I am not very familiar with boating in National Parks. Is whitewater kayaking allowed in Olympic National Park? How about Rainier. I know that it's outlawed in Yellowstone and the Tetons.

SOPBOATER, thanks for posting this.

Uh oh - Devils Advocate coming in here. 

Since when have wild and scenic designations provided better access? Don't get me wrong I am not against the whole process it provides protection and that is great, but the rivers I have seen change in that respect have lost access not gained it (ie Middle Fork).  Now you can say that it was not because of the wild and scenic designation but still there are other examples where the rivers don't get better access for vehicles or various other modes after that designation appears. Again that might not be a bad thing, keeps them nice but since that is a big part of this discussion it's a thought to consider.

I would personally only trust my opinion or anyone else's after I had read and understood the exact changes being proposed. Like the Health Care Bill it is easy to say it's good or bad when you have no idea what is inside, but your opinion might change when you start finding out the fine print is very much different from what you thought it should be or would be.

Tom, I am not saying that AW and or You are not hard at work. We all see the fruits of your effort and we appreciate it !!!! - I know I do.

What I was suggesting is that as roads become more used they get closed off due to maintenance costs. IE Road to Gold Meyer, Road up the Taylor Etc.. Those don't seem to get blocked off until either A: The private party using the access easement is done with it/sells it, or b some type of damage/usage occurs where the cost of upkeep is not desired.

The extra parks on the Sauk are great but not examples of improved access, rather increased access. An example would be adding an access point at House Rock on the MM. That would be increased but I would not argue improved because no one puts in or takes out there. I would also say it would be better to re-gain access further up the Middle fork road or even into the branches of the N. Fork. Gaining access high in the watershed is the problem here not adding improvements to common take outs and putins. Again that is important but not what I think SOP is discussing.

The difficulty is getting a public access to use a federal,state or private easement to access a river system or land. That is the access that I think SOP is talking about. There are little to no hwy's as you know or public road systems that wind through the OP and offer access to these rivers. So when the state swoops in and buys parcels of land to include in a forest/park it is my guess they are not going to invest the added money and effort to include a new avenue of access. More than likely we would see an announcement that it must be accessed through a previously secured public point. If an ungated Federal/State Forest Road does exist that is maintained by a federal or private party be it timber or land management they are either going to mitigate their maintenance costs due to increased public usage or they are going to place gates on the easement points that they control therefore forcing the public to use the back door which has no easy avenue of approach.

I am definitely not for punching a bunch of road into the OP.  I am however not for gating or decommishioning existing access roads.  We lost alot of good roads and as a result access to a few good creeks when they tore up the Sam's river area.  I still walk in and boat it but log far fewer runs on it these days.

james, you know what i like about you? not only do you take the time to obtain accurate information, but you participate in the process. it is useful for us to discuss these issues on PP, but it is even more useful to join the process so that our opinions are heard.  tom o'keefe has done that, and as such his voice and the institution he represents are heard. kudos.

in addition, access and protection are generally incompatible for obvious reasons (i'll spare you the technical information about the effect of forest roads on watershed processes). i choose to prioritize protection, even if that means i have to work harder for the reward (doesn't that make it more rewarding?). in general, i think we kayakers are a little spoiled. we want to boat beautiful remote rivers while also expecting to just drive right up and throw on.  this is an emotional response intended to maximize utility that is not reconcilable with the mutual exclusivity of access and protection.  sam's Creek and upper mf snoqualmie are illustrative of the fact that many of these areas remain accessible.  i repeat, these areas are still accessible, just not by car (thus one possibility would be to focus efforts on areas that are trully inaccessible because they are too far for walking [say, greater than 10 miles]). Part of the joy of kayaking is being outside. hiking-in or even making an overnight of a hike-in is not something that would prevent me from boating a stream because such activities remains part of and even accentuate camaraderie and the overall goal of enjoying the outdoors.

in conclusion, i respectfully suggest as i have many times on this site (e.g., wood on the Green) that kayaking is not the only use or consideration for these areas, and we would be better served to view kayaking in the broader context as one aspect of a manifold policy of land use because we would be taken more seriously by decision-makers if we validate all stakeholder viewpoints. Participating in the public process is the surest way of  realizing our interests.

thanks for starting this conversation, Kris, and to everyone who has contributed.