| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7727 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
 Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:54 am |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | However the legal fees would certainly exceed the $250x2 fines -- and besides if they were to win their case -- then other kayakers could run the falls and they would lose some of the cachet of being the only two dudes gnarly enough to have run those falls  |
From the only to the first who pioneered a new route?
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Yana
Hater
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 4212 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out Hating |
|
Yana
Hater
|
Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:49 pm |
|
|
| Cyclopath wrote: | | If a kayaker is able to go down the river in a kayak, doesn't that make it navigable (by definition)? |
No.
PLAY SAFE! SKI ONLY IN CLOCKWISE DIRECTION! LET'S ALL HAVE FUN TOGETHER!
PLAY SAFE! SKI ONLY IN CLOCKWISE DIRECTION! LET'S ALL HAVE FUN TOGETHER!
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trestle
Member
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2093 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen |
|
trestle
Member
|
Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:10 pm |
|
|
| NacMacFeegle wrote: | | I can see both sides of this argument, but I tend to lean towards supporting the extreme sports enthusiasts. As long as they aren't damaging the environment or directly risking harm towards others I say let them pull their crazy stunts. |
On one thread you espouse population control to limit access and on another thread you support allowing anyone to "pull their crazy stunts" if they don't harm anyone or the environment. While I'm not suggesting you're inconsistent, your philosophies do seem to wander a bit. 
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JonnyQuest
Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2013
Posts: 593 | TRs | Pics
|
It’s probably worth separating the conversation of a couple of young, sponsored paddlers breaking the rules to huck some falls (akin to Dean Potter breaking the rules to climb Delicate Arch) and what many paddlers see as discrimination due to unequitable rules and laws banning them from partaking in their choice of outdoor activity. For example, in Yellowstone NP it is against the law to kayak the rivers. You can fish, hike, backpack, camp, ski, even snowmobile. But you can’t kayak. This discrimination propagates to an even greater degree at a regional level, with bans on kayaking in state parks and even entire river corridors. Parks and corridors where most if not all other outdoor activities are allowed. Why the ban on paddling? Good question. In many cases, the managing agency has claimed allowing paddling would be detrimental to the pristine wilderness. Huh? Paddling is one of the few activities where few, if any, footprints are left behind. Another claim for the restrictions is that it’s dangerous. Again, in most cases that argument is unfounded and not grounded in realism. There are local and national advocacy organizations working with managing agencies to remedy what paddlers see as this inequity. But it’s a slow process, and sometimes feels like pulling teeth. Luckily, here in the PNW this mindset is less prevalent, and there are very few restrictions on rivers we paddle.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
|
Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:58 pm |
|
|
There are plenty of places you can paddle in Yellowstone. And that was your only example. Sorry, not buying it. Everyone wants victim status. As a paddler, I have not been discriminated against.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JonnyQuest
Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2013
Posts: 593 | TRs | Pics
|
| Slugman wrote: | | There are plenty of places you can paddle in Yellowstone. And that was your only example. Sorry, not buying it. Everyone wants victim status. As a paddler, I have not been discriminated against. |
Sorry Slugo, not intending to play victim. As I said, here in the PNW this has not been much of an issue. If you want examples of some ongoing permanent river closures for paddlers from around the country, here you go.
Yellowstone: Despite what you say, here are the NPS boating regulations for Yellowstone. http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/Yell_Boating_Regs.pdf
Look at page 2 of the document which states: "All park rivers are closed to boating except for the section of the Lewis River between Lewis Lake and Shoshone Lake".
Chattooga River: Here's an example where the Forest Service has permanently closed a section of river to paddlers: http://www.americanwhitewater.org/chattooga
Per AW, "The Chattooga River, which starts in the mountains around the Cashiers/Highlands area and flows south to form the border between Georgia and South Carolina, was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1974. Two years later the United States Forest Service made a decision to prevent boating on the upper reached of the river, specifically about the Highway 28 Bridge. American Whitewater has been working for over ten years to reverse this ban which violates the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act."
Another example could be the Great Falls section of the Potomac. Like Yellowstone, this is a NP. While boating is no longer banned, access (from the Virginia side) is restricted.
Those are 3 high profile examples. Again, I'm not arguing against closure of resources where there's valid reason. But when a resource like a river corridor is closed to paddling, yet open to other forms of outdoor recreation like fishing, hiking, biking, camping, and so on, I'd at least hope for reasonable rationale.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:33 pm |
|
|
| JonnyQuest wrote: | | when a resource like a river corridor is closed to paddling, yet open to other forms of outdoor recreation like fishing, hiking, biking, camping, and so on, I'd at least hope for reasonable rationale. |
Yes, such closures seem really odd to me. I'd sure like to at least hear the specific reasons why such closures were put in place.
Other than the fact that most kayaks are made of petrochemicals, the act of kayaking seems almost completely environmentally benign. What am I missing?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11276 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here |
|
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
|
Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:14 pm |
|
|
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:10 pm |
|
|
| JonnyQuest wrote: | | Those are 3 high profile examples. Again, I'm not arguing against closure of resources where there's valid reason. But when a resource like a river corridor is closed to paddling, yet open to other forms of outdoor recreation like fishing, hiking, biking, camping, and so on, I'd at least hope for reasonable rationale. |
I'm pretty sure that Snohomish County bans river travel between Eagle Falls and Sunset Falls. Sunset falls has been run -- but its kind of a roll the dice kind of a thing even in a creek boat -- floating on an inner tube -- fugetabout.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle
Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States |
I don't see the problem with kayakers on rivers in Yellowstone, it seems like an activity that would have even less impact then hiking! There is the problem of the petro chemicals in the kayaks themselves, but surely kayaks can't decay so much as to have an appreciable effect on the water? Of course, at some point they must put ashore to "use the bushes" and to camp on longer trips, but even so the majority of the time they have practically zero impact. I suppose they might disturb wildlife, but surely even this would be minimal? Potential rescue efforts might be an issue, but surely no more than with hiking, skiing etc. The ban on kayaks on rivers seems especially hypocritical considering that snow mobiles are still allowed within the park.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Sat Mar 19, 2016 2:27 pm |
|
|
| NacMacFeegle wrote: | | There is the problem of the petro chemicals in the kayaks themselves, but surely kayaks can't decay so much as to have an appreciable effect on the water? |
I was only thinking about it in terms of resource extraction, manufacturing & disposal, not that they would pollute the river.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:15 pm |
|
|
I would guess that the NPS ban on boating in Yellowstone has more to do with the logistics of access points, parking and erosion at put in/out sites.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle
Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States |
| Bedivere wrote: | | NacMacFeegle wrote: | | There is the problem of the petro chemicals in the kayaks themselves, but surely kayaks can't decay so much as to have an appreciable effect on the water? |
I was only thinking about it in terms of resource extraction, manufacturing & disposal, not that they would pollute the river. |
I was put in mind of a thread from awhile back about pollution in the backcountry from petro chemicals in outdoor sportswear, and thought that maybe Kayaks and other watercraft might also pollute the water in a similar fashion.
| RandyHiker wrote: | | I would guess that the NPS ban on boating in Yellowstone has more to do with the logistics of access points, parking and erosion at put in/out sites. |
^^^ This makes a lot of sense. I can also see that the park might want to keep areas in a completely untrammeled state, and that dealing with the inevitable rescue missions and logistical problem of having people paddling the parks various rivers would present a whole new set of concerns that the park isn't equipped or funded well enough to deal with.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:52 pm |
|
|
| NacMacFeegle wrote: | | I was put in mind of a thread from awhile back about pollution in the backcountry from petro chemicals in outdoor sportswear, and thought that maybe Kayaks and other watercraft might also pollute the water in a similar fashion. |
Plastic kayaks are made from the same type of plastic (polyethylene) as milk jugs, one of the less biologically active materials.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JonnyQuest
Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2013
Posts: 593 | TRs | Pics
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | I'm pretty sure that Snohomish County bans river travel between Eagle Falls and Sunset Falls. |
Correct, that section of river is technically closed to "travel". Eagle Falls is run fairly regularly, and Sunset Falls has been run maybe a half dozen times. I'm pretty sure the Sno Co closure of this stretch of river originally intended to include both Eagle and Sunset Falls, as well as Canyon Falls. But that's just a guess. As far as I'm aware, this closure doesn't set off much in the way of alarm bells for kayakers, as this section of river doesn't offer much for (mortal) paddlers.
Again, actual river closures are not really prevalent here in the PNW. A far bigger concern is closure of access due to private land owners (usually timber companies like Weyerhaeuser or Green Diamond) gating off public access to roads that had previously been open to the public.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Then the goats will move down and then the world will end. 
At one time there was a place out there somewhere to recycle the petrochemical boat, but I bet "shipping" 
was costly.