|
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.
__________________
The sound of water both deepened and went up a tone. There was another bend ahead, and the river seemed to strain to get there...Around the turn it came into view, and broadened in white...sprightly and vivid. There was not the sensation of the water's raging, but rather that of its alertness and resourcefulness as it split apart at rocks,frothed lightly, corkscrewed, fluted, fell, recovered, ...and then ran out of sight...I looked for a way through...
JAMES DICKEY, DELIVERANCE
|
Hybrid Mode
