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
needs to be all visitors. The current analysis is totally unreasonable because they treat paddlers inequitably
and irrationally. (Ltr# 153, Cmt# 1)
DO IT RIGHT! Stop the continuous delays, stop the "preferred alternative" delays, and most importantly
stop the biased, arbitrary, and capricious Upper Chattooga regulations that ban a single user group from
the Upper Chattooga. No other Wild and Scenic River has this kind of discrimination against one user
group. It continues to astonish that the Forest Service would pander so blatantly to one user group while so
obviously discriminating against another. Doing the wrong thing for a long time is still doing the wrong
thing. Open the Upper Chattooga to boating and do it without the sham studies and the artificial, biased,
and deeply flawed studies that do not fairly and honestly evaluate the real relative impacts (almost none)
that boaters would have on the Upper Chattooga. (Ltr# 157, Cmt# 1)
I see that none of the alternatives in your assessment give equal treatment and consideration to all user
groups, and additionally, that all the alternatives actually discriminate unfairly and unnecessarily against
paddlers. While paddlers cause the least impact on the environment of any user group, they would have the
most restrictions imposed upon them of any user group. Your assessment fails to justify this treatment in
any way. (Ltr# 161, Cmt# 1)
I urge the Forestry Service to open the Upper Chattooga to boating. I personally think this catering to the
fishing groups is setting bad precedent for all users of the forest. I am also very offended by the direct
attacks by fishing groups stating that kayakers would damage the delicate environment. The truth is known
the level of kayakers who would or could kayak the Upper Chattooga also care about the pristine
environment as strongly as the same fishing groups. Please end these selfish attitudes and allow fair
sharing for responsible users of the forest and river. Please settle the matter and not allow this bickering to
continue. The Forest Service has wasted untold hours and money on a non-issue. (Ltr# 162, Cmt# 1)
I am writing in support of lifting the ban of private boaters on the reaches of the upper Chattooga. I have
been both fly fishing and kayaking/canoeing since the age of 12 and fail to see the logic in preferring one
over the other. Furthermore, I regularly kayak and fly fish the Hiwassee river in reliance, Tennessee and
this waterway allows for boating and fishing and it is a wonderful relationship and place to visit. There are
no issues among fishermen and boaters and most fishermen aren't fishing once the water is high enough to
float a kayak or canoe (or tubes, which are common on the Hiwassee). Lastly, the whitewater users need a
higher flow of water to get down the upper Chattooga. These higher flows would not be of use to any
knowledgeable or experienced fishermen as the fish hold down and become that much more finicky until
the levels drop. I have fished extensively in both state/national forest and in the Great Smoky Mountain
National Park and can demonstrate to anyone this fact. So I really don't understand the positions taken by
TU and NFS. There is no sensible reason to discriminate against one set of users other than politics. There
can be compromise in this situation where both parties benefit and can use the water without conflict.
These are public lands and should be open to all taxpayers who are willing to use them responsibly. (Ltr#
165, Cmt# 1)
I have never experienced a conflict paddling these restricted areas, and the reason is a fact of nature. The
conditions for the pursuit of paddling and fishing are mutually exclusive. Fishing is terrible on the days
when the river level is good for kayaking, and any intelligent paddler (there are a few of those!) stays off
the river when the levels are great for fishing. Removing the restrictions will not create a crowd of paddlers
to these sections, because paddlers understand the difficulty of these rapids, and the rarity of adequate
river levels. The current restrictions are probably illegal, and will be eventually judged to be so, as a result
of the current legal actions. The U.S.F.S. should anticipate this, knowing that they are employed to serve
the public, the tax-paying citizen. (Ltr# 167, Cmt# 1)
Why are you so vehemently against allowing equitable use with normal policy procedures that work for
every other National Forest? After 12 years and millions of wasted dollars, all of which would have been
better served doing far better things, you still cannot PROVE anything with factual scientific data. (Ltr#
170, Cmt# 2)
Lifting the ban would be inequitable. Introducing whitewater kayaking would grant a marginal benefit to a
small subset of a single-user group while unfairly and irreparably harming the “esthetic,
scenic….features” of the river for a multitude of other diverse and less intense user groups. These other
172