Legislation aimed at opening streams and rivers in Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks to packrafters would undermine the authority of the National Park Service to manage these parks and "set a very poor precedent," says National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis.
The director laid out the agency's opposition to the Yellowstone and Grand Teton Paddling Act in a letter (attached) to U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee that last month supported the legislation drafted by U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming. Her measure specifically directs the Park Service to allow packrafters access to 50 streams in the two parks.
Among those 50 segments are 4.3 miles along Spread Creek from Grand Teton's eastern boundary to the Snake River, 6.8 miles of Pilgrim Creek from Grand Teton's northeast boundary to Jackson Lake, 26.7 miles of Yellowstone River from Yellowstone's southeast boundary to Yellowstone Lake, and 5.7 miles of the Mountain Ash Creek in southwestern Yellowstone to the creek's confluence with the Falls River.
Director Jarvis said the legislation would subvert the Park Service's authority under the National Park Service Organic Act to manage the resources in the two parks.
"The bill would diminish the ability of park managers to meet their responsibilities under the NPS Organic Act and other laws to provide for pub!ic enjoyment, ensure visitor safety, and address adverse effects to resources at those units and also would set а poor precedent for the NPS," he wrote in the letter sent Nov. 13. "There may be no other scenic resource like this in the United States, and possiЬ!y the world, where visitors can experience large intact river systems and their environments in а wild, ecologically pristine state."
Rep. Lummis in 2014 introduced legislation to open waters in the two parks to packrafters after discussing the matter with members of the American Packrafting Association. That initial effort was short on specifics, but gave the Interior Department and the Park Service three years to assess the paddling potential of nearly 7,000 stream miles in Yellowstone, and dozens more miles in nearby Grand Teton.
While the measure was not taken up last year by Congress, Rep. Lummis reintroduced a similar measure early this year. That legislation, if enacted, would give the Park Service three years to study the potential streams that could be opened to paddle sports such as packrafting, kayaking, and canoeing and assess what impacts could be created; prevent additional commercial paddling operations beyond what currently are in place, and; somewhat restrict where paddlers could go in Grand Teton. But during last month's committee meeting she amended it with language that opponents maintain would force the Park Service to open up more than 400 miles of streams to paddlers.
The Park Service fears the congresswoman's legislation, if enacted, could lead to significant resource damage in the parks.
"These rivers are sensitive nesting and breeding grounds for wildlife, home to endemic and endangered species, spawniпg grounds for native cutthroat trout, апd some of the last streams in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem for Arctic grayling. Opening these waterways will increase the risk of the traпsmission of aquatic invasive species like zebra and quagga mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, whirling disease and others," wrote Director Jarvis.
He also pointed out that paddlers already have access to 163 of the 168 lakes in Yellowstone, and to 26 miles of the Snake River in Grand Teton, as well as to numerous lakes in that park.
Between holidays, scheduled recesses for both Senate and House, and major issues such as the nation's debt limit and budget yet to be resolved, whether this legislation will gain further attention this session is questionable.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Mr. Jarvis' comments indicate why this bill needs to pass. Paddling is a non-motorized, non-consumptive use that is less-intrusive than currently allowed activites such as fishing and horsepacking. Its unfortunate that it is going to take an act of congress to correct this example of beaurcratic mangement run amok.
Whoa! I had completely forgotten about invasive aquatic species.
Given the fact that it has been almost impossible to keep them out of other bodies of water, I can't see any point in risking them in Yellowstone. In many places, some boat owners (apparently a significant number in some areas) go to great lengths to avoid boat checks and washings. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to ban ALL watercraft from outside the park from launching in any Yellowstone waters.
Whoa! Here on the East Coast one of the greatest threats to the endangered Right Whales are from ship strikes. I propose we stop all shipping into all ports along the eastern seaboard. No reason to risk a ship strike..... none at all. They can fly in 200,000 containers a day. Probably get two at a time on a 747! Easy solution, next problem?
A person would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to see the waterfowl, beaver, and other animals running away from the bank or scurying to find shelter in the streamside vegetation as they float a river. Paddling may be non-consumptive in some ways, but certainly not in it's effects on wildlife.
Many of the mal-effects of paddling that you cite can be equally applied to other primitive uses of the river corridors such as angling, camping, hiking, swimming, horsepacking, etc. Americans who love paddling and traditional primitive backcountry recreation should be asking the Parks to do the required analyses of these uses, and balance each use's numbers so that the impacts on wildlife are kept at a level that does not cause lasting harm. Instead, the Parks have singled out one use...paddling...that in some ways IMHO is far less impactful than the other uses. But this should not be about opinions. It should be about analysis. That's what this bill will require the Parks to do. It may be that during some times of the year, paddling has a greater impact than another use on a certain aspect of wildlife survival. During that time of year, paddling use would be decreased or prohibited. Maybe during another time of year, the other use is more impactful, and hence the opposite would take effect. Right now, there is no rhyme or reason to YNP or GTNP backcountry management in the river corridors. Case in point are new allowances in the last year for increased commercial horse use in the river corridors. Yet, some still complain that paddlers will impact grizzlies. Can we please approach this thoughtfully? This bill will put some reason back into backcountry management in these Parks.
It is important that this bill passes, but not for reasons people might think. I am a paddler and have supported this bill, but it is more about legislative check on an executive oversight, than it is about paddling. YNP and GTNP illegally dismissed a mandatory requirement to analyze Park river corridors for recreational uses such as paddling during compliance for the 2009 Snake River Headwaters Legacy Act, which designated the headwaters of the Snake as Wild and Scenic. Neither paddlers nor Rep Lummis would have pursued or introduced this legislation if the NPS had diligently looked at the impacts paddling might have on Park resources. For this reason, this bill sets no unsavory precedent. The more concerning precedent here is that the NPS keeps getting away with banning a legitimate traditional primitive low-impact use for 65 years with no real analysis or review. For me, this bill is about ensuring that Americans who wish to roam the wilderness by the means of their choosing have opportunities to do so within the bounds of appropriateness and sustainability. The NPS has maintained this ban for no apparent reason.
As for aquatic invasive species…Yes this is an important consideration that needs to be examined during the three-year study that this bill requires. It’s worth noting that current AIS epidemics have occurred during the 65-year period that river paddling has been is banned. Currently, paddling is allowed on rivers and streams flowing from adjoining Forest lands into the parks. So if small paddle craft were a real threat of introducing aquatic invasives into the Parks, it would have already happened from paddlers using these streams outside the Parks. Better management and education about these "water trails" that cross management jurisdictions would significantly reduce the risk of the inadvertent introduction of aquatic invasive species.
A permitted river system could pay for managed paddling in these Parks and improve the AIS program for all users. The current AIS program puts too much emphasis on low-risk small boats that are easily cleaned, drained, and dried, and not enough real teeth to prevent the launch of potentially infected larger power boats. Look at the history of the spread of quaggas and zebras, the most noxious offenders, in the U.S. – Great Lakes – Lake Mead – Lake Powell and outward. These are not kayakers or rafters that are spreading these mussels. If Yellowstone and Grand Teton really want to get serious about the spread of AIS they would require a high-risk inspection on any boat with a bilge that has been in an infected state before they launch on Park waters – they are not currently doing this.
Mr Jarvis, your agency has struggled with relevancy and credibility, especially in Yellowstone and Grand Teton where haphazard management seems to be a tradition. Last year, YNP increased commercial horse use in the river corridors and motorboat use on the lakes with no analyses. Parkwide, a place is made for snowmobiles, and unlimited summer auto traffic, while snow bikes remained banned. Meanwhile, there still has been no acknowledgement of the need for a transportation plan. GTNP allows 60,000 motor boat and commercial raft rides each summer. Meanwhile, an arbitrary ban on backcountry paddling has been perpetuated.
The Yellowstone and Grand Teton Paddling Act will require the Parks to analyze paddling along with other uses of the river corridors and devise a management plan that balances the impacts of all the uses so that some paddling can occur on the specific watercourses mentioned in the bill. Please educate yourself about this bill. Smart people who love these Parks helped write it. Rep Lummis was brave enough to introduce it. For more info, please visit: http://packraft.org/American_Packrafting_Association/YNP-GTNP.html.
Anon, I can't think of any streams that flow INTO the park that might be at all navigable by any kind of craft. Isn't Yellowstone on a wide plateau upon which streams originate and flow OUTward? Which streams are you referring to?
Thanks for the question!! Gros Ventre River, Spread Creek, Buffalo Fork, Pacific Creek, Pilgrim Creek, Snake River, Yellowstone River, Mountain Creek, Thorofare Creek, Soda Butte Creek, Slough Creek, Hellroaring Creek, and probably others I've missed...all wonderful floats that see some paddling use for many years with no apparent adverse impacts. All of these streams originate outside the Parks, but then flow into YNP and/or GTNP.
Thanks for the list, but aren't about half of those streams that flow into Grand Teton and not Yellowstone? And are Thorofare, Soda Butte, Slough and Hellroaring really "navigable" even by floats?
I'm sorry, but I still look at this idea as something akin to demands for ATV use in our parks. With literally thousands of miles of streams open outside the parks, why can't we keep some sacred places truly sacred? Do we want to open our natural cathedrals to rafting in the baptismal fonts?
Lee...This is Thomas Turiano...for some reason, my name is not coming through from the name field. Yes, about half of the streams I mentioned flow into Grand Teton. All of these streams are wonderfully navigable by small paddlecraft such as kayak, canoe, or packraft...some only in spring and early summer, others all summer and fall. Please have a look at the FAQ on the American Packrafting Association's website. Your questions and concerns are addressed there: http://packraft.org/American_Packrafting_Association/YNP-GTNPFAQ.html
Thanks, Thomas. Will do.
By the way, I do canoe and kayak and really enjoy it. Snowmobiles are a blast. I enjoy riding my daughter's ATV and certainly enjoy exploring in my 4x4, and I'd probably enjoy mountain biking, too. But I still think we should reserve at least a few precious places where none of those activities are permitted.
And I think your name may not be coming through because you didn't log in. Not sure, but think that's it.
Whatever else may be at the heart of this debate, from my experience, humans are not reliable. We have already done damage to so many other places. Boats do not get washed from stream to stream, therefore invasive creatures affect more and more waterways.
I am a kayaker, however I don't feel that gives me the right to kayak every bit of water in the USA.
Humans are not more important than nature, and nature is not here merely to satisfy our selfish pleasures. Can we please have some "off limits" places that will remain pristine wilderness?
Seems like there should be a few places left where their is no human encroachment. For me it would be sad to see someone paddeling in a canoe in Haden valley--JMHO
It is strange that Yellowstone allows things that disrupt wildlife in an unnatural way (snowmobiles, cars), but something like paddling is prohubited?
Yes, argalite, but those cats were let out of the bag a long time ago. It's very difficult to reverse a problem. Much better to avoid them in the first place. Or better yet, find ways that achieve a well balanced approach to management. It might be different if Yellowstone was the ONLY place in the world where an activity could take place. But with literally thousands of miles of streams open in other less precious places, maybe it's time to draw a line here. Some of us think those other streams outside the park ARE the balance in management here.
Destry Jarvis, Jon Jarvis brother, has lobbied on behalf of concessionaires. So why should Jarvis neutrality ever be in question? Jarvis is about to get his rear end exposed in a big way. And his time has come. The moustache club is going to need more wax.
There's so much talk about packrafters being banned, but that's not at all true.
a) Packrafters aren't "banned." They can paddle on almost 200 lakes in Yellowstone, dozens of miles of river in Grand Teton and hundreds of miles rivers and creeks outside of the national parks.
This small group of packrafters are upsest (many paddlers actually agree with the NPS) because they can't go on every creek and stream they want in the national parks, including places where they would be disturbing miles of currently relatively undisturbed wildlife habitat in a single float. There are many, many places to paddle both in and outside of the national parks.
b) This small group of packrafters who say they've been ignored can still access those backcountry areas like everyone else. But they have to do it through an existing use. The park service can't take on every new use for every new recreation fad that comes along (in this case, lightweight packrafts that can float smaller streams than other craft and cost several hundred to several thousand dollars a piece).
It's a national park, not Disneyworld.
Smokies, if you have any evidence that Jarvis's decisions were influenced by his brother's lobbying efforts, let us see it.
I have no evidence of that, EC. But evidence of a policy change towards a concession driven NPS under Jarvis is abundant. And it should be troubling to all public lands users. Just look at the new FLREA legislation pending. Jarvis knows where his bread is buttered and caters and is catered to accordingly. The days of the constant mantra from NPS of "this is what works best for the NPS" instead of what works for the public lands users is facing the test of public scrutiny and failing miserably. The worm is turning. Folks are realizing that public lands are slipping from public hands into the pockets of commerce. And Jarvis has steered the ship into these waters.
Sorry Smokies, that anon post was me (can't figure out why it keeps logging me out). The "accusations" I was referring to was the one related to the Jarvis's which you admit you have no evidence of. But with your closing line, I see you are comfortable in Lee's camp of making baseless accusations.
I'm still trying to figure out the mustache-phobia. I've got a beard, and I've seen small children get scared of bearded men because when they were much younger some grumpy old man scared them, but your mustache fear is puzzling.
My moustache fear was learned in adulthood. It tends to preceed manipulation of data and trumpted up fees to use public lands. (and it is, apparently, a prerequisite for indoctrination into the hierarchy of the NPS kool aid club)
Smokies probably has one thing right when he wrote: "Just look at the new FLREA legislation pending. Jarvis knows where his bread is buttered. . "
The problem isn't so much with Jarvis as it with a multi-headed hydra called Congress.
One of the most bitter facts of American life today is that attempts by Congress to use their power often means that the head of a government agency -- and not just the NPS, but most others too -- must dance to the tune of the Congressional pipers or risk severe harm to the organization they are responsible to try to manage. When our parks are used by members of Congress as pawns in their games, alert managers sometimes find that relatively small battles may have to be forfeited in order to save the entire organization and the public they are trying to serve.