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."
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
No one wants to see our National Parks micro-managed by Congress. However, the situation in Yellowstone and Grand Teton is an extraordinary case that warrants legislative 'checks and balances' in my opinion. Traditional primitive use, such as paddling, on our public lands is not a popularity contest. It is a public right. You, Lee, the GYC, the NPCA, or even a roundtable of Park professionals 'thinking', forming an opinion, and deciding for yourselves that paddling is inappropriate is ethically and legally not enough to keep me off Park rivers with my packraft. A scientific and public process is required.
The Parks banned paddling in 1950 for reasons that are no longer valid. That ban has been maintained for over a half century with no diligent reassessment, despite requirement by Wild and Scenic law. Meanwhile, river corridor management in these Parks has become haphazard, cramming tons of commercial use on short stretches in GTNP without providing opportunities for paddling on remote reaches, ever-increasing commercial horse use in remote valleys, and no effort in the works to gain baseline data on angling impacts or AIS (aquatic invasive species).
H.R.974 was drafted to address these oversights. In the required three-year analysis, the Parks would strike a balance between the uses of the river corridors and ultimately permit paddling at appropriate times and levels. 50 river stretches were very thoughtfully selected for consideration, amounting to a mere 6% of Park waterway mileage. Prime iconic landscapes such as Firehole, Lamar, Madison, and Hayden valleys were omitted from consideration for paddling to preserve automobile viewsheds.
Serious thought has gone into this bill to minimize impacts on other users and the environment. It is a good bill. It will be good for paddlers and other visitors. It will not impair the Park environments. It sets no legislative precedent other than reinforcing legislative powers on appropriate checks and balances. And it will allow the Parks to fulfill half of their mission by stewarding the river resources and providing sustainable opportunities for visitor enjoyment of the rivers. Please take a closer look and support H.R.974. More info is available at http://packraft.org/American_Packrafting_Association/YNP-GTNP.html.
I understand the paddlers frustration but think the proposed legislation goes too far into "meddling". You want to pass legislation that says you have to study and allow some paddling, I am OK with that, but to preselect specific sections without the input of the NPS is going to far.