You are here

Packrafting Association Lobbies For Access To Yellowstone, Grand Teton National Parks

Share

Yellowstone has few backcountry travelers out of its 4-million-plus visitors a year, and an even smaller number see the junction of the Bechler and Falls rivers. The American Packrafting Association believes it should be allowed on these waters, and maintains packrafters can do so without impacting the resources/NPS

In a rebuttal to National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis' contention that packrafting shouldn't be allowed to more waters than presently allowed in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, the American Packrafting Association is challenging his arguments in a letter of its own to U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop.

The letter (attached below), sent Tuesday, points out that the association shares many of the concerns for wildlife and scenic vistas that the director cited in his own letter to Rep. Bishop, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee that earlier this fall approved legislation that would open up many streams and rivers in the two parks to packrafting. But association President Brad Meiklejohn also noted that many of the director's concerns regarding invasive species and packrafting ring hollow.

"Paddlers also share concerns about aquatic invasive species (AIS), but evidence shows that small paddle craft should be last on the list of activities to scrutinize. Current AIS infections in YNP and GTNP are found in popular motor boating and angling areas, and these epidemics developed during the 65-year-period that river paddling has been banned," wrote Mr. Meiklejohn. "Hence, there is no precedent attributing the spread of AIS to small paddle craft.

"Moreover, at least a dozen streams to be considered for paddling in H.R. 974 flow from adjacent national forest lands into the parks. Legal paddling activity has been occurring on these streams for decades with no known AIS infection. So if small paddle craft were a real AIS threat, it would have already happened because of paddling activity on the streams that flow from upstream national forest lands into the parks. Coordinated ecosystem-level interagency management and education (stewardship) about these 'water trails' that cross management jurisdictions would significantly reduce the risk of introduction of aquatic invasive species."

The letter writing by both the Park Service director and the American Packrafting Association president stem from legislation drafted by U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming. Her measure specifically directs the Park Service to allow packrafters access to at least 50 streams in the two parks.

Among those 50 segments are 4.3 miles along Spread Creek from Grand Teton's eastern boundary to the Snake River, 6.8 miles of Pilgrim Creek from Grand Teton's northeast boundary to Jackson Lake, 26.7 miles of Yellowstone River from Yellowstone's southeast boundary to Yellowstone Lake, and 5.7 miles of the Mountain Ash Creek in southwestern Yellowstone to the creek's confluence with the Falls River.

Rep. Lummis in 2014 introduced legislation to open waters in the two parks to packrafters after discussing the matter with members of the American Packrafting Association. That initial effort was short on specifics, but gave the Interior Department and the Park Service three years to assess the paddling potential of nearly 7,000 stream miles in Yellowstone, and dozens more miles in nearby Grand Teton.

While the measure was not taken up last year by Congress, Rep. Lummis reintroduced a similar measure early this year. That legislation, if enacted, would give the Park Service three years to study the potential streams that could be opened to paddle sports such as packrafting, kayaking, and canoeing and assess what impacts could be created; prevent additional commercial paddling operations beyond what currently are in place, and; somewhat restrict where paddlers could go in Grand Teton. But during last month's committee meeting she amended it with language that opponents maintain would force the Park Service to open up more than 400 miles of streams to paddlers.

In his letter, Mr. Meiklejohn wondered why Director Jarvis raised concerns over how packrafters would impact the rivers' "wild, ecologically pristine state," and yet "fails to mention that anglers, backpackers, campers, and horsemen already visit these river corridors. How does the addition of well-managed paddling suddenly taint the wildness and pristineness of rivers that already are being used by other recreationists? The NPS considers managed paddling to be entirely appropriate in every other national park in the nation. Why not in Yellowstone and Grand Teton? The NPS has not provided an answer to that question, which is why H.R. 974 is necessary."

Other parks that currently allow packrafting include Denali National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, and Dinosaur National Monument. Andrew Skurka was named an "Adventurer of the Year" by National Geographic Magazine after circumnavigating Alaska, a 4,679-mile-trek, by foot, ski, and packraft, a journey that took him through a showcase of national parks: Gates of the Arctic, Glacier Bay, Denali, Wrangell-St. Elias, Kobuk Valley, and Klondike Gold Rush in the United States, Vuntut and Ivvavik in Canada. 

"The NPS’s dismissal of a river paddling analysis reveals inattention to their basic mission and a lack of stewardship for resources that are nothing less than a river paradise. A bizarre lack of river paddling information and management in Yellowstone, coupled with the odd scarcity of approved river paddling opportunities is confusing for visitors," wrote Mr. Meiklejohn. "It has led to illegal river running, accidents by uninformed and unprepared visitors, and costly enforcement and rescue efforts."

Comments

". . . .  legislation drafted by U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming. Her measure specifically directs the Park Service to allow packrafters access to at least 50 streams in the two parks.  . . . . . during last month's committee meeting she amended it"

 

For some of us, it is the Congressional game of legislation by amendment that is most worrisome.    Once a law has been enacted with whatever amendments were slapped on to the bill before passage, Congress may at any time in the future toss in a few more amendments.  Too often, those later amendments are attached to other bills that are in no way related to the original.  Adding regulatory amendments to existing laws by attaching them to military appropriations bills is a favorite tactic used to slip something past those who might oppose the measure.

A little amendment here, a little amendment there and then if anything backfires blame it on the blasted bureaucrats who were forced to try to administer the mess Congress caused.  It's not just the NPS that struggles to deal with this nonsense.  Every other Federal agency and even many of our states are in the same boat.  (Or should that be packraft in this case?)


Lee your issue isn't with amendments its with multi-topic legislation.  Rep. Lummis's bill is not multi-topic legislation.  

But then if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  


No, multi-topic legislation is only part of it.  It's amendments made to existing laws years later by tacking an amendment or rider onto a completely unrelated bill that worry me.

I certainly don't advocate using a hammer to pound those nails in.  But we do need to use the claw to pull them out.  Then, at election time, use the hammer on career incumbent Congress members.

But then, I'm firmly among the 90%+ of Americans who realize that Congress is completely dysfunctional right now.


"It's amendments made to existing laws years later by tacking an amendment or rider onto a completely unrelated bill that worry me."

That is exactly what multi-topic legislation is.  


Yes, Comrade, and that's exactly what I've been talking about all this time while you've been accusing me of fibbing and telling me it doesn't happen.  Wowabonga!  Y'just made my day!


 while you've been accusing me of fibbing and telling me it doesn't happen.

Really?  Please identify where I did that?  More baseless accusations.  

Multi-topic legislation is an issue (as I have stated in the past) but Rep Lummis's bill is not multi-topic legislation.  

And by the way, I don't necessarily agree with the Rep's bill as I don't think Congress should be micromanaging the parks.


I think its great that packrafters are using the legislative process to correct the failure of NPS to properly manage Yellowstone's rivers.  Paddling is allowed in all other national parks.  An outright ban on floating Yellowstone's rivers is ludicrous, and seeking a legislative solution is preferable in my eyes than rushing to litigation as so many other groups do.  Remember, the only reason we even have the National Park Service is because Congress created it. 


The political science anxieties at play in the comments above are confusing. Legislation in a tripartite republic often has as its aim the provision of direction to the executive branch. Such is true for the Yellowstone - Grand Teton Paddling Act. The president, his secretaries, and their charges, including the National Park Service, may prefer to be left largely undirected, to administer their agencies with minimal political oversight. Though a natural impulse, if deference to the executive is too greatly indulged, the citizens are disenfranchised and the executive overreaches. Until Rep. Lummis drafted and improved the paddling bill, that is what was happening with respect to examination of paddling in these two parks. YNP + GTNP willfully disregarded their duty to assess paddling recreation (an "Outstandingly Remarkable Value" in Wild & Scenic parlance), secondary to passage in 2009 of the Snake Headwaters Wild & Scenic Act. That assessment, through the legally required, and amply funded, Comprehensive River Management Plan, (CRMP), never happened. Error to the executive. That mistake could have been litigated in federal court. In this case, though, instead of a tedious and expensive lawsuit to use the judiciary to order the NPS to draft a legally sufficient CRMP, and to eventually manage paddling recreation as an outcome of a CRMP, the legislative branch intervened (or at least started to intervene), with its own remedy. If the Yellowstone - Grand Teton Paddling Act becomes law, Mr. Dalton is right to anticipate that this Act could later be amended. Every federal law may be amended whenever the Congress takes appropriate action. Short of a presidential veto or a judicial finding of unconstitutionality, federal laws and their amendments persist and form a part of the legal structure of our nation. If the National Park Service is directed to study and manage paddling on 400/7500ths (5.3%) of their inventory of moving waters in these two parks, they'll be able to draw upon a substantial body of natural resource protection and recreation management experience developed during the last 100 years from hundreds of other NPS units where self-propelled paddling is a welcome activity. Pursuant to the 1916 NPS Organic Act, this is their job. With this legislative correction, the NPS will apply itself with all due diligence and find a working balance between providing for the enjoyment of the people while leaving the parks in an unimpaired condition. Despite the anxious rhetoric of those who regard every minute of human recreation in the out of doors as an impact-generating permanent impairment event, there is another, more realistic future in store with the return of wilderness paddling to these parks. Well-regulated paddling recreation (including lottery systems, backcountry campsite restrictions, and use of other standard Leave No Trace behaviors) spread out across the 2.5+ million acres of these parks, will generate momentary hardship and joy, long-term passion for preservation, enduring and field-tested human connections to wild country, and a continuing legacy of vibrant ecological health.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.