[Bfish]

I have not seen this posted yet:
Paddlers Take Chattooga Issue To Federal Court
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/co.../display/full/

[MBB]

My, how I love the Orwellian double speak in the article! They might have gained a measure of credibility for their appeal if they stated their reasons in truth. Instead, they resorted to blatant lies.

Let them sue, attorneys need the money.

[WhiteH2OPdlr]

MBB:

Care to point out what you seem to consider "Orwellian double speak" and "lies", and I'll be happy to discuss, being party to both sides of this debate. Or are you just foaming at the mouth and spewing?

[Upstream]

FWIW, I believe at least one non-TU organization (name edited out as it's not on the organization's website) is planning to appeal the other way; i.e., they believe "zoning" for no boating should be continued.

[gmreeves]

So what is the American Whitewater Association complaining about in the article? Is it the fact that it has become a criminal act or the fact that they can only boat it when the water levels are such that they are able to float and anglers will rarely if ever be on the water? From what I read, it seems the only logical thing they could complain about is the criminal part. Both parties have agreed that it isn't worth boating at low water and it isn't worth fishing at boating levels.

p.s. I'm on both sides here as I have many friends that boat as well as fish. I played devil's advocate on another board last year taking up for the boaters. The angler's response was it was just a way for the American Whitewater Association to get their foot in the door and then push further. Now it seems that the anglers may have been right.

[milligan trout degree]

Originally Posted by gmreeves

So what is the American Whitewater Association complaining about in the article? Is it the fact that it has become a criminal act or the fact that they can only boat it when the water levels are such that they are able to float and anglers will rarely if ever be on the water? From what I read, it seems the only logical thing they could complain about is the criminal part. Both parties have agreed that it isn't worth boating at low water and it isn't worth fishing at boating levels.

p.s. I'm on both sides here as I have many friends that boat as well as fish. I played devil's advocate on another board last year taking up for the boaters. The angler's response was it was just a way for the American Whitewater Association to get their foot in the door and then push further. Now it seems that the anglers may have been right.

Im reading it the same way. They seem to acknowledge that boaters wont be on the water when fishermen are and fishermen wont be on the water when boaters are. Where's the problem?

[Crick Addict]

From what I've been told by so called insiders, the WW 'yakers only agreed to disagree.

[gmreeves]

You are correct. I have never fished that section of the river so I am not fully aware of optimal water flow for fishing. I was only going by what was determined in the previous studies leading up to the new regulations. I whole heartedly agree that the article is written biased for boaters. That is just the media doing it's thing. It lacks what the angling side has done for the watershed and doesn't support it's own arguments. I can't think of a positive side of boating but haven't heard the negatives except the fact that their will be a user conflict. Every user group has some form of impact in a negative way, even fishing. I'm sure this will be an on going debate for years to come which ever way the legal battles end up.

[WhiteH2OPdlr]

Why does everyone keep saying that 450cfs is too high for optimal fishing? Anyone that says that has never gone and fished the Chattooga enough times to know didily about what that kind of discharge means.

If everyone will take a look at the current water levels... http://waterdata.usgs.gov/sc/nwis/uv?02177000

... and then go fishing, they will realize the river is more than fishable, its closer to optimal at this flow (~800CFS) so that argument makes no sense whatsoever. Delete that argument.

Let's leave that argument in. The gauge you are referencing is the Hwy 76 gauge, 02177000, outside Long Creek and over 30 miles downstream of Burrell's Ford. If you'd actually read the EA, you'd realize that the 450 CFS refers to the level at the Burrells Ford bridge (02176930), a telemetric gauge that was just brought online a few days ago (Oct 3). Stage height only at this point, but streamflow correlations are in the works. They tried running it back during the "big flood" but it shut down shortly into the event, around sunrise on 19 September.

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?02176930

Next....

"Heavy stocking" in the upper sections? Someone please explain to me who is stocking anything above Burrells Ford. There has not been a fish stocked above above BF in years, and the helo stockings exist only on the lower end of the river below BB falls. Delete that argument.

The only thing in that statement you pulled from the actual article were two words. Nowhere does it reference "in the upper sections", but rather mentions "boating on the Upper Chattooga." Not to mention that "the upper sections" to you and to a paddler mean VERY different things. You: Burrells and up, since that's the dividing line between 2 good fishable section. Paddlers? Sec. II and up, since the "common" run is III and IV. But that's a moot point since the article merely mentions the creation of an artificial fishery that needs to be maintained at the cost of native reality...."pristine" and "unique" are hardly applicable descriptors of the Burrells to 28 section.

You may also ask why they're so focused on this aritificial fishery that violates the Wild and Scenic River designation. Because boaters are banned from that section because of this "pristine" and "unique" ARITIFICIAL fishery.

As far as your stance that:

Fishermen and fishing advocates are RESTORING and PRESERVING brook trout populations, not hurting them.

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

Let me flip your sentence around on YOU: How does FISHING help this watershed? Corn cans, monofilament, user trails, eroded banks, etc etc etc ad nauseum. How does it help? I know your response: economic. Well, TroutTiger, there's your answer.

And beyond setting a precedent for Boating, TroutTiger, it sets a precedent for the Forest Service to set limits on individual user groups and whim and whimsey as it sees fit and subject to local political pressure. It's not just the boaters at risk. By setting the prescedent that one user group has priority over another, it may very well be the case that AW COULD (though knowing their leadership I highly doubt it) that ammunition to ban fishermen from a particular stretch in response, or campers, hikers, whatever user group you most cherish having the freedom to experience a given area as.

So next time you want to get on your soap box, make sure your facts are straight, and you're not shooting off half cocked with some emotional propaganda soliloquy.

[MBB]

I will be glad to point out deception and lies. First, they state "Conservation-oriented kayackers and canoeists sought protection...." AW is not filing the appeal for conservation reasons. They are seeking access to float the river (and which I don't have a problem with in very high water conditions BTW). To characterize it as a conservation issue is misleading and deceptive.

Second, they state that "the USFS decision....makes it a Federal crime." This is also misleading. The USFS decision only continues the ban that has been in place for decades and actually allows limited boating use that was previously prohibited. The word "crime", while technically correct is deceptive in that it attempts in convey to the reader a severe penalty.

The biggest lie is that the "severe restrictions are the only of their kind in the entire United States." The National Parks also restrict boating use, particularly in Yellowstone NP. "And are intended to benefit anglers who pursue heavily stocked non-native trout" implies that the river's trout all come from a hatchery. There is a very significant population of wild trout in the upper Chattooga. This deception is repeated when the article states "The artificial fishery." I loved the line "has significant impacts including hatchery pollution..." Yes, stocking of trout in the Chatooga is destroying the river! But, it is topped off even more by "significant impacts including...near elimination of native brook trout" Native brook trout have been gone from the Chattooga for decades except in rare situations where one was washed in from a tributary. Native brook trout were probably gone after the timbering in the area (if they ever populated the river to a significant degree) and before the FS obtained the land. Clearly, the present day stockings do not eliminate native brook trout from a river they rarely exist and probably could not thrive due to water temperature.

Another deception is "significant impacts ...including user created angling trails." While the trails are used by anglers they also are used by hikers who have no interest in angling. My experience on the river is that hikers use the trails much more than fisherman. The statement indicates only anglers use the trails.

My absolute favorite Orwellian line, however is "Ironically, the USFS decions actually harms anglers across the Country" Yes, trout anglers are insane to support the ban as it actually is to our benefit to have the FS open the upper river to boat use! I am elated that AW knows more about fisherman's interests than we do. All of those TU chapters that have invested time and resources fighting to keep the ban are filled with members just too ignorant to comprehend and understand these complex issues. They should realize that they are "degrading the rights of anlgers to fish from a boat." I wonder where all of those anglers are that want to fish from a boat on the upper Chattooga are and why havent they voiced their concerns in mass?

Personally, I don't have a problem with some restricted use by paddlers during certain months and in high water. Inevitably, in our crowded world, there will be competing interests that are not reconcilable without restrictions on one group versus another. I believe the FS did a good job overall.