30 



river corridor, ignoring completely their own figures showing that 

 no current overcrowding. 



If the Forest Service does implement this part of the plan, it will 

 result in an increase of rafters putting on at one time, thus 

 lumping boats together and concentrating them instead of letting 

 the public spread out naturally. 



When my friends and I go fishing, we usually try to put on about 

 5:00 in the morning. It's a little known secret, and I don't know if 

 I want to tell secrets here, but that is the best time for fishing, and 

 to be told you can't go fishing on a quality fishing stream until we 

 get up and get to work goes against my nature. 



There are also large groups such as family reunions, scout, or 

 church youth groups which want to float the river. They want to 

 go with the group, but the proposed plan would force them to 

 launch over a passage throughout a period. This would mean a 

 long, frustrating wait at the beginning of their trip along with the 

 same long wait at the take-out ramp as they wait for the remain- 

 der of their group to arrive. Any positive feelings resulting from 

 these people seeing fewer boats or hikers would be greatly offset 

 by the couple of hours they would wait prior to and at the end of 

 their trip. 



There are three other rivers in our area that can be run, the 

 Yampa, Split Mountain, and Gates of LaDore, all of which have 

 very strict regulations as to the number of people allowed on each 

 day. Why must the Forest Service also try to put limits on this last 

 section of river available to the general public? 



Please let supply and demand work regarding how many people 

 are allowed to use our public lands. If families feel they didn't have 

 an enjoyable experience, word will spread and the number of users 

 will decrease accordingly. We don't need a government agency tell- 

 ing us when we are having fun. Thank you. 



[The statement of Mr. Feltch may be found at end of hearing.! 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentlelady from Idaho. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this testimony 

 and I also appreciate the fact that Mr. Laverty and Mr. Richmond 

 remained in the audience to hear the testimony because it has im- 

 pressed me that we often have, more often than not as a matter 

 of habit, we have the agency personnel testifying first. We have 

 people who have come a long way to be heard, so I very much ap- 

 preciate those two gentlemen remaining in the audience. 



I hope that we can have our people who are offering testimony 

 from a long ways away perhaps go first so that others can hear 

 them. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and give back my 

 time to you. 



Mr. IIansen. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Oregon. 



Mr. COOLEY. I really appreciate your testimony and I find it very 

 interesting. As we go through this process, not only today but other 

 times, it appears, I guess to some of us, an3rway in Congress, that 

 it looks as if the Forest Service and many other agencies are look- 

 ing for more control than they are really trying to manage the re- 

 source. 



I know that is a pretty broad statement to make and it will prob- 

 ably get me in trouble, but I really feel that way at times when 

 we look at specific instances where it appears that it is illogical 



