Resource Name (Heading 1) - USDA Forest Service - US ...

Summary of Public Comments - Managing Recreation Uses in the
Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River Corridor EA
a paddler, even if paddling were unlimited, as a reward for foregoing their intolerant status. While the EA
struggles to define and escape the term “equitable,” it is inescapable that banning paddling to prevent
conflicts that will never occur to benefit zero-tolerant anglers is not equitable. Considering limits only on
paddlers when limits to anglers would do an equally good job of eliminating conflicts is not equitable. The
conflict analysis violates at least the Appeal ROD, the WSRA, the FSM, and NEPA. It is clear that the EA
confuses desires with conflicts: the presumption being that a small group of intolerant anglers desire a
river without paddlers so therefore conflict will ensue if paddlers are allowed to float the river. Perhaps
many Wilderness users secretly desire to have no one but themselves and their closest friends in a given
Wilderness area, but that does not mean that conflict ensues when they meet another group. They likely
smile, say hi, and continue their hike, paddle, or ride. Paddlers have a statutorily guaranteed place in
Wilderness and on Wild and Scenic Rivers just like hikers and anglers, and in every single case share the
resource. To equate base desires with conflict is just wrong and arbitrary. (Ltr# 168, Cmt# 27)
Subconcern # H
The “conflicts”, the only documented conflicts, are from the days of “Deliverance” when the locals hated
all things that had to do with the Federal Government coming in and disturbing their God Given right to
use and abuse whatever they wanted to.; i.e.. Like washing trucks in the river. Seems the Feds had as much
trouble as any “new people”. Rangers were threatened as much as the fancy city slicker fly fishermen. The
local raft companies had rafts slashed in the dark of night. Hikers, Fishermen, Boaters and Rangers all met
equal distain from the locals. There has been no other documented conflict, just urban legend and a Forest
Service perpetuated perception of dislike between boaters and fishermen. (Ltr# 170, Cmt# 3)
Subconcern # H
#83- Forest Service has come to the conclusion that boaters are, and will always be, the soul instigator of
conflict. Where is the proof? For decades, local boaters have regularly “poached runs” in the Upper
Chattooga. Yet, the Forest Service has not reported a single case of conflict with any other user groups.
For decades, boaters have run neighboring Overflow Creek, which is considered a prime fishing location.
Yet, the Forest Service has not reported a single case of conflict with any other user groups. For decades
boaters have shared the, heavily traveled, lower reaches of the Chattooga River with all user groups and
even that does not have significant reports of conflicts. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 76)
Subconcern # H
#86- The discussion of conflict on page 88 is without merit and should be deleted. Citing hearsay of conflict
from another report does not make the report credible. No evidence is presented to show actual conflicts.
In fact most of the actions described as conflicts are not over river use and solitude but describe criminal
behavior by individuals. This is a situation easily remedied by law enforcement and arrest of unruly
individuals. The argument that fishermen cannot behave around others so others should be banned from
contact with fishermen is absurd. Boaters and fishermen have used Overflow and the West Fork without
incident for over 30 years. The suggestion they cannot "play" together above 28 is without merit or
evidence. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 79)
Subconcern # H
#108- Paddling, fishing, and hiking have co-existed on Overflow Creek and the West Fork for many years
without significant problems. The paddlers are on Overflow when the water is high, and the fishermen and
hiker/waders are there when Overflow is low. The experience on Overflow, and for that matter on the
Chauga, the Chattahoochee above Helen, the Jacks and the Conasauga, all show that water levels lead to
self-management of use without significant conflict by paddlers, fishermen, and others. (Ltr# 193, Cmt#
101)
Subconcern # H
#112- The Upper Chattooga is a public river that has never been open to boating. Limiting boating without
extended user trials (opening it for a certain period of time during which scientific study is undertaken) or
empirical evaluations of impacts (sociological/ecological) is both WRONG and UNJUSTIFIED. Without
empirical analyses, there is no evidence that conflict between boaters and anglers would occur on the
upper river. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 105)
Subconcern # H
#255- First, the EA assumes that user conflicts will occur between boaters and other users if boaters are
allowed on the upper river. However, the EA provides no hard evidence that this will happen. It discusses
163