As we all know, wood is one of the big hazads on the river and removing it would be to the benefit of kayakers.  This brings up and interesting question.  Is it ethical to remove wood hazards from a river?  Obviously, this is not a black and white issue.  Rivers that are in designated wilderness areas are legaly supposed to be left in their natural state so obviously those rivers are off limits.  A better example is the Raging River in the Preston Fall City area.  From what I understand, this is a great run that is often dangerous because of riverwide logs and strainers.  Would it be unethical to remove wood hazards there?  There are other factors that come into play as well.  Wood provides shelter for fish, slows the current for wildlife, provides a place for insects to breed (and therfore provide food for fish and birds).  Generally speaking, a river in the northwest needs wood to be a healthy riparian ecosystem. 

Any thoughts?  Remember, I'm not suggesting (or currently planning) a wood removel quest.  I have however been faced with situations where wood was an obvious hazard and wondered if I was able to make the river safer, should I? Or are there other things we as boaters and stewards of  our sport should consider?

Thanks for the thoughts Leif.  I was looking for something with more of a legal or scientific basis rather than a religious justification for clearing wood.  If you read Genesis 1:28 cerefully it says "replenish the earth" which to me implies a sort of caretaker role for humanity.  Now, I'm no expert on scripture, but I think that having dominion over the earth and it's creatures isn't a free pass to do harm.  On the contrary, I believe the good book advocates living within our means and avoiding a life of excess.  

That being said, it is still good food for thought.  Bravo.   

I am sure that in most cases, a removal probably violates some law, whether or not it is in a wilderness area.  But, I wouldn't consider someone removing a small log spanning a blind gap of rocks at chest level on a popular river to be unethical.  Probably saving someone's bacon - like mine.

I remember reading that years ago some guides got in trouble in Colorado (?) for actually blasting a rock out of the river that had created a keeper hole that had killed people.  I wish I could find that story - it had a great discussion of the ethical debate involved.  They tried to do it secretly since they knew it was clearly illegal, but justified it since the rock had and likely still would have killed people.  It wouldn't surprise me though that even in that case people would have argued against the blasting and a couple guides were prosecuted.

I look at climbing as offering some parallels - it is somewhat acceptable on routes to trundle loose rocks endangering a route or fauna obstructing a route.  The practice certainly has its detractors, but my guess is more climbers do it than not.  Whether legal or not I think there is a general acceptance that our mere presence on this earth alters it - the extent to which we alter it is where it gets grey.

If someone moves a log that could have killed me, I won't complain.

Not that I would ever move it, but that monster log at House Rocks on the MM tends to scare me.  Pretty avoidable, but if that disappeared I wouldn't lament its loss.

Great points Paul.  I'm not really sure what the right answer is either.  The fact is every situation is different and needs to be judged ion its own merits.  It can be a difficult decision, particularly because we have a biased view of things based on our sport of choice.  The main reason I borought up this topic, was to get people thinking about it, I've heard a few discussinos about it on the river and a few individuals made is sound as thought there was only one right answer.  IMHO there are very few issues that are very black and white if you really take the time to understand various points of views.