# Boating in Yellowstone opening?



## Mattchu (May 29, 2015)

Awesome. I never understood why they allow horses to shit all over trails but not allow boating, which is low to no impact.


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

Paddling is a generally accepted use in national parks, Yellowstone's ban has never made sense.


----------



## bwest (Mar 13, 2008)

this is awesome!! Black Canyon and Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone are not much higher on my list. Woo hoo!!


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Mattchu said:


> Awesome. I never understood why they allow horses to shit all over trails but not allow boating, which is low to no impact.


Historical use.


----------



## Mattchu (May 29, 2015)

Cool so I can hunt in Yellowstone now? Historical use is what I'll tell Ranger Rick


----------



## LSB (Mar 23, 2004)

I asked a a couple of YNP rangers one time about the closed rivers and "Historical use" was the answer I got.
I challenged with Lewis and Clark and they didn't really have an answer.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

LSB said:


> I asked a a couple of YNP rangers one time about the closed rivers and "Historical use" was the answer I got.
> I challenged with Lewis and Clark and they didn't really have an answer.


Interesting. They should have had a comment as Lewis and Clark never entered the park (as we now know it) neither on foot nor by boat. John Colter traversed it (on foot)and reported back upon returning to "civilization" and the area was nick named "Colter's Hell". That should have been a no-brainer for them - either they didn't want to argue or they were not very well informed.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (Mar 25, 2014)

Nice reply to the Lewis and Clark comment.


----------



## Paul7 (Aug 14, 2012)

Does this still have to be approved in the house and Senate? 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

Yes... and then signed by the President. It should get through the House without a problem, and probably the Senate as well. Ultimately it will be a part of a broader public lands bill, and who knows what else will be a part of that. Then congress will have to appropriate money for NPS to prepare regulations for boating, and within three years from then, we can finally paddle rivers in Yellowstone.


----------



## Miller Time (Apr 3, 2009)

I'd like to boat there but I could also see a bunch of commercial rafts just ruining some of the allure and scenery. Albeit there are cars and gapers everywhere I was just thinking it will be another distraction (rafting) from enjoying the true beauty. A few kayakers - no problem. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## wyosam (May 31, 2006)

I'd be watching the final public lands bill pretty close. There is very likely to be some really bad shit attached to it. Cynthia Lummis isn't going to all this trouble to help out a few river rats. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

Miller Time said:


> I'd like to boat there but I could also see a bunch of commercial rafts just ruining some of the allure and scenery. Albeit there are cars and gapers everywhere I was just thinking it will be another distraction (rafting) from enjoying the true beauty. A few kayakers - no problem.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


The bill prohibits commercial use. Only private boating will be allowed.


----------



## LochsaIdaho (Jun 25, 2012)

Miller Time said:


> I'd like to boat there but I could also see a bunch of commercial rafts just ruining some of the allure and scenery. Albeit there are cars and gapers everywhere I was just thinking it will be another distraction (rafting) from enjoying the true beauty. A few kayakers - no problem.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz



So you want to boat there but then you don't want THEM to boat there- because, you know, they are not YOU. Entitled much?


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

wyosam said:


> I'd be watching the final public lands bill pretty close. There is very likely to be some really bad shit attached to it. Cynthia Lummis isn't going to all this trouble to help out a few river rats.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


Isn't that what happened in the past and why the effort has historically failed?

Phillip


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

restrac2000 said:


> Isn't that what happened in the past and why the effort has historically failed?
> 
> Phillip


No, until last year there has never been a legislative attempt to allow boating.


----------



## wyosam (May 31, 2006)

I suppose this could end up a fairly clean bill just to set the precedent that congress should be bypassing the park service and managing our national park themselves. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

wyosam said:


> I suppose this could end up a fairly clean bill just to set the precedent that congress should be bypassing the park service and managing our national park themselves.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


That statement is quite a leap. After the passage of the Craig Thomas Wild and Scenic Snake River Headwaters Act (which was passed by Congress and mandated NPS to do certain things), NPS was required to create a management plan for the Snake River and Lewis River within Yellowstone National Park. As part of that process, NPS refused to study paddling, thereby shirking their duty to analyze appropriate uses as requested by the public (which they are required to do by law). Thus, this bill was created to correct the failure of NPS to do their job. When a federal agency runs afoul of their duties, citizens can seek redress through the legislative process. That's what this bill does.


----------



## wyosam (May 31, 2006)

Except the current form bypasses study in some cases, so we're trading one extreme for the other. Yes, the park should look at, but that is no longer what is being asked. This bill says study it, but xyz is going to be open anyway. I'm not saying paddling shouldn't be allowed, not saying it has even a fraction of the impact of many forms of recreation in the park now. The park is being thrashed at the moment, I wish that was a bigger concern than getting our little piece of the pie. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Mattchu (May 29, 2015)

Yes the NPS could eventually allow floating. The problem is it would take 23 years, 1400 EIS', $12.2 trillion and 17000 court days due to environmental extremist lawsuits.


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

wyosam said:


> Except the current form bypasses study in some cases, so we're trading one extreme for the other. Yes, the park should look at, but that is no longer what is being asked. This bill says study it, but xyz is going to be open anyway. I'm not saying paddling shouldn't be allowed, not saying it has even a fraction of the impact of many forms of recreation in the park now. The park is being thrashed at the moment, I wish that was a bigger concern than getting our little piece of the pie.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


 The bill doesn't bypass study; it specifically says that rivers will not be opened to paddling until three years after funding is provided for NPS to conduct studies, and every single stretch to be opened is subject to regulations. There are proven river management tools at NPS' disposal that are used on wilderness rivers that have been proven to work (Selway, Middle Fork Salmon, etc.). 

On the whole I can't agree with you that Yellowstone is being "thrashed", the backcountry is seeing less use than ever. The front country is overused and abused, but that has nothing to do with paddling.


----------



## wyosam (May 31, 2006)

I'll have to look at the last revision, I read a much different interpretation of the latest changes, I dont recall where (one of the Montana papers maybe?). If your description is accurate, then that sounds a whole lot more reasonable. I dont have anything to base it on other than my experience, but it sure seems harder to get away from the crowds now than it did 20 years ago. I suppose that could be as much increased visitation during shoulder seasons as anything- even the front country used to be fairly quiet, at least as compared to now, in the spring and fall.


----------



## wyosam (May 31, 2006)

Here is the quote I was thinking of, it was in this week's JH News & Guide. It may or may not be an accurate interpretation of the legislation, but this sure makes it sound like the money still has to be spent to study, but many sections would opened regardless of the outcome of those studies. Whatever someone thinks of the NEPA process in general, I'm sure we can all agree that spending time and money to perform a study that has a predetermined outcome or is already planned to be ignored (and I'm sure there are lots of these) is a complete waste of tax dollars. 


"Paddling advocates say that the act would trigger an analysis that’s required by the National Environmental Policy Act, which is the ordinary avenue for management changes on federal public land. But any study would have a predetermined outcome, at least for 429 miles of streams and rivers.
Lummis added an amendment to the act that would force the two national parks to allow, at a minimum, paddling on 50 stream and river segments in Grand Teton and Yellowstone parks.
In Yellowstone the act would open up 37 stretches of water, including 22.3 miles of the Gallatin River, 8.5 miles of the Lewis River and a 13.4-mile reach of Slough Creek. Thirteen stretches of water in Grand Teton park are written into the legislation, including stretches of the Buffalo Fork and Gros Ventre rivers and Arizona, Berry, Cottonwood, Ditch, Lake, Owl, Pacific, Pilgrim, Polecat and Spread creeks."


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

There have been a number of dishonest opinions published lately, especially in the JHN&G.

Here's the actual bill: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr974/text/ih

The bill calls for NPS to promulgate regulations that allow for paddling within three years of funding. This language means that NPS will conduct a NEPA process that will allow for public comment, and then allow paddling pursuant to restrictions.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Paddle Iraq said:


> There have been a number of dishonest opinions published lately, especially in the JHN&G.
> 
> Here's the actual bill: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr974/text/ih
> 
> The bill calls for NPS to promulgate regulations that allow for paddling within three years of funding. This language means that NPS will conduct a NEPA process that will allow for public comment, and then allow paddling pursuant to restrictions.


Except this 



> In response to those concerns, committee members approved an amendment that Lummis says would reduce the number of miles of streams and rivers that would have to be analyzed for future use by paddlers.


According to the bill's sponsor the bill you linked has been amended since the winter.


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

Yep you're correct. I can't find a link to the amendment right now, but it limits the bill to 400+ miles of river, excluding roadside stretches including Hayden Valley, Lamar Valley, Firehole and the Madison.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Paddle Iraq said:


> Yep you're correct. I can't find a link to the amendment right now, but it limits the bill to 400+ miles of river, excluding roadside stretches including Hayden Valley, Lamar Valley, Firehole and the Madison.


So the roadside stretches will not be open to paddling?

Phillip


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

restrac2000 said:


> So the roadside stretches will not be open to paddling?
> 
> Phillip


Those specific sections are not in the first wave to be opened, but they could be in the future. The idea was to try to limit controversy with front country users. The class V on the Lamar downstream of the valley will be open.


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

Junction of the Yellowstone and the Lamar to Gardiner? That would be the holy grail I would think. Overnight raft possibilities I was drooling over last year when I was there.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

Osseous said:


> Junction of the Yellowstone and the Lamar to Gardiner? That would be the holy grail I would think. Overnight raft possibilities I was drooling over last year when I was there.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


Yes, the Black Canyon would be open, as would the Grand Canyon beginning at seven mile hole.


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

Do we know the ratings on those runs?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

Osseous said:


> Do we know the ratings on those runs?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


Black Canyon is class IV+/V, Grand Canyon below Seven Mile Hole is probably IVish. Above Seven Mile Hole is Class V.


----------



## sammyphsyco (Aug 15, 2012)

That depends on the flows. I have run the Black canyon twice on a river board. This next season I plan to run it on a custom drop stitch alligator and water wings from Jacks Plastic Welding.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

sammyphsyco said:


> That depends on the flows. I have run the Black canyon twice on a river board. This next season I plan to run it on a custom drop stitch alligator and water wings from Jacks Plastic Welding.


Is it legal to run already? Confused.


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

restrac2000 said:


> Is it legal to run already? Confused.


No it is not legal at this time. Perhaps he's thinking of Yankee Jim Canyon downstream of the park.


----------



## swiftwater15 (Feb 23, 2009)

Sure I am a minority voice here, but I hope boating is limited to minimize impacts to wildlife. Most of Yellowstone is still back country.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## sammyphsyco (Aug 15, 2012)

restrac2000 said:


> Is it legal to run already? Confused.


Legal, illegal mere semantics. Nows prime time for river boarding the black canyon. You won't need a shuttle but you will need a getaway driver


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

swiftwater15 said:


> Sure I am a minority voice here, but I hope boating is limited to minimize impacts to wildlife. Most of Yellowstone is still back country.
> 
> Sent from my HTC One M9 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


I completely agree that there should be limits on boating to protect wildlife. This bill is crafted so that the NPS has the authority to craft regulations to protect wildlife and other natural resources. There are management tools in place on other wilderness rivers to protect wildlife while also allowing some level of boating access; these types of regulations can work in Yellowstone too.


----------

