# Middle Fork Salmon. June 1. Hazard tree 1 mile below put in



## kwagunt2001

Hazard tree: 1 mile below MFS put in. Teepee Hole. Photo is from June 1 2022.


----------



## jamesthomas

That’s not good.


----------



## IDriverRunner

A comment on the Idaho Whitewater Association page says that "There is now a cat boat pinned at this rapid."


----------



## BenSlaughter

I'm sure it'll flush again, clear it out.

But goddamnit, that burn did a number on things.


----------



## Riverwild

Rumor has it the road is open and a private group had a hell of a day flipping boats on this log. Hope everyone is alright. Stay safe out there folks!


----------



## Raft Dad

Launching Sunday. Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## blueotter

How did you get that photo? That is amazing!!
That is some burnt up sheeiit


----------



## Montet202

blueotter said:


> How did you get that photo? That is amazing!!
> That is some burnt up sheeiit


Saw the photo on FB and the guy that took it is, apparently a local pilot. He commented that he was going to fly the MF again in a day or so an take more.


----------



## blueotter

Man,
I'm a pilot, but I'm not that cool...


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

A friend has a friend who is a guide on the MFS....and evidently the Forest Service was in there today clearing some of this stuff out. They have only been flying customers in to Indian so far....but next week they have a bunch of customers booked to put in at Boundary and the outfitters are putting a lot of pressure on the Forest Service clear the river of hazards. I'm hoping this is true since I have a June 9th MFS/Main trip that I'd really like to do but the TL is getting nervous about all the wood in the river and is considering cancelling.


----------



## mikesee

Electric-Mayhem said:


> A friend has a friend who is a guide on the MFS....and evidently the Forest Service was in there today clearing some of this stuff out. They have only been flying customers in to Indian so far....but next week they have a bunch of customers booked to put in at Boundary and the outfitters are putting a lot of pressure on the Forest Service clear the river of hazards. I'm hoping this is true since I have a June 9th MFS/Main trip that I'd really like to do but the TL is getting nervous about all the wood in the river and is considering cancelling.



If the MFS is truly a "Wilderness" river, then I fail to see how it is the job of the USFS to keep it clear. Play it as it lies.

If outfitters are making $ off of this "Wilderness", they should be the ones applying elbow grease to keep it open.


----------



## bigjeff

mikesee said:


> If the MFS is truly a "Wilderness" river, then I fail to see how it is the job of the USFS to keep it clear. Play it as it lies.
> 
> If outfitters are making $ off of this "Wilderness", they should be the ones applying elbow grease to keep it open.


Damn right they should


----------



## cadster

This issue came up before with the Lake Creek blowout and the resulting log jam at Pistol. Hard to imagine the river being cleared now with the level staying high.


----------



## Dangerfield

My opinion once this mini ice age breaks, the river will be spiking again this month and USFS won't put their staff in harm's way to "sweep up" the river this year and into the future to make it s super highway. The next few years I bet will be similar in the spring with tons of debris, so get used to it. The commercials and/or privates can take a misery whip with them and use it at their own risk.


----------



## dgoods

mikesee said:


> If the MFS is truly a "Wilderness" river, then I fail to see how it is the job of the USFS to keep it clear. Play it as it lies.
> 
> If outfitters are making $ off of this "Wilderness", they should be the ones applying elbow grease to keep it open.


Totally agree- push some training trips down with saws and z-drags with "pig rigs" and pull out that wood! -Great learning opportunity for all those aspiring 20-30s somethings out there looking to make their mark on the world of whitewater!


----------



## Hopitrout

dgoods said:


> Totally agree- push some training trips down with saws and z-drags with "pig rigs" and pull out that wood! -Great learning opportunity for all those aspiring 20-30s somethings out there looking to make their mark on the world of whitewater!


They may be able to remove an existing blockage here and there but there is so much wood in the system now and with every surge in water levels, new blockages and restrictions will occur. This will be a norm for the MFS for years to come. Launched on Marsh a week ago. So much wood.


----------



## dgoods

Keeping my fingers crossed for a big surge in the next few days to blow things out and clear. I've got a June 15th MF trip... While not a MF veteran,my last trip was at 6.4' and I've run the South Fork Salmon 8 times at varying levels.
There have been several years when there were huge avalanches that brought literally hundreds of full sized trees into the EFSF that flushed down into the SFS and down into the main-after the big water came and flushed it out...

I also remember the huge log jam that blocked up Pistol Creek(I think), and the forest service did go in and dynamite it due to several groups being stuck upstream of it waiting for it to clear...

I think anyone running woody, wilderness runs should anticipate either lining boats or portaging. This means packing fast and light, bringing lots of rope, anchors, belay devices... and knowing how to use it if needed. IMO, small trips are way safer in these conditions. If a hazard presents itself the lead boat can quickly pull over and so can the 2-3 other boats behind.

I'm really thankful for any arial recon pics the local pilots are posting for us to try to anticipate potential problems-of course, wood moves around at all times, but any and all valid info on river hazards is always good info.


----------



## panicman

have not been there and am hoping for our 26th launch date. That one looks to be in a pretty bad spot since its towards the bottom of what looks like a pretty continious section with small to no eddies before it.


----------



## Conundrum

panicman said:


> That one looks to be in a pretty bad spot since its towards the bottom of what looks like a pretty continious section with small to no eddies before it.


You’ve just described much of Boundary to Indian at higher flows. Head on a swivel out there.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

Another


mikesee said:


> If the MFS is truly a "Wilderness" river, then I fail to see how it is the job of the USFS to keep it clear. Play it as it lies.
> 
> If outfitters are making $ off of this "Wilderness", they should be the ones applying elbow grease to keep it open.





dgoods said:


> Totally agree- push some training trips down with saws and z-drags with "pig rigs" and pull out that wood! -Great learning opportunity for all those aspiring 20-30s somethings out there looking to make their mark on the world of whitewater!


The forest service is the managing agency and maintaining "the resource" and keeping it safe is their job. Just because its "wilderness" doesn't mean it needs to go untouched. Perhaps allowing the management entity to manage the river in the way they want is the way to go too. Perhaps having a bunch of private boaters and commercial guiding companies just do whatever they want, possibly getting hurt or making things worse isn't great. Getting some help from the public and commercial outfitters is great... but at the end of the day its up to the Forest Service to manage it and make sure it is done by the book.


----------



## Conundrum

Would you have the same opinion without a June 9 launch? Serious question, I’m asking myself the same thing but don’t have any MFSs coming up this year.


----------



## Rockgizmo

Correct me if I’m wrong, the Lake Creek blow out happened roughly in the middle of the summer season with several trips already on the water. The log jam left trips already on the river stranded above. The current situation is a bit different, because the season is just beginning.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

Conundrum said:


> Would you have the same opinion without a June 9 launch? Serious question, I’m asking myself the same thing but don’t have any MFSs coming up this year.


My stance on it being the Forest Services job to maintain the resource and make it as safe as possible definitely stands regardless of whether I have a trip coming up or not. I guess I should have said that, should the Forest Service team decide the river is unsafe to run and close it down... I'd be a bit disappointed that I didn't get to go on my trip but I would accept it.

I really think its the managing agency's responsibility. I would presume that the Forest Service would have experts on staff or at least on call to make decisions about how best to handle this situation.


----------



## Riverlife

Let’s also be honest here that the FS isn’t managing this as a complete “wilderness” environment either. As such they do have some responsibilities. I do however agree with the point that this is a very dynamic and wild environment, not Disneyland, and private and commercial trips need to come prepared for the unexpected. My opinion is that the primary responsibility of the FS here is to adequately advise those groups who have permits, make sure that all parties show up at put in with realistic expectations, skills, equipment, and flexibility to deal with the conditions we are seeing. Anything beyond that starts to get a bit murky imo


----------



## Dangerfield

The USFS "hands off" approach to fighting fires in the wilderness areas in part added to the current situation on the MF. The fire smoldered/creeped a quite a while with minimal efforts to contain it for many reasons (staffing, priorities fires elsewhere in the region/US, safety, etc.) and when winds/humidity played into it there was no stopping it. It was a slow moving freight train, I am sure others predicted the outcome. Most efforts were to protect other resources such as private/public structures and sites inside and outside of the wilderness such as the Boundary facility.

As a cost to benefit ratio, not attacking the fire with large resources due to wilderness designation, only to come in afterwards to clean up nature doing it's thing is not reasonable.


----------



## Conundrum

We may disagree and it’s okay if we do. I don’t feel it’s the FS’s mission to keep wilderness safe. They don’t shut the river down during non-lotto season when it isn’t outfitter money making season for hazards. If that was the case, they should rename it erness and take the wild out of it. MFS is in the Frank and protected by the Wilderness Act, Central Idaho Wilderness Act, and also under Wild and Scenic River protection. Probably a conversation for another thread so I’ll close with this because the MFS is a special place because of things like this. 



> DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
> (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;


I can see FS cutting out logs for immediate rescue of human life. I don’t see how cutting out logs so outfitters and privates can “more safely” navigate the river is congruent with much of the quote above. There’s a small but stark difference between preservation and conservation.


----------



## Will Amette

Conundrum said:


> You’ve just described much of Boundary to Indian at higher flows. Head on a swivel out there.


Yeah.

I remember not really having time to take my eyes off the water to try and look at my map, much less get out my glasses so I could actually READ the map.


----------



## Dangerfield

Lead boat always need's someone in front of the boat that know's where they are and the "lines" at all times. He/she is absolved from dish duty for the duration.


----------



## BenSlaughter

If I'm my own lookout, does that mean I don't have to do dishes??


----------



## Riverwild

I spoke to some guide friends. It sounds like there is a group of commercial guides currently working on the log, not the FS. They got to the log yesterday, but ended up helping a private group get a pinned boat off the log for 3 hours. It also sounds like there is a large log in Velvet sticking off the big rock on the left forcing you further right than you'd like to be and also blocking any far left sneak.


----------



## davb56

Hoping for a good flush! That's a challenging log to get past.


----------



## Dangerfield

BenSlaughter said:


> If I'm my own lookout, does that mean I don't have to do dishes??


Plus, you don't have to wash your hands.


----------



## Hopitrout

dgoods said:


> Keeping my fingers crossed for a big surge in the next few days to blow things out and clear. I've got a June 15th MF trip... While not a MF veteran,my last trip was at 6.4' and I've run the South Fork Salmon 8 times at varying levels.
> There have been several years when there were huge avalanches that brought literally hundreds of full sized trees into the EFSF that flushed down into the SFS and down into the main-after the big water came and flushed it out...
> 
> I also remember the huge log jam that blocked up Pistol Creek(I think), and the forest service did go in and dynamite it due to several groups being stuck upstream of it waiting for it to clear...
> 
> I think anyone running woody, wilderness runs should anticipate either lining boats or portaging. This means packing fast and light, bringing lots of rope, anchors, belay devices... and knowing how to use it if needed. IMO, small trips are way safer in these conditions. If a hazard presents itself the lead boat can quickly pull over and so can the 2-3 other boats behind.
> 
> I'm really thankful for any arial recon pics the local pilots are posting for us to try to anticipate potential problems-of course, wood moves around at all times, but any and all valid info on river hazards is always good info.





Electric-Mayhem said:


> Another
> 
> 
> 
> The forest service is the managing agency and maintaining "the resource" and keeping it safe is their job. Just because its "wilderness" doesn't mean it needs to go untouched. Perhaps allowing the management entity to manage the river in the way they want is the way to go too. Perhaps having a bunch of private boaters and commercial guiding companies just do whatever they want, possibly getting hurt or making things worse isn't great. Getting some help from the public and commercial outfitters is great... but at the end of the day its up to the Forest Service to manage it and make sure it is done by the book.


Electric-Mayhem as one that’s done the river 20 times on or before Memorial Weekend including one hell of a float last weekend (5/26 launch on Marsh), having the USFS being responsible for making the river safe (clear the obstacles, etc) is unrealistic, and from my perspective dangerous. Rapid temp changes, warm rains on snow, mud slides and all that in steep heavily burned areas makes for RAPID changes to our special little river. I appreciate what the USFS did in Pistol years ago, I appreciate the way they administer the river and share safety info, but if I depended on a talented but very SMALL group of USFS employees to keep me safe, my guess is they’d close the river till mid July, because they couldn’t keep me safe.…. Sorry, but no freakin’ thanks. The MFS is dangerous in the spring. That’s part of the lure I guess. Seriously, in the spring if you need to depend on anyone but you or your group, it’s probably the wrong sport for you. And after this weekend, I’m considering that advice for myself. Apologies for being so direct.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

Yeah.... much better to have average Joe boater who thinks he knows what is best for "the resource" make decisions for all of us unsupervised. WIlderness schmilderness.... roads, buildings, air strips, lodges, dam structures, rocks piled up around hot springs, firewood collected, bridges across a the river, a full trail built along nearly the entire stretch of river and the list goes on. Whatever you guys need to tell yourselves.... but I'll stick to my guns that the managing agency, at the end of the day, should make decisions about how the river is maintained. Obviously a river is impossible to make 100% safe....far from it especially with this mildly high water combined with fire debris. Using the excuse of "removing a log is changing the natural nature of the river corridor" when you drove down a graded road to put your boat in on a man made slide that is just below a dam structure with a viewing platform and a gazebo for you to sit under while the ranger talks to you right after you walked down a trail from the campground with several pit toilets and picnic tables at every site... is just silly. 

Having this belief doesn't absolve people of personal responsibility... but leaving it to a bunch of "citizen boaters" to make all the decisions unsupervised sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I mean...half the stories you hear and videos you see are a bunch of people with sub par decision making skills confirming it usually with equipment not designed for the task. When performing log extractions and removing other hazards, there is a real possibility of messing it up and making it worse or for the people doing so to get hurt. 

To be clear....this doesn't mean one shouldn't try to keep ones head on a swivel and react to the conditions as they change. I just believe that, when it comes to known hazards, like a riverwide log a mile from the put in, on the river and making a plan to remove them... it is the managing agency's job to oversee it. I seem to be in the minority in this belief.... so I guess it is what it is.


----------



## Dangerfield

I wonder how the USFS would oversee/supervise a bunch of weekend Paul Bunyan's. They wouldn't say diddley since if anything went wrong they would probably be dragged into some sort of legal mess. If one look's at the the Middle Fork map/publication the the USDA/USFS produces you will notice that the only description of rapids shows location and a class rating. Nothing in there tells/suggests river runners the best line to take for the same reason of potential liability.

We can hash this out back and forth here in this forum, but why doesn't someone sit down with the river managers to get their perspective? I am throwing out the "challenge flag" for someone to pick up and run with it.


----------



## sarahkonamojo

Land of Many Uses. Which resource to protect? Why? Who benefits and who pays?

If the USFS made the river safe on a daily basis, they would end up in court. Among the large USFS staff how many of them actually have the skills and knowledge to safely manage strainers in a continually shifting environment? The commercial companies (and many privates) have the expertise and knowledge.

User beware, have the skills, and manage the risk. Know when to stay home. Bring a saw and know how to use it. Be ready to portage. Don't open the bottle until you are in camp.


----------



## jamesthomas

By the way everyone, the FS has no money. They have been severely defunded.


----------



## westwatercuban

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Yeah.... much better to have average Joe boater who thinks he knows what is best for "the resource" make decisions for all of us unsupervised. WIlderness schmilderness.... roads, buildings, air strips, lodges, dam structures, rocks piled up around hot springs, firewood collected, bridges across a the river, a full trail built along nearly the entire stretch of river and the list goes on. Whatever you guys need to tell yourselves.... but I'll stick to my guns that the managing agency, at the end of the day, should make decisions about how the river is maintained. Obviously a river is impossible to make 100% safe....far from it especially with this mildly high water combined with fire debris. Using the excuse of "removing a log is changing the natural nature of the river corridor" when you drove down a graded road to put your boat in on a man made slide that is just below a dam structure with a viewing platform and a gazebo for you to sit under while the ranger talks to you right after you walked down a trail from the campground with several pit toilets and picnic tables at every site... is just silly.
> 
> Having this belief doesn't absolve people of personal responsibility... but leaving it to a bunch of "citizen boaters" to make all the decisions unsupervised sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I mean...half the stories you hear and videos you see are a bunch of people with sub par decision making skills confirming it usually with equipment not designed for the task. When performing log extractions and removing other hazards, there is a real possibility of messing it up and making it worse or for the people doing so to get hurt.
> 
> To be clear....this doesn't mean one shouldn't try to keep ones head on a swivel and react to the conditions as they change. I just believe that, when it comes to known hazards, like a riverwide log a mile from the put in, on the river and making a plan to remove them... it is the managing agency's job to oversee it. I seem to be in the minority in this belief.... so I guess it is what it is.


This type of mindset is why national parks are paved and a zoo…

It’s the wilderness, let her be wild and free. Just as she wants too. If you can’t play, don’t play…


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

westwatercuban said:


> This type of mindset is why national parks are paved and a zoo…
> 
> It’s the wilderness, let her be wild and free. Just as she wants too. If you can’t play, don’t play…












No pooping in the pit toilets, using maintained boat ramps, or graded roads for this guy 👆

Pulling a couple logs out and having a managing agency that has a mindset towards keeping the river safe is totally the equivalent of "paving over nature".


----------



## westwatercuban

Electric-Mayhem said:


> No pooping in the pit toilets, using maintained boat ramps, or graded roads for this guy 👆
> 
> Pulling a couple logs out and having a managing agency that has a mindset towards keeping the river safe is totally the equivalent of "paving over nature".


You’re absolutely right. It is my opinion. You don’t have to agree with it. I promise I won’t use the vault toilet though. That’s all on you. You can have my share of TP. Can’t promise the seat will be warm, but what I can promise is plenty of flies to keep you company. 

I don’t go to the wilderness for pooping in a vault toilet and using maintained roads or boat ramps. I’d actually have zero issues with the access being complete poopy. I want to be in the wilderness for the experience it gives. I want to take mother nature in as raw as I possibly can. As brutal as she can possibly be. It’s this primal feeling, you and mother nature doing a dance of survival. I don’t know why but that’s my kick. Get the same feeling while hunting. So these so called “improvements” just aren’t “improvements” in my eyes.

The thing that sucks is the city people take that feeling away. Because Now the popular locations “needs” a bigger parking lot, a toilet, facilities of some sort, a graded road, etc.


I got an idea..Make America Wild Again


----------



## ron peck

Any updates on the log situation? Seems kind of tricky what to do to me... fairly easy to get the log off this point, but there are many worse places for a subset of it to get lodged...


----------



## Montet202

Well this conversation took a hard left turn…


----------



## cadster

USFS reporting another log portage from Wednesday: Salmon-Challis National Forest - Water Activities


----------



## Riverwild

MFRT removed the log at teepee hole and it's anchored river left. Apparently the tree on the rock at velvet has also been cleared by an outfitter crew.


----------



## jamesthomas

Sweet. A huge kudos for everyone who was involved, private, USFS or outfitter. Get ‘er done.


----------



## jamesthomas

Probably gonna that way for a few years folks looking at the OP’s picture. (Which is awesome by the way, thanks local pilot. Post up more as you get them.). That place burned up bad. Tragedy of the highest order. How many miles of river corridor are toasted like that?


----------



## Aireriverbum

Riverwild said:


> MFRT removed the log at teepee hole and it's anchored river left. Apparently the tree on the rock at velvet has also been cleared by an outfitter crew.


Great news! Thanks to everyone who helps and thanks for the update!


----------



## mikesee

Electric-Mayhem said:


> I really think its the managing agency's responsibility.



The more the USFS is involved in managing the day-to-day of a river, the deeper we slide into the infernal dog and pony show that the MFS has already become.

Does _*no one*_ remember the concept of personal responsibility?


----------



## Montet202

mikesee said:


> The more the USFS is involved in managing the day-to-day of a river, the deeper we slide into the infernal dog and pony show that the MFS has already become.
> 
> Does _*no one*_ remember the concept of personal responsibility?


While I don’t disagree, the fact of the matter is, money drives these decisions. Not common sense. And like ski resorts and season pass holders, private boaters dump relatively little money into local economies. Commercial trips fund a lot of local Idaho economies, and the decisions to manage resources will always be based on how to best accommodate those that fly in, pay for a trip, fly home, and leave a bunch of cash here. As the old saying goes, money talks…


----------



## mikesee

Montet202 said:


> While I don’t disagree, the fact of the matter is, money drives these decisions. Not common sense. And like ski resorts and season pass holders, private boaters dump relatively little money into local economies. Commercial trips fund a lot of local Idaho economies, and the decisions to manage resources will always be based on how to best accommodate those that fly in, pay for a trip, fly home, and leave a bunch of cash here. As the old saying goes, money talks…



My initial post in this thread concluded with:

"If outfitters are making $ off of this "Wilderness", they should be the ones applying elbow grease to keep it open."

The USFS is underfunded to begin with. If they had more money, how many would lobby for them to plow the road sooner, or build pit toilets every 20 miles, or keep said toilets stocked with TP because noeffingway can we the people be expected to take care of our own personal needs? Who decides, who draws what lines, and where do they draw them?

A big part of why I feel the way I do here is that more government is rarely the answer to any question worth asking.

That ^ statement isn't partisan or political, by the way...


----------



## Montet202

mikesee said:


> My initial post in this thread concluded with:
> 
> "If outfitters are making $ off of this "Wilderness", they should be the ones applying elbow grease to keep it open."
> 
> The USFS is underfunded to begin with. If they had more money, how many would lobby for them to plow the road sooner, or build pit toilets every 20 miles, or keep said toilets stocked with TP because noeffingway can we the people be expected to take care of our own personal needs? Who decides, who draws what lines, and where do they draw them?
> 
> A big part of why I feel the way I do here is that more government is rarely the answer to any question worth asking.
> 
> That ^ statement isn't partisan or political, by the way...


I agree 100%. My statement is only a remark on reality. It’s unfortunate that money drives all of recreation, almost always to the detriment of the available resources. I like how GCPBA has been able to organize a voice for private boaters in the Grand. Maybe a similar org for us in Idaho would be beneficial? I can’t imagine we’ll ever have an ideal situation, especially with the boom in outdoor recreation, but some compromise would be great. And a common voice advocating for private boaters, at the state and federal level, would help a lot.


----------



## mikesee

Montet202 said:


> I agree 100%. My statement is only a remark on reality. It’s unfortunate that money drives all of recreation, almost always to the detriment of the available resources. I like how GCPBA has been able to organize a voice for private boaters in the Grand. Maybe a similar org for us in Idaho would be beneficial? I can’t imagine we’ll ever have an ideal situation, especially with the boom in outdoor recreation, but some compromise would be great. And a common voice advocating for private boaters, at the state and federal level, would help a lot.



It's a good idea.

In reality, if you take the MFS shitshow out of the equation, we don't have much to complain about here.

If you're willing to visit the popular rivers in their slower seasons -- which I prefer for many reasons -- there's nothing to complain about at all.


----------



## Riverlife

mikesee said:


> My initial post in this thread concluded with:
> 
> "If outfitters are making $ off of this "Wilderness", they should be the ones applying elbow grease to keep it open."
> 
> The USFS is underfunded to begin with. If they had more money, how many would lobby for them to plow the road sooner, or build pit toilets every 20 miles, or keep said toilets stocked with TP because noeffingway can we the people be expected to take care of our own personal needs? Who decides, who draws what lines, and where do they draw them?
> 
> A big part of why I feel the way I do here is that more government is rarely the answer to any question worth asking.
> 
> That ^ statement isn't partisan or political, by the way...


I agree with a number of your sentiments here, but I don’t really see anyone here advocating for absolving anyone’s personal responsibility, nor has anyone been advocating for the FS to micromanage every last potential hazard or difficulty. I am generally of the mindset that less is more in terms of FS involvement, but the one thing that would be arguably worse than excessive FS involvement/regulations would be a complete free for all with zero FS involvement. I’m glad there are limited launches, and required practices to minimize our impact on the river, for instance.

I already posted in this thread that I am not particularly in favor of the FS taking too active a role in making the river “safe”, and I am 100% in favor of personal responsibility at all times! The thing is though, our romantic notions of being in an untouched wilderness with no rules and complete self reliance are not inline with the realities of the times. Like it or not, and for better and for worse, the FS _is responsible_ for river “management”. And again, whether we agree or not, the commercial rafting companies swing a lot more weight in the FS decision making than us private boaters.

I will say this, I am pleased to hear that two known problematic logs have been dealt with. That said, I hope that it never comes down to anyone expecting the FS (or anybody else) to make things easy or perfectly safe though. I don’t think anyone here has been suggesting anything of that sort either.


----------



## mikesee

Riverlife said:


> I agree with a number of your sentiments here, but I don’t really see anyone here advocating for absolving anyone’s personal responsibility, nor has anyone been advocating for the FS to micromanage every last potential hazard or difficulty. I am generally of the mindset that less is more in terms of FS involvement, but the one thing that would be arguably worse than excessive FS involvement/regulations would be a complete free for all with zero FS involvement. I’m glad there are limited launches, and required practices to minimize our impact on the river, for instance.
> 
> I already posted in this thread that I am not particularly in favor of the FS taking too active a role in making the river “safe”, and I am 100% in favor of personal responsibility at all times! The thing is though, our romantic notions of being in an untouched wilderness with no rules and complete self reliance are not inline with the realities of the times. Like it or not, and for better and for worse, the FS _is responsible_ for river “management”. And again, whether we agree or not, the commercial rafting companies swing a lot more weight in the FS decision making than us private boaters.
> 
> I will say this, I am pleased to hear that two known problematic logs have been dealt with. That said, I hope that it never comes down to anyone expecting the FS (or anybody else) to make things easy or perfectly safe though. I don’t think anyone here has been suggesting anything of that sort either.



So, how do you draw the line?

Is the FS required to fly/float the river every day and give live updates on where every tree has moved from and to?

Fire is a natural and integral part of the landscape in Idaho. Always has been, and as long as there are forests and grasslands to burn, it always will be.

As the river rises and falls wood moves around. Our only mistake in inserting ourselves into that process is a hubris in assuming that we can predict or control it.


----------



## Riverlife

mikesee said:


> So, how do you draw the line?
> 
> Is the FS required to fly/float the river every day and give live updates on where every tree has moved from and to?
> 
> Fire is a natural and integral part of the landscape in Idaho. Always has been, and as long as there are forests and grasslands to burn, it always will be.
> 
> As the river rises and falls wood moves around. Our only mistake in inserting ourselves into that process is a hubris in assuming that we can predict or control it.


I think that you must have missed my point. 
Really quick:
-I’m not really suggesting that I have the perfect line to draw.
-Of course not! Is anyone suggesting that?
-yep
-No one is suggesting that we can or should!


----------



## mikesee

Riverlife said:


> I think that you must have missed my point.
> Really quick:
> -I’m not really suggesting that I have the perfect line to draw.
> -Of course not! Is anyone suggesting that?
> -yep
> -No one is suggesting that we can or should!



Nope, I was getting you to see *my* point: that there will always be contention over where to draw the line, and who gets to draw it.

No matter where it is drawn, people will fall on either side of it.

In this instance, I think it should be drawn somewhere out near Idaho State Hwy 21, and once a would-be boater crosses _that_ line, and for every mile they travel ~N from that point, they should expect to rely more and more on only themselves.

Basically, keep the wild in Wilderness, don't dumb it down for the least common denominator.


----------



## Riverlife

mikesee said:


> Nope, I was getting you to see *my* point: that there will always be contention over where to draw the line, and who gets to draw it.
> 
> No matter where it is drawn, people will fall on either side of it.
> 
> In this instance, I think it should be drawn somewhere out near Idaho State Hwy 21, and once a would-be boater crosses _that_ line, and for every mile they travel ~N from that point, they should expect to rely more and more on only themselves.
> 
> Basically, keep the wild in Wilderness, don't dumb it down for the least common denominator.


Preaching to the choir here. Unfortunately, we are where we are. The FS is the managing party here, doesn’t matter if you or I like it. They draw the line, and private boater sentiment has little sway compared to commercial outfitters. Is there anyone here who has suggested anything like dumbing things down for the LCD? I don’t think anyone has.


----------



## mikesee

Riverlife said:


> Is there anyone here who has suggested anything like dumbing things down for the LCD? I don’t think anyone has.



Only the people within this thread advocating for the FS to get in there and move trees.


----------



## Inertiaman

Mike, it seems like you're drawing a line at "never do anything to clear wood, ever". 

Do you apply the same logic to mountain bike trails? Fallen trees should never be moved? Landslides shouldn't have trail crews repair/rebuild a section of trail? And if you dismiss that example based on the prohibition of bikes in designated wilderness, consider that the FS clears fallen trees from the hiking trail that runs alongside the MFS. Other than a different equation to determine cost/benefit/hassle assessment, why is it philosophically any different to very infrequently deal with fallen trees in the river bed?


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

People have seemed to read my posts as saying I think the Forest Service should be making the the MIddle Fork a Disneyland ride and "100% safe" and that boaters should just check out and not take any personal responsibility for their own safety. I never said any of that... I just said they should be the ones overseeing the removal of a few hazards.

I guess I'll put it this way. I do think it is warranted to remove known hazards that could hurt or kill boaters and I think as the managing agency, it is the Forest Services job to oversee that it is done in safe manner that doesn't make the situation worse. This is a far cry from "paving the wilderness" or advocating against personal responsibility. Things are way to binary with some people on this board. Either its 100% hands off or any management by "the government" means its Disneyland. I, for one, can see different degrees of management and oversight.

In reality... if there was 100% hands off approach with the MFS... it would be a colossal shit show with way more people. Even with restrictions people still occasionally trash the place. If there was zero management, no permit system or group gear requirements... it would be chaotic and gross. One thing I've found when you just let the general population run rampant is a certain percentage of them, whether through ignorance or malace, will just do whatever the hell they want and trash the place. At least with how it is now, there is some semblance of accountability for ones actions and possible real consequences.


----------



## mikesee

Inertiaman said:


> Mike, it seems like you're drawing a line at "never do anything to clear wood, ever".
> 
> Do you apply the same logic to mountain bike trails? Fallen trees should never be moved? Landslides shouldn't have trail crews repair/rebuild a section of trail? And if you dismiss that example based on the prohibition of bikes in designated wilderness, consider that the FS clears fallen trees from the hiking trail that runs alongside the MFS. Other than a different equation to determine cost/benefit/hassle assessment, why is it philosophically any different to very infrequently deal with fallen trees in the river bed?



Trick question: Rivers are capable of clearing themselves of logjams.

That aside, it's different because people are deluding themselves into thinking they're having a Wilderness experience while demanding that it be sanitized to their satisfaction.


----------



## Dangerfield

I am pretty sure the MF Rangers monitor this site, especially tthe Access/Safety forum. Wonder what their take away is and if they are amused, bemused or other?

I need to add, you rangers at times have a thankless & at times a hectic life - Boundary rangers especially. Too bad for them I cancelled my trip, no huckleberry pie for them this June anyhow.


----------



## mikesee

Dangerfield said:


> I am pretty sure the MF Rangers monitor this site, especially tthe Access/Safety forum. Wonder what their take away is and if they are amused, bemused or other?



They should quit screwing around on the internet, and get back to plowing the Boundary Road, then clearing logs from the MFS.

/sarcasm


----------



## ski_it

I spent most of my early paddling years in Canada, some of it northern Canada. There were no permits, no rangers, no people, no marked camps, no filtering water. I remember the first time showing up at the ramp at MFS and hearing the ranger talk about wilderness, and then the lodges, the air strips, the reserved camps, and then launching with 200 people. I found it odd.


----------



## peernisse

Dangerfield said:


> I wonder how the USFS would oversee/supervise a bunch of weekend Paul Bunyan's. They wouldn't say diddley since if anything went wrong they would probably be dragged into some sort of legal mess. If one look's at the the Middle Fork map/publication the the USDA/USFS produces you will notice that the only description of rapids shows location and a class rating. Nothing in there tells/suggests river runners the best line to take for the same reason of potential liability.
> 
> We can hash this out back and forth here in this forum, but why doesn't someone sit down with the river managers to get their perspective? I am throwing out the "challenge flag" for someone to pick up and run with it.


I would imagine this is part of the wilderness management plan for the Frank Church. This plan is no doubt public record. Of course, the wilderness manager then has to interpret the plan on a case by case basis, and in context of the Wilderness Act. I agree with you it would be interesting to hear their perspective on this, they have to balance preserving the wilderness with the popularity of the run. No doubt they have a position on this, and they can act to remove a strainer if they choose, using non motorized equipment (Wilderness Act), or they could choose to leave it. They definitely are not under any obligation to modify natural conditions, but they may choose to, and can, in order to prevent even more work from rescues. I have no idea what they may choose to do. Perhaps they have made an announcement about this issue this season?


----------

