That article is
way too biased for me. I hardly agree with
anything he says. He uses gross over-generalizations and name-calling to play to readers' emotions to "prove" his point. Way too much "us vs them" hatred going on here.
Here's what the bill states:
"Opens the rivers and streams of Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming to
hand-propelled vessels. "
Here's how Peacock re-writes it to be more emotionally charged to mislead his readers:
"The first (H. R. 3942) would open wilderness areas in Yellowstone National Park to high-tech boating."
Since when is canoeing, kayaking, or packrafting "high tech?" Kayaks and canoes are thousands of years old. They're human-powered and create zero pollution and an extremely minimal impact on the land. He makes it sound like we'll be water skiing in yellowstone. I suppose they're made with space-age materials, but so are our tires, tents, hiking shoes, cameras, etc.
"Curiously, Outside magazine has recently become the self-appointed cheerleader for trashing wild areas of national parks"
In essence, he says that since Outside mag supports mountain bikers, paddlers, and rock climbers in the park, they become a cheerleader for "
trashing" our land. This implies that mountain bikers, paddlers, and rock climbers "trash" the land. I know plenty of those people who don't trash the land at all. He lumps all non-hikers into one neat little group of "adventure athletes" that trash the land and apparently all have the same motives and are somehow less deserving of the outdoors because they use "high tech" gear that is "adventurous".
Why do so many pro-wilderness writers have to resort to demonizing their opponents as if they have the moral high ground on every issue? I don't want to associate with this type of mentality. It's not a black and white issue.
"why the paddling industry has chosen such unsavory bedfellows as their champions puzzles many..."
The sponsors of both these bills are well-known conservative enemies of wilderness and the wild animals who range freely in these habitats.
"Today’s recreational paddlers want to launch one of their flotillas of pack rafts and inner tubes."
Flotilla? Really? What about the "flotillas" of RVs that create bumper to bumper traffic and pollution on that road? If you're looking for wilderness, don't look for it in a NP. To me, Yellowstone feels about as close to wilderness as Disneyland. Designating an area a national park, in my opinion, invites more tourists and non-environmentally minded people than if we'd left it alone.
I think paving roads or building cabins, stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc. through the middle of Yellowstone was far more destructive than any number of paddlers could ever be. To me, packrafting is just as low-impact as backpacking and hiking, maybe even less so. It's frustrating to see people demonize one form of recreation and sanctify their own.
I think we'd go a lot farther to promote environmentalism by teaching good low-impact techniques and respect rather than villainizing the groups you don't like. Rather than creating a war between people who recreate differently from us, we should be working together to promote stewardship and respect for nature.
Is it important to weigh the consequences of legislation on our environment? Absolutely. however, this article was way too biased and emotionally charged for me to take it seriously. I'm not even sure where I stand on the hand-propelled watercraft debate, but to me, this article didn't provide any compelling reasons why they shouldn't be allowed. Rather, it just propagated a lot of hatred, name-calling, and over-generalization towards a magazine and people who enjoy non-hiking recreation.
......... no easy answer.