothing in their wakes but ripples, are muscle powered, and vent no polluting exhaust.

Yet in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks in Wyoming there are places where the National Park Service bans paddlers, places that American Whitewater, a paddling advocacy group, maintains should be open to these silent running watercraft.

As the Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service work on their joint Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive River Management Plan and Environmental Assessment -- a plan needed in light of the recently designated portions of the Snake River headwaters as either "wild," "scenic," or "recreational" under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act -- American Whitewater believes the two agencies must move beyond outdated management approaches and open more rivers and streams in the two parks and adjoining forests.

"The NPS and USFWS have an outstanding opportunity to celebrate the sustainable enjoyment of Wild and Scenic Rivers by revisiting the unnecessary prohibitions on paddling the WSRs," American Whitewater said in comments to the draft planning documents. "Ending these unnecessary and harmful prohibitions would bring the management of these rivers up to legal, professional, and ethical standards. More importantly, it would allow current and future generations of Americans to have an incomparable opportunity to enjoy, learn from, and experience these incredible Wild and Scenic Rivers."

Failing to do so, the group says, is "in direct conflict with NPS and Park-specific management policies and goals. These bans are arbitrary and capricious and are an abuse of discretion."

While the river management plans are envisioned as ways to provide "long-term guidance for protecting and enhancing the entire Snake River headwaters administered by the NPS and USFWS," according to the federal agencies, American Whitewhite maintains the draft plan is frought with flaws, some illegal.

In Yellowstone, paddlers are prohibited from dipping a blade in rivers outside of the Lewis River Channel, which runs a little more than 2 miles from the outlet of Shoshone Lake to Lewis Lake. The lake then funnels the water into the Lewis River, a major tributary of the Snake River that continues on through Grand Teton National Park, to the Columbia River, and eventually the Pacific Ocean.

At Grand Teton, paddlers can ply the Snake River, but are banned from the Gros Ventre River, Pacific Creek, and the Buffalo Fork.

These streams should be open to paddlers, maintains American Whitewater.

"Throughout the National Park System, Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks are unique in their treatment of human-powered boating. They remain the only two units in the National Park System which have implemented and maintain such large-scale boating bans," the group said in its 23 pages of comments to the draft plan. "In contrast, most other National Parks with outstanding boating opportunities either actively manage boating (e.g. Grand Canyon) or include it as just another use, subject to the same regulations as other human-powered and non-mechanized recreation (e.g. Olympic, Great Smoky Mountains, Glacier, Denali, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Big Bend, Kings Canyon, Mount Rainier, North Cascades, Sequoia, etc.).

"...Yet, despite the nearly universal accessibility of federally-managed rivers—both Wild and Scenic and others located both inside and outside National Parks—Yellowstone and Grand Teton river policy remains an anomalous example of federal management that bars one of the lowestimpact forms of recreation: human-powered floating. Therefore, in light of the Wild and Scenic designation of stretches inside those Parks, and consistent with the policy mandates of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) and NPS itself, Yellowstone and Grand Teton have a terrific and mandatory opportunity to revisit their river management objectives on those reaches in the CRMP."

Among the charges American Whitewater makes in its comments are that:

* The Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service "erred in excluding an alternative from further consideration based on a misinterpretation of Section 10(c) of the WSRA."

* The draft management plan "wrongly limits current paddling management based on historic fisheries management actions."

* The draft management plan "failed to include a legitimate visitor capacity analysis in violation of the WSRA."

* The Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service "erred in concluding that paddling conflicts with USFWS mission or policies."

* The two agencies "violated (the National Environmental Policy Act) by excluding an alternative from further consideration because the analysis would not be cheap, easy, or produce an outcome favored by the Parks."

* The draft plan "wrongly concluded that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Craig Thomas Snake Headwaters Legacy Act do not suggest that boating should be allowed on Wild and Scenic Rivers."

* The draft plan's "promotion of paddling bans is inconsistent with NPS policy."

Comments

Let my paddlers go!

When I worked in Yellowstone many years ago a heavy rain muddied the water on the Madison River for a few days. Fishermen left the river and waterfowl numbers increased dramatically. I have often wondered what impact fishing activity has on waterfowl use of rivers including nesting. I don't know that it has ever been studied. Before opening additional rivers in Yellowstone and Grand Teton to boating answers are needed on the potential impacts on all river life. Make no mistake, if they are opened the level of use will soar and once started will be difficult to control. And it won't be just packboats, but will include kayaks, canoes, and eventually commercial rafting. Once you do it for one group how do you justify discriminating against other groups.

Somehow seeing canoes on the Yellowstone river would kind of cheapen the whole experience--- I would imagine most of the wildlife would move away from all the activity as well?


I would imagine most of the wildlife would move away from all the activity as well?


You mean like the buffalo, elk and bear have left the roads?

Here we go again. What is the real reason behind the proposal? Could it be $$$$$ maybe?

I wouldn't think it's a money generation issue, Lee. Being a paddler, some of those streams are attractive. And American Whitewater's pitch doesn't involve the Firehole, Madison, Gibbon, Lamar, Gardner, or Yellowstone rivers in Yellowstone.


What is the real reason behind the proposal?


Gee, maybe somebody wants to paddle on scenic water. But then - so what if someone makes a buck off it? Why do you have such an aversion to someone making money?

I don't have an aversion to making money. You can send me as much of it as you wish. But I do become impatient with those folks who seek a profit margin out of virtually everything they can glom onto. Gosh, some would even copyright a sunset or patent a bird song if they could pack a few more dollars into their stashes.

As for opening currently canoeless waters to canoes and kayaks, rafts and inner tubes, I can only ask: Why open even more? Aren't there enough open already? Shouldn't at least a few be left in pristine condition?

I remember a day a few years ago in Grand Teton when I was trying for a good shot of the mountains with the Snake in the foreground. Every time the light was perfect, there was a raft or canoe in the middle of the scene. Another man standing nearby was cussing, and although I don't cuss I was thinking some awfully unfriendly thoughts. Finally, there were no boats in the picture, but the light went sour.

Were we all -- those of us in the watercraft and those of us on the hill behind our cameras -- were we all exercising our own versions of the Great American Entitlement Mentality? I want it MY way and I want it NOW.

We are all guilty of it. The trick is to sit down and reason together in search of a reasonable balance between at least as many of the Entitlements as possible.

But if we did that, YOU might have to give up YOUR entitlement for MINE and I might have to give up some of MINE for YOURS. Have all us adults forgotten what we should have learned in Kindergarten?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all harked to the wise words of Robert Fulghum in his poem?

http://www.kalimunro.com/learned_in_kindergarten.html


You can send me as much of it as you wish.


We already know you like other peoples' money being given away, I said "making", i.e. earning it. There may be legitimate reasons not to allow canoes et al in these rivers, but the fact that someone might make money off the activity isn't one of them.

Then you should have said what you meant. If an individual makes money, it's called counterfeiting.


At first when I read this I thought how could a kayak or canoe be a problem. And then I realised after reading Roger's and Lees'scomments that eventually there would be a park concession request and then then it would be labeled as a world class kayak destination and fairly soon there would be a conflict between the fishermen and go fast kayak thrill seakers or someone that thought it was their manifest destiny to paddle that river. Before you know it some some organized group of paddlers would want something done different with the established management of said river, changing the fundamental historical character into something quite different than it was intended.

Why not make the rivers that have been remote and have little historical history of boating no paddle, no boats, no floats rivers. If other rivers have a historical history of that type of use limit the activity by permits to the historical norm. It always seems like there are some group of business people that show up and view their local National Park as a space that has to be filled up to capacity, as if the Park were some type of private for profit outdoor theme park that must be filled to their notion of capacity to be valid. Those people end up allying with the thrill seekers and the hate the "gubment" types who view lawyers,environmentalist in cahoots with the bureaucrats to form secrete conspiratorial alliances to take away their rights away or at least that is their mantra. I really think they just want what to do what they want to do! "Now!"

EXCELLENT, Buxton. You recognized exactly the concerns many of us have and expressed most of our frustrations perfectly well in only two short paragraphs.

Well Done!

It could turn the rivers into a zoo.

One mans joy turns the next guys experience into a nightmare.

What's new.

last week a gal all decked out in her cycling gear pedelled through 2 stop signs without stopping as I got up to her I asked her if the rules were different for bikers vs autos.She gave me the bird signal.I just drove on and wondered what goes on in some people minds.

My point here is if you turn the conoe's loose on these waters it's anything goes.You know it's my right no a days.

For what it's worth I understand Lake Powell is a real zoo in the summer months.Anything goes.