A House panel’s green light Thursday to lift longstanding restrictions on kayaks, rafts and other “hand-propelled” watercraft on rivers and streams in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks has opened a new front in the battle between environmentalists and tourists.
Legislation pushed by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R), Wyoming’s lone House member, passed the Natural Resources Committee on a party-line vote and now heads to the House floor.
The bill requires the National Park Service to study a combined 6,500 miles of waterways in the parks to assess the impact on fish and wildlife of expanding paddling there. But with no study, park visitors could travel down 450 miles of rivers and streams thanks to a last-minute amendment that passed the committee.
Lummis has been backed by recreational paddling groups who have long wanted to expand access to the waterways in Yellowstone and Grand Teton, two of the crown jewels of the national park system.
Kevin Colburn, national stewardship director for American Whitewater, a river stewardship and access group, said the group supported an earlier effort by Lummis to open the waterways to non-motorized boating that failed in the last Congress. He said they have not taken a position on the bill that cleared the committee Thursday.
“Our position has evolved,” Colburn said. “The paddling community is of two minds on the issue this time.”
Conservation and angling groups are decrying the bill as a disaster for the environment on the grounds that opening some of the parks’ most pristine, remote corners to visitors could help the spread of invasive aquatic plans, damage native trout habitat and disrupt a prime habitat for endangered grizzly bears.
“These are our prized national parks,” said Kristin Brengel, legislative director for the National Parks Conservation Association, a leading preservation group. “The majority of their visitors want to hear that we’re protecting the wildlife. There are lots of other opportunities in the region for paddling.”
Seriously, is there any part of the environment that some special interest group doesn’t want to screw up? These people have rivers all over the United States to screw up. Let’s leave Yellowstone and Grand Teton alone. Those parks have wildlife like no other place. Paddlers, like the rest of humankind, leave trash and garbage, mess with the animals, and generally don’t need to be on the rivers in these parks. Most of us have visited these parks to observe the wild life and the geophysical phenomena. The animals will leave if they are crowded out.
For once, let’s let the animals win. Meanwhile, I would like to throw Rep. Lummis to the grizzlies. What is she thinking?
It has been my experience that the type of people that engage in kayaking or canoeing on a river are very conservation minded and follow leave-no-trace principles. What is the purpose of having national parks, if not to provide opportunities to see and experience nature? Our national parks are heavily managed–for instance, some of them do not allow open fires at all. It seems to me that there are reasonable solutions other than an absolute prohibition against paddling.
It would be an incredible experience to canoe through Yellowstone or the Grand Tetons.
I believe you can on some parts of the rivers. You just can’t go the entire way through the park. I guess the animal right of ways are protected. You can also paddle on the big lake.
Go rent a cabin for the weekend on the Shenandoah, oh around Luray. Check out the paddlers, tubers and floaters as they go by. For many, not all, it’s party time.
Just their presence is disturbing to the indigenous wild life. Btw, the Shenandoah is full of trash. It is disgusting.
Totally agree with Kelly. I’m all for preserving natural resources for future generations, but not for walling them off from them. Those resources belong to the people and should be managed sensibly so they can be enjoyed.
On the other hand, anyone been to the beach lately? Our disappearing shorelines are in large part thanks to unrestrained development, manufacturing processes that use sand, and this absurd idea that there should be “private” beaches. This is a limited resource that is rapidly eroding, to the point that we are importing sand from other countries to maintain beach resorts. Those lovely beachfront condos act as wind tunnels, funneling winds that would otherwise dissipate more slowly over the sand dunes, and destroying what little beach is left. Add to that the wetlands that are drained for development, and the damaged coral reefs, and the beaches don’t stand a chance against severe storms.
It is a mixed bag. The parks should be open to enjoy – at the same time we need to protect the resource (which is why is it a national park).
My pet peeve is that the Bottled Water industry was able to defund the installation of water dispensers (yes, water fountains) in order that they be able to sell bottled water.
That is annoying. Is that is all NPs, battlefields, and national monument areas or just a select few?
Yellowstone, which is my favorite NP, seems to be the epicenter of people fighting the system. There is a huge, continuing fight about snowmobiles that has been going on for a decade.
I would absolutely love to go through there on snow!!
However, people that have gone through that park for decades have done incredibly destructive things. Sofas, chairs and God-knows what all down geysers,etc. At one point, several geysers have become inoperative because of human involvement, crapping up things.
Human beings have not been good stewards of the earth in that area.
First, never – ever – trust an environmental article from the Washington Post. There is nothing worse than a bunch of urban, eastern politicals trying to manage western lands. The intent of the legislation is not to open all rivers in either Yellowstone or Teton all the time to paddling – we are talking about opening less than 6 percent of the rivers to paddlers and a good part of that is whitewater that will not impact wildlife. The intent is to force the NPS to apply science to the question of expanded access to waters and to stop the NPS from taking its high and mighty stance that tried to further limit access without public input. Compromise based on science and best use would be helpful here. Besides, given the NPS’s penchant for taking on more and more land without any funding to maintain or protect the land, new sources of revenue must be found and limited paddling would help, through fees, tax revenue and licensing. Like fishing in the parks, the numbers and times of use can be controlled. I have spend a lot of time in many visits in both parks. There are, in fact, tourist turnouts for cars and picnics at known wildlife crossings. A few paddlers and a few rafts given access at set hours of the day will not impact this along some limited portions of the water ways. IMHO the study required is long overdue and the threat of opening all rivers to paddling IF the NPS does not complete ITS study in 3 years, is in direct reaction to the NPS’s “habit” of never completing such anti NPS gospel studies. BTW, I feel the same way about our local historical military parks, where the NPS has prohibited historical and educational reenactments, while permitting hay crops to be taken by heavy farm equipment on sacred land that was not, in period, devoted to hay or the preservation of woodlands that were not there historically to facilitate equestrian trails for people that own mini-ranches surrounding those parks. That needs to be re-evaluated too.
If we are talking about Battlefields, I don’t believe re-enactments should be there because they tear up stuff. In out area, there are plenty of other places for all that.
I think the horse situation here is a little over the top. No bikes allowed because they might scare the horses? How one sided is that? That goes back to the Kennedys. So, another special interest group inserts itself at the expense of another.
Blue, I have also been to both of those parks, Grand Teton and Yellowstone on multiple occasions. There are areas that should be restricted to humans. I see no reason why the people need to encroach on animal rights of way. Out nation is slowly encroaching on most animal habitats. Part of the reason for national parks is to balance human interest and animal interest. Seriously, let the paddlers use the river space already available to them. If that isn’t enough, go to another location.
As for whitewater…You are overlooking salmon and bears and a whole host of other animals.
Why aren’t these folks going over to lake Meade, Lake George, or a whole bunch of other places. I think the Washington Post can deal with it as well as anyone else can. This isn’t really about east coast elitism. (speaking of dog whistles).
@Moon-howler
Well Mooon, the universe is in balance today, as you are simply wrong about everything here. Even ignoring that the subject is really about a legislated study requirement and not the expansion of use to the detriment of wildlife, the Parks do have duel missions. Reenactments are about the history that justified the NPS (taxpayer) taking of that sacred land in the first place and raising hay and corn as an NPS cash crop has a much, much greater impact on the land – if that were ever the issue. Reenactments are always better than the video and we have an obligation to remember and teach our young people — missions that the NPS is having trouble with. Peddled bikes do not scare horses any more than hikers or even ATVs do. Its the riders, the in- experienced riders / day renters that are the problem.
We are not talking about significantly expanding Jackson or Monmouth or Flag Ranch or building a new Cook City inside the park. We are talking about low to no impact water trails – that frankly have a lower impact than the horse trails that already exist in in both parks. Salmon runs in Yellowstone – no not so much and the bears are everywhere. I think you mean trout and that can be controlled by time of year since other wildlife avoid whitewater.
Peaple do go to the lakes in the parks, Lake Jackson and Yellowstone do offer fishing and boating – mororized boating, which is an entirely different issue/discussion. So yes, it is about eastern and NPS elitism that should never have required action by the Congress to force a scientific study to be conducted of the impacts of kayak and rubber rafting on the wildlife of either park.
@Blue
You got me on the trout…sort of. Aren’t trout simply non-migratory salmon? The animals still eat them.
I refuse to believe that the battlefields exist for re-enactments. I also don’t believe all are closed to re-enactment groups. Don’t even try to tell me that re-enactment groups don’t cause problems for the local environment.
If the NP service didn’t take over the battlefields, who would preserve them, just out of idle curiosity? You talk like the NP barged in and took the land. As for those who live around the battlefields, I am not so sure there needs to be personal ownership.
I don’t believe there are ATVs at our battlefield. They do not allow bikes unless they have changed in the past two weeks.
Cook city is gross and disgusting. why would anyone want that city inside Yellowstone?
Who ever said people didn’t go to the lakes? No one….
Who controls national parks? Crickets. Let’s ask another question…who do you want to control the national parks?
Just out of curiosity, why don’t the kayakers, tubers, canoers, rafters, etc, all go over and do their thing outside the national parks. There is also catch and release. I guess you disapprove of that also?
Grab those fish. Let them die. Herd those buffalo. Chase those elk with helicopters. shoot those wolf packs. Screw animals. Animals are the second best thing about Yellowstone. The best things have to be the geysers and other geothermal stuff.
What are your favorite animals in Yellowstone, Blue, or do you hate them all? I favor those buffalo myself. What magnificent beasts!!!
@Moon-howler
Yeah I figured you had made up your mind long before anyone commented. Oh well.
Question: have you ever gotten out of your car and gone into the back country for two or three days in either Yellowstone or Teton, hell, have you seen hidden falls. If not you are not qualified to talk about kayakers.
Personally, I love the Elk and every time we go out there we get up well before dawn to hear them bugle and then wait in the hopes of watching them cross the willow, meadow or creek. I love the buffalo too, but they are bruts, easier to see, are not elegant and are much, much more dangerous – even to your car – though I admit, I do enjoy watching the turkeys and wrongfully wait and hope that they get too close to them.
Yea, I usually vote with the animals but not always.
Actually, I don’t need to see kayakers or anyone in any sport to comment. You are full of crap. No, I haven’t done back country. I have mobility issues. Want me to play the disabled card? I never have before but I will if someone tells me I can’t have an opinion without camping in the outback.
I say that Kayakers (nor any other special interest group) don’t need to take over animal trails. How about you explaining to me why they can’t just use the areas that have been allocated to them?
I like the elk but not as much as those buffalo. They are huge! Yes, and dangerous. I make it a point not to get close. They own the place. No argument. Do you mean people turkeys?
I also like the pronghorns. That’s the only place I have ever seen them,. I do not like the grizzlies. I don’t want to harm them or to dislodge them. I just don’t like them.
Living proof that there are paddling sports within Yellowstone.
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/2010/06/canoeing-kayaking/
People just can’t have it all. There are restrictions. Get over it.
I don’t like it that while at the Grand Canyon I can’t drive west. I have to take a bus. I also have to get over it. Its a people/fuel impact issue.
In warm weather, you also have to take a bus through Zion. No cars. I don’t like that either. Again, I need to get over it. During the cooler months, off season, you can drive through.
There are compromises. Environment vs people.