[THE BIGSHOW]

I guess there haven't been many people posting on this lately but, I just wanted to throw in my two cents. I consider the chattooga my "Home River." It is where I learned how to kayak and have continued to enjoy the spectacular whitewater of the chattooga and other rivers of the southeast for the past ten years! For the past five years I have been a professional fly fishing guide in western North Carolina, not too far away from the Chattooga's headwaters and upper river sections. I am torn, not so much by the issue but by the lack of effort put forth by Professional conservation/preservation organizations to work together. It is really sad to think that in our time, we as admirers of this spectacular nature that one group HAS and the other LONGS for, that we cannot band together to further solidify the preservation of this wildly mystical and addictive realm that is the Chattooga River corridor.

Green River, Davidson River, Forks of The French Broad River,
Wilsons Creek, Tuckaseegee River, Nantahala River, Watauga River, Linville River, Pigeon River, etc., etc......

These Are just a few examples of rivers located in the southeastern United States where I have experienced firsthand as both a kayaker and a fisherman that these resources, our precious rivers, have been used (for longer than the ban has existed) in relative peace and harmony between the two user groups! What right do we as fishermen have to support the denial of access and enjoyment to this one section of publicly owned and managed waterway, and this one specific group of potential land users, where there are hundreds of miles of other river corridors that are just as pristine and special that cater to each pary? I guarantee that if any of these places became threatened to something more horrible than not wanting to share, That both parties would immediately stand up together to protect what they both love. I admit, I don't know all the facts and the reason is because it makes me sick to read or even think about it. In the end I believe that it is the land and the water the flows through it that ultimately seduce us and brings both kayakers and fishermen back wanting more. Fishermen and Fisherwomen, I say let us welcome this group with open arms for the assurance that one day in the future, when a less trivial and more dastardly threat knocks at the door of the Chattooga (because inevitably it will) we all can unite in favor of saving a spectacularly wild and beautifully ancient sanctuary that we all may one day call home.

[Tang Slayer]

toot it and boot it

[WhiteH2OPdlr]

Originally Posted by JOHNKIES

The impact to all user groups is AW's refusal to accept the decision by the USFS after a very lengthy public discussion and weighing all the options.

It's tough to accept decisions made by locally influenced FS employees that are both ILLEGAL and against the FS's diversified use policy. In no other Forest SERVICE land is boating banned. None.

But I guess it's kinda tough to see the illegality and illegitmate nature of the decision making when you're the "local influence" and the illegal conclusions made fit your selfish desires perfectly.

'sok tho.

[SmallieSam]

Originally Posted by WhiteH2OPdlr

Then why are you so adamant about preserving a population of NON native trout that HARM the brook trout population?

What population of native brook trout stills exists anywhere in the Upper Chattooga? The smallest of feeders still harbor some of native, southern strain of brook trout. But, the river proper from Grimshaws on down? A sustainable population of brook trout simply does not exist there. But, a healthy, sustainable population of wild brown trout does exist. Their ancestors were brought over here from the Black Forest of Germany and stocked well back in the late 1800s. They have thrived since in the upper reaches all the way down to Burrell's Ford and even beyond. They are streamborn and as wild as any truly native brook trout that are fortunate enough to remain. They are as native to that river now as anyone who's lived in these mountains for any amount of time. We cannot undo the missteps of our own ancestors who didn't understand the damage those browns would do to the native brook trout. But, to knowingly use the excuse that the Upper Chattooga is a "artificial" fishery and using the subsequent belief that those fish are not worth protecting as leverage to gain a favorable ruling goes against the principles of good stewardship. My ancestors moved up to Highlands from Franklin in the late 1800s. If we go by that line of thinking, I suppose I'm non-native and should have no rights as well.

[JOHNKIES]

" ... in relative peace and harmony between the two user groups! ......." NOT on the Chattooga where fights occured and eventually threats with weapons - by both sides.

".... It's tough to accept decisions made by locally influenced FS employees that are both ILLEGAL and against the FS's diversified use policy. In no other Forest SERVICE land is boating banned. None. ......."

Gosh, I thought the USFS was a federal agency based in WDC! Meanwhile, thanks to the AW legal team, all those boaters who could have started running the Chattooga are still in drydock. So what were all those arguments about "we only want it during high water" about then?

[SmallieSam]

Does anyone else see this as inspiration for a Ron Rash novel? "Stains at the River" could be the title. Blood stains that is.

Honestly, if boaters are allowed to put-in at the confluence at Norton Mill and run on floodwaters under the Iron Bridge, how many tax dollars and local resources will be needed unwrap their boats and bodies form the bridge abutments? Has H20 or any of his AW friends actually seen the upper reaches of the river and it's extremely angry flow after heary rains? I've got a good friend who's a mechanic, who's dad happened to be a stunt double on "Deliverance." He's been a rat since he could talk. He runs creeks on floodwater in little boats, has years and years of experience and could handle it. I doubt many of those who want to get on this river have the same abilities or experience and some will likely pay the ultimate price.

[SmallieSam]

Originally Posted by WhiteH2OPdlr

But I guess it's kinda tough to see the illegality and illegitmate nature of the decision making when you're the "local influence" and the illegal conclusions made fit your selfish desires perfectly.

As if this in not about your own selfish desires, which you are above? Please...

[mcbee3]

The Federal court had already determined that zoning boating to below highway 28 is LEGAL and does not harm boaters. The court noted:
“ circumstances present in this case offset the conclusion that delayed review would result in hardship… while the Headwaters is currently closed to floating, abundant opportunities to float on the Chattooga remain; over 60% of the river, approximately 36 miles, remains open to floaters." [AW v USFS 2006 GA ]"

The judge could see that having most of the Chattooga already open to boating, does not harm boaters. These boaters are acting more like a five-year-old brat who only wants what he does not already have.
Keeping a portion of the Chattooga free from constant disturbances is a policy which considers boats and anglers.

Any boater whimpering otherwise is just not current on the facts. or needs to spend less time under water.

[mcbee3]

450cfs = about 2.4' of the 76 gauge.

At 2.4' there are still many sites along the DH, that provide excellent fishing. The rock gorge at 2.4' is too high, but avoiding that small portion of the DH when flows exceed 450cfs is not a problem.

Given that boaters can boat the West Fork (Overflow), the Lower Chattooga and now through the Elliott Wilderness, the few miles that remain protected for the anglers during the higher flows appears to provide some balance to the near monopoly boaters have on the river. That monopoly has been overused to the detriment of many other visitors below highway 28.

The kayak lobby is being completely selfish by asking for the entire Chattooga. The management of the Chattooga provides an excellent model of how best to manage a multi-user creek. A section of the upper Nannty, or Davidson, without floating interruptions would help improve fishing on these creeks. Conversely, not being allowed on every segment of creek is no real loss for kayaking.

Consider the land-based hiker/biker/horse/Off-road trail-system; is sharing (allocating portions of) a resource in order to provide opportunities for everyone such a bad policy?
Kayakers benefit from the USFS policy keeping motorized craft off the Chattooga, would these yelps of inequity from kayakers continue if jetskies demanded access to the river? or would kayakers demand the USFS keep jetskies off the river in order to protect kayaking?

[Bfish]

Originally Posted by mcbee3

450cfs = about 2.4' of the 76 gauge.

Consider the land-based hiker/biker/horse/Off-road trail-system; is sharing (allocating portions of) a resource in order to provide opportunities for everyone such a bad policy?

Play devils advocate here, but isn't FS policy only to partition the resources when there is demonstrated conflict? I believe the user capacity study stated that their would be low likelyhood of conflict. The majority of all FS trails are listed as multi-use.

Also remember that if the FS did actually partition the resources, that fishing could be banned during whitewater days, something none of us want.

Why can't we all just get along?