# Paddling sports bill passes U.S. House



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

hojo said:


> The U.S. Department of Interior, which oversees the parks, opposes the bill. The National Parks Conservation Association is concerned that it will draw more people into remote sections of the park.


This is rich, concern the public may actually want to visit and use the national resource we all own and pay taxes to support...


----------



## milehighassassin (Jul 6, 2005)

This is the primary reason I am against any new wilderness bills. They just make it harder for people to get out and see our beautiful country. The land has remained pristine and beautiful without government intervention, why start now?

With that said, I also understand high traffic areas need management, and I have no issues paying a permit fee for access.


----------



## johnovice (Jul 17, 2009)

Such boating is entertainment for humans; these places are about survival for other species. Regardles of who "owns" the parks, they do have a mission which is about balancing use and preservation.
Just sayin'...

In any case, it sounds like the bill might allow for such balancing; it apparently does not say "free-for-all." It does prevent the park service from dismissing more boating out of hand by saying "we can't allow."


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

On the one hand this country has not stayed pristine and beautiful without government intervention. On the other hand paddling is legitimately super low impact and the park will still have all the power to refuse or manage paddling as they see fit. This just removes a hurdle to the park managing it's resources rather than an outdated law.


----------



## jbolson (Apr 6, 2005)

Great news!


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

glenn said:


> On the one hand this country has not stayed pristine and beautiful without government intervention. On the other hand paddling is legitimately super low impact and the park will still have all the power to refuse or manage paddling as they see fit. This just removes a hurdle to the park managing it's resources rather than an outdated law.


Agreed, many of our places and resources saw immense degradation before modern forms of management. I think we are seeing a generation of recreators that did not see that damage first hand or ignorant of that factual history. And by no means do I believe these agencies are immune from mistakes. Just look at the history of Yellowstone to see how they contributed to the problems through poor policy. That said we seem to be better stewards in general now. That includes most agencies and user groups (there are exceptions in every class). 

One would hope we could create a manageable solution that preserves certain characteristics while also allowing for low-impact recreation. But I think we would be remiss to ignore our own stakeholder groups historic misuses (fecal contamination, campsite degradation, social trail development, etc). This seems like a step in the right direction for ending all-out closures of resources. 

Phillip


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

Unfortunately this is unlikely to get out of the Senate because it is tied to a bill that expands grazing rights on public lands and another bill that allows logging within Yosemite National Park, two things to which I am opposed. The river paddling protection act needs a democratic co-sponsor in the Senate (I expect that Senator Barrasso will be introducing it soon) and to be separated from these two other bills. Now would be a great time to call your Senator, especially if he/she is a democrat.


----------



## Snowhere (Feb 21, 2008)

I would not count our chickens yet. It would be nice if it passed, but we shall see. At least there is an attempt to make it happen, so hopefully a clean bill, just on Yellowstone will pass. I, for one, would love to go and do some multi day, self support trips in there. There is so many possibilities and tons of white water up there.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Snowhere said:


> I would not count our chickens yet. It would be nice if it passed, but we shall see. At least there is an attempt to make it happen, so hopefully a clean bill, just on Yellowstone will pass. I, for one, would love to go and do some multi day, self support trips in there. There is so many possibilities and tons of white water up there.


Don't know who is heading this but contacting canyoneers and pack rafters could aid a clean bill getting through. Both user groups have been hit by these closures (at least in Yellowstone).

Phillip


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

I forgot to add that if you're in Montana or Colorado, it would be especially helpful if Senator Tester or Udall would cosponsor this, so please contact them if you live in either of those two states.

Senator Tester: Email Senator Tester | Jon Tester | U.S. Senator for Montana

Senator Udall: Contact | Mark Udall | U.S. Senator for Colorado


----------



## spider (Jun 20, 2011)

does this mean we can run the Yellowstone in the park above Gardner? Where do I put in? That would be sick.


----------



## cjhaines (Jul 26, 2013)

I think the bill is fine and we should let it pass as it is, not try to get it caught up in a political debate again


----------



## farp (Nov 4, 2003)

Paddle Iraq is correct. The "River paddling protection act" is attached to a bigger bill that is a giveaway to the timber and grazing industry. It also removes protections for fragile nesting areas for shore birds on a North Carolina beach. These are the kinds of bills that go to the Senate to die.
If you want to see the engrossed bill, here's the web page: 
Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Lame.


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

Shocker...as soon as you saw the R's after the names of who sponsored this bill.



farp said:


> Paddle Iraq is correct. The "River paddling protection act" is attached to a bigger bill that is a giveaway to the timber and grazing industry. It also removes protections for fragile nesting areas for shore birds on a North Carolina beach. These are the kinds of bills that go to the Senate to die.
> If you want to see the engrossed bill, here's the web page:
> Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


----------



## Fash (Jul 21, 2010)

American Whitewater - AW Not to Pursue Yellowstone Legislation in Senate


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

Its unfortunate that AW pulled their support for the bill. My guess is that they received pressure through the Outdoor Alliance from other conservation groups because of the opinions of non-boating big dollar donors. 

The real issue is that the general public has a vision that Yellowstone's rivers (roadside rivers in particular) will be filled with multi-colored rafts like areas such as Brown's Canyon and the Snake River Canyon. The reality is that no one is advocating for that, but the park service has refused to have a conversation about boating at all and therefor the only options are either legislative or judicial. 

This bill forces NPS to have a conversation about boating. It does not open the floodgates to unlimited boating, but rather requires the park service to allow boating in accordance with the NPS mission of preserving our national parks for the enjoyment of this generation and generations to come. 

Now would be a great time to contact AW and let them know that you support the River Paddling Protection Act. Contact your senator too, especially if you live in Montana, Oregon, Washington or Louisiana. 

Montana- Email Senator Tester | Jon Tester | U.S. Senator for Montana

Oregon- Contact | U.S. Senator Ron Wyden

Washington- E-Mail Maria - Contact - Senator Maria Cantwell

Louisiana- Contact | Mary Landrieu | U.S. Senator for Louisiana


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Paddle Iraq said:


> Its unfortunate that AW pulled their support for the bill. My guess is that they received pressure through the Outdoor Alliance from other conservation groups because of the opinions of non-boating big dollar donors.
> 
> The real issue is that the general public has a vision that Yellowstone's rivers (roadside rivers in particular) will be filled with multi-colored rafts like areas such as Brown's Canyon and the Snake River Canyon. The reality is that no one is advocating for that, but the park service has refused to have a conversation about boating at all and therefor the only options are either legislative or judicial.
> 
> ...


Any evidence to support the accusations against AW? You yourself mentioned the wildly inconsistent components attached to the current bill...even though that could change in conference. 

Also one other caveat...the park service doesn't have a mandate to preserve our parks for our enjoyment.....they have a conflicted mandate for visitor experience and resource protection. It may seem small but it is not worded, as I understand, for one to inherently support the other. Its a reality that has haunted the park service and its decisions for decades. 

I would like to think the park could open the rivers/creeks/canyons to specific use that does not affect the resource or other users in a deleterious manner. Unfortunately I have seen consistent evidence that such an ideal isn't always easily met with the NPS complex culture, history and influences. This bill has components that are prime example of how complex something simple can be. IMHO.

Also out of curiosity....why the interest in the specific states?

Phillip


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

restrac2000 said:


> Any evidence to support the accusations against AW? You yourself mentioned the wildly inconsistent components attached to the current bill...even though that could change in conference.
> 
> Also one other caveat...the park service doesn't have a mandate to preserve our parks for our enjoyment.....they have a conflicted mandate for visitor experience and resource protection. It may seem small but it is not worded, as I understand, for one to inherently support the other. Its a reality that has haunted the park service and its decisions for decades.
> 
> ...


Nope, no evidence at all, completely a hunch. I don't support the bills that were passed along with the paddling bill (grazing and logging, etc.), but the paddling bill considered on its own is worthwhile, and I expect that it will stand on its own merits in the Senate. 

I absolutely agree with you that the park service's mandate is complicated and I have no doubt that everyone that supports boating in Yellowstone supports conservation of the resource for future generations. Non-motorized boating is a non-consumptive use and is legal in every national park except Yosemite and Yellowstone. It should be allowed in some capacity in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. 

As far as why the interest in specific states, the appointment of Senator Baucus as ambassador to China is having a significant impact to a number of Senate committee chairs. This article somewhat explains it: Landrieu Era to Begin on Senate Energy Committee - NationalJournal.com


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Well always got my spray paint


----------



## ditch (Jan 24, 2014)

Does anyone know where you can see the other bills that have glommed onto the Yellowstone bill?


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

ditch said:


> Does anyone know where you can see the other bills that have glommed onto the Yellowstone bill?


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2954eh/pdf/BILLS-113hr2954eh.pdf#page=16


----------



## ditch (Jan 24, 2014)

AWA won't be getting my money next year. Give some and get some. This is the logic that needs to be employed more frequently in partisan politics. Log some trees out of a nuked out. dead forest in exchange for river access. Frustrating. We were so close.


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

ditch said:


> AWA won't be getting my money next year.


Well that will certainly help accomplish things faster... Since you aren't donating to AWA next year, what is your grand plan to help river access that you want?


----------



## ditch (Jan 24, 2014)

There is a bill which has passed committee, the house and is in the senate which will allow me to boat in Yellowstone. They are practicing partisan politics and no longer support it. I'm pissed


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

ditch is right. AW gave into the politics of non-boating conservation organizations. What's most frustrating to me is the fact that the people that support boating in Yellowstone are conservationists. Its a shame that the conservation movement is so broken that groups like the National Parks Conservation Association and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition would rather fight other conservationists instead of working together.


----------



## ditch (Jan 24, 2014)

Paddle Iraq said:


> ditch is right. AW gave into the politics of non-boating conservation organizations. What's most frustrating to me is the fact that the people that support boating in Yellowstone are conservationists. Its a shame that the conservation movement is so broken that groups like the National Parks Conservation Association and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition would rather fight other conservationists instead of working together.


 
You nailed it. Yes AWA does a huge amount for us in terms of river access and conservation and are worthy of membership and funding but by not supporting this they are essentially putting the kibosh on access to hundreds of miles of river.


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

I recognize that there are legitimate reasons for AW to pull its support for this bill. At the same time, opening Yellowstone and Yosemite to paddling is the white whale of river access. The NPS stance on paddling in these parks has historically been the biggest whitewater access issue in this country, and it is frustrating that now that there is a chance to make a change, AW pulls its support with minimal explanation. 

I assume that AW stands to lose a lot of money/relationships if they continue to back this bill. Nevertheless, this is an issue that goes to the heart of what AW stands for, and I feel they should always be advocating on behalf of paddler access. 

I give AW money every year based on the understanding that they will fight for river access. I do not support AW because they are an environmental organization. There are better places to donate money if environmental issues are the primary concern. 

At the very least I want a better explanation than the short paragraph on the AW website.


----------



## ditch (Jan 24, 2014)

Are there any other lobby organizations to turn to? American Rivers hadn't mentioned anything on their website. The only thing now is to call your senators before this thing is killed. AWA is not going to pursue Yellowstone and Teton so they can pursue issues of low impact hydro in Vermont which is clearly the important issue. I think there was a list of contact info for all senators earlier in this thread.


----------



## ditch (Jan 24, 2014)

U.S. Senate: Senators Home

Contact info for all US senators. Baucus is no longer senator in MT and was recently replaced by John Walsh.


----------



## Dwave (Mar 23, 2009)

Has anybody taken the time to read the bill in its entirety? AW has done a lot of excellent work in the past years so I'm very curious as to why they pulled support? It's easy to speculate, easy to judge. Given how hard they've worked on river access issues over the years, and how many successes (and losses) they've had...it beckons us to know the subject matter in whole before passing judgement. If they pulled support due to the other articles contained in the bill, then it's only appropriate and intelligent to know what those articles are before condemning and relinquishing support. I'm sure this is not the last time AW will go after access in these parks and others. They've been after this for a while.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

There are alot of ways to foster change. I am skeptical of the accusations being lobbed against AW and I am personally satisfied with their 3 paragraph explanation on their website, especially considering the problems exposed here with the current bill. I would love to see more information from AW but I can understand their limited response in the moment considering how contentious the issue remains.

The legislative process is a nasty beast. Over the past five years I have been amazed to see how many bills get dissected, destroyed and abandoned in Congress. Its been a wild education that is inconsistent with my ideals and simplistic understanding from my childhood. 

Its apropo that someone mentions Melville's white whale metaphor for this bill. Ahab took down his ships and killed his entire crew because he refused to change course and rethink his quest. Maybe AW saw the writing on the wall and understood that the losses with continuing the support for this bill would be much greater than any potential gains, if any. Just a thought. 

We all weigh our goals and priorities differently. I hope folks get what they want from this issue. Best of luck.

Phillip


----------



## ditch (Jan 24, 2014)

*A Quick Summary*

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...eh.pdf#page=16 

On Santa Rosa Island Florida, leaseholders of homes on public land would receive deeded titles to that land and be required to pay property taxes

Historical lands near Anchorage AK which were previously the original anchorage town site totaling 5 acres will be transferred back to the city

"The Fernley Economic Self-Determination Act would give the city of Fernley the opportunity to purchase up to 9,114 acres of Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation lands within the city boundaries at fair market value for the purpose of multi-use development. The city has said possible uses could include parks, an airport, hospital, convention center and other businesses"-Reno Gazette
The BLM can't receive any more donated land until an adequate inventory of current lands suitable for disposal is complete
Deregulate access to Cape Hatterus, while maintaining species protections
Preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in Washington State and only move it only if that is the best way to preserve the health and safety of the lookout and Green Mountain visitors
Boat in Yellowstone and Teton
"The grazing improvement act, introduced by Congressman Raul Labrador has passed through the house. The act would extend grazing permits from 10 to 20-years and speed up the permit process. Congressman Labrador said that this bill would make it easier for the Idaho industry to have access to the land."-KLEWTV
Approve Salvage Logging from the Rim Fire Near Yosemite
Financial disclosure and transparency for land managers in the Chesapeake Bay area 
Allow the Federal Government to retain subsurface mineral and petroleum rights on 80 acre parcels of land which are deeded to native, Alaskan, veterans


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

I can not, and will not, EVER support public lands "access" or "conservation" bills that include, as exchange bait, giving or ceding title of lands to private citizens, cities, counties, states, or development. While there may be reason for facilitating exchanges of public lands to the private (or state/local) sphere, those need to be discussed on their own merits, and not as _quid pro quo_ for access. 

I am completely FOR multiple use management and recognize the need to balance recreation, grazing, conservation, wilderness, and energy development. But when a bill is presented to give a certain segment of the recreation community some scraps (holy grail of whitewater access or not), in exchange for ridiculous grazing lease reformation, tens of thousands of acres of public lands given away... there is a larger principle we need to stand up for. 

I also recognize that many/most of the public are single issue supporters when it comes to public lands issues (even if they are not single use users). But, keep in mind that is what divides, for instance, the recreation community. Wilderness people want wilderness; mountain bikers want access to trails in wilderness, river rats want river access, OHV people want to keep their trails from being closed down, hunters hate everyone... and on and on and on until nothing gets done or industry/development wins out.


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

I've spoken with staffers of the legislators who are involved with this bill and would like to clear up some of the confusion in this thread about the paddling bill and its relation to the other bills that passed the house along side of it. My understanding is that it will be introduced by itself in the Senate so its not really tied to the other bills. Generally speaking, if the paddling bill passes the Senate not connected to the other bills, then it will go back to the House for approval on its own. Therefore its not opposition to the other bills that is causing AW or other conservation groups to oppose the paddling bill, instead they're opposed to the paddling bill itself.


----------



## Fash (Jul 21, 2010)

Is AW opposed to the bill, or does AW believe NPS's opposition along with other groups make it unlikely the bill would succeed? I got the impression it was the latter, and AW chose to back off and live to fight another day.


----------



## Roy (Oct 30, 2003)

AW's statement says they don't want to damage relations with "conservation partners", and they don't want to waste resources that could be used elsewhere, since they don't think this will pass. Disappointing.

Contact Bennett and Udall, and let them know how they can best represent you.


----------



## spack171 (Mar 6, 2011)

I don't have a problem with AW's stance. Sometime it's necessary to pick your battles. I suggest contacting the appropriate legislators to assist them in crafting a better piece of legislation. 

We've all walked a rapid or two in our paddling career. AW is walking around this one. 

AW still has my support. 

Steve 




Roy said:


> AW's statement says they don't want to damage relations with "conservation partners", and they don't want to waste resources that could be used elsewhere, since they don't think this will pass. Disappointing.
> 
> Contact Bennett and Udall, and let them know how they can best represent you.


----------



## jkodadek (Jul 19, 2006)

I do not speak for AW in any capacity, but AW recently submitted extremely comprehensive comments on Yellowstone's draft comprehensive river management plan (CRMP) for the newly-designated Wild and Scenic sections. 

The Park's draft plan was grossly deficient as a matter of federal law AND as a matter of NPS management policy. Time will tell if the Park takes those comments seriously in its final Plan. 

But in any case, I don't think it's fair to say AW has given up on paddling in Yellowstone.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

ditch said:


> AWA won't be getting my money next year.


Let's see, to pursue the issue, AW will expend valuable resources on a bill that's DOA and wreck their relationships with key allies. 

If "divide and conquer" is the strategy used in the House by making the bill "part of a highly controversial package of public lands bills," it looks like it's working.

-AH


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Paddle Iraq said:


> I've spoken with staffers of the legislators who are involved with this bill and would like to clear up some of the confusion in this thread about the paddling bill and its relation to the other bills that passed the house along side of it. My understanding is that it will be introduced by itself in the Senate so its not really tied to the other bills. Generally speaking, if the paddling bill passes the Senate not connected to the other bills, then it will go back to the House for approval on its own. Therefore its not opposition to the other bills that is causing AW or other conservation groups to oppose the paddling bill, instead they're opposed to the paddling bill itself.


Thats a major jump in logic with little evidence to support it, regarding AW and others' choices. 

It could go back to the House but its republican controlled and has the tendency as a minority to attach unrelated legislation (as democrats due when they are minority with few means of recourse). This could easily die in the branches (happens all of the time) or go to conference with the existing differences. If there is anything general to speak of in the last 16 years its that both branches rarely agree on the details of any bill in a clean manner. Clean bills rarely exist now because they are functionally a form of special interest; it takes combining various, often unrelated legislative actions, to get enough members of congress to be selfish enough to vote for anything now a days. I have learned that principle, law and thoughtful governance rarely make their way into conversations in Congress. 

I see no benefit to speculating about motive of the various parties with the limited information we have at hand. I also have to wonder how likely it is that something like a stand alone bill regarding paddling access in 2 national parks is gonna survive the aforementioned process. How many congressman are gonna stick their necks out for a handful of dirtbags in the west for an issue that brings extremely minimal gains to them? I mean seriously, in modern politics, who puts their necks in the guillotine without something to gain? Its cynical but I think the reality of Washington the last few decades bears out the concern. Even the current bill in the House supports that level of skepticism and no hearsay coming out of Senate is gonna make hold my breathe for the unexpected. 

Time will tell. Its a shitty era for trying to get anything done in American land management. 

Phillip


----------



## spack171 (Mar 6, 2011)

*AW's Statement*

Here is AW's statement, taken from their webpage:

American Whitewater - A Deeper Dive Into Yellowstone

Earlier this week we posted a quick article informing our community that American Whitewater would not pursue the Senate version of the River Paddling Protection Act, ending our exploration of a legislative solution to the management of paddling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. We’ve obviously gotten some questions about this decision and would like to offer a more robust explanation. 

How We Engaged in Park Management 
As an organization we support science-based management decisions that are generated through an open public process, and are consistent with law and policy. This is true whether the decision is about building a dam, protecting a river, or limiting a recreational use. In most cases periodic reviews like dam relicensing or forest planning provide the forum for us to advocate for conservation and sustainable recreation. In Yellowstone and Grand Teton, we have long sought such a forum to have river paddling considered. 
In 2013 the Parks released a draft river management plan for 5 rivers and excluded paddling from consideration, claiming in part that 60 year old federal paddling bans tied their hands. These bans were enacted in the 50’s as a result of overfishing with Yellowstone and have created a status quo with park management. We filed comments challenging this decision, and seeking the hard look that is universally expected in all natural resource decisions. We reached out to many of the organizations that are involved in the management of these parks and found that many understood and did not object to our request for an analysis. The Park Service however, stated that they would not change course. 

Legislative Opportunity Arises 
American Whitewater did not request the River Paddling Protection Act or initiate a legislative effort, however Wyoming paddlers voiced their frustration to their one Congressional representative which promted the bill. We were first contacted by Congresswoman Lummis’s office about the bill shortly before its introduction. We voiced concerns about potential controversy, offered feedback on draft language that did not result in changes, and supported introduction of the bill to create a forum for highlighting and considering the issue. 
Upon introduction we reached out to other organizations and individuals that share an interest in Yellowstone and Grand Teton, and heard concerns about the bill language, but limited concerns with the intent. We reached out to Yellowstone National Park to discuss the legislation and did not receive a response. 
Like others, we were concerned that the legislation as originally drafted would have set a bad precedent with National Wildlife Refuge System’s management, and possibly limit the Park Service’s discretion to manage paddling just like all other uses. There was a general consensus about how the bill would need to be improved to garner broad support, and accordingly we submitted testimony on the bill that sought changes solely requiring a study and a modern management decision based on that study. 
A new version of the bill was drafted based on the testimonies and bipartisan feedback. The new version granted the NPS three years to study the issue and replace the 60-year old rules, and did not alter their management discretion. The National Wildlife Refuge language was struck and replaced with a simple consultation requirement. There was limited opposition to the new bill, with most public lands stakeholders taking a neutral stance. The new version of the bill quickly passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent. 
The paddling bill was promptly packaged with a suite a public lands bills that were the subject of significant opposition within the conservation community and Congress. As part of the package the bill drew significant negative attention including an Administrative Statement of Policy opposing the bill. This package moved to the floor of the house where it was hotly debated and passed on a near party line vote. 

The Debate Shifts, Prompts Return To Our Original Efforts 
Continuing our outreach, it became evident that the bill would have a challenging path in the Senate and with the Administration. While many organizations remained neutral, the roster of organizations that opposed the bill was growing, and the anti-paddling rhetoric in the media, in DC, and among the conservation community was becoming increasingly toxic and counter-productive. 
We recognized this situation as one that was rapidly headed for a long, heated, damaging, and distracting fight. The legislative effort we hoped would lead to a meaningful debate and science-based management was being taken in the wrong direction. The resources required to fully engage in a struggle of this scale and nature would consume significant organizational resources and prevent us from engaging in countless other high-priority projects. Our capacity to continue our original strategy on the river management plan in these parks, and other high priority regional and national projects would be threatened. 
So we made the hard call not to pursue the Senate version of the River Paddling Protection Act. There is certainly support out there for managing this issue like all others – with science and an open process. We are glad that we explored the legislative solution to Yellowstone and Grand Teton’s refusal to manage their rivers based on science, policy, and a public process. It raised the abuse of discretion behind the Parks’ draft river management plans to a high level of scrutiny, and continues to do so. The National Park Service has yet to release their final river management plan for the Snake River, Lewis River, Gros Ventre River, Buffalo Fork, and Pacific Creek. They could still do the right thing and take a hard look at paddling on these rivers based on places, times, and numbers that are environmentally sustainable and supported by sound science.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

Not sure if this has been covered here, but the River Paddling Protection Act has been introduced in the Senate as a stand-alone bill: S. 2018.

I called Udall's office and spoke with someone about it this week. Encouraged them to have Udall co-sponsor the bill. Would help if others did the same.

For anyone that wants to pursue this, what needs to happen next is pretty simple. *Call your senator*, especially if they are a democrat. Someone posted a link to contact info elsewhere in this thread.

1. Ask them to support the bill. 
2. Tell them the bill allows NPS to study and manage river paddling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks. 
3. Tell them the bill lifts a 60-year old paddling ban that was put in place to control fishing, not paddling. 
4. Tell them that NPS claims the ban ties their hands and prevents them from studying or allowing paddling. 
5. Tell them the bill unties NPS hands and gives NPS full authority to study and manage paddling. 
6. Tell them the bill came out of the House with bi-partisan support. 
7. Ask them to support the bill and thank them for their time.

Bitching about AW pulling support isn't doing much to help this issue. But a quick phone call can.

Cheers,

MC


----------

