117 



Service. Few outfitters feel they can survive. This is based on social and economic 

 engineering by an agency that failed to even contact the outfitters to collect informa- 

 tion on economic impacts. Although the appeal decision requires them to go back to 

 the outfitters and collect site specific data, the planners seem to be going through the 

 motions, not intending to make any significant changes. 



Boaters and others who use, love and care for this canyon and its resources partici- 

 pated with the Forest service in development of a management plan using the Limits 

 of Acceptable Change (LAC) process for over two years, only to have their work on 

 the key issues of use limits and allocation ignored and simimarily trashed in favor of a 

 socially driven Forest Service plan, a plan that violated both the spirit and letter of the 

 Act. The agency apparently felt compelled to move management of this unique river 

 towards that dictated by agency policy for every other river in the wild and scenic 

 system. Although Congress, in legislative language tailored to the recreation area, had 

 the foresight to recognize that this river, its canyon and uses were different in charac- 

 ter and tradition from others in the wild and scenic system, the agency lacked the 

 creativity and imagination to bring forth that vision and recognize its opportunities. 



The Forest Service's leadership's agenda to eliminate power boating from Hells 

 Canyon, in spite of the intent of Congress, has been clear from the beginning. Acting 

 Deputy Chief R. M. Housley warned in a 1980 memo that if power boats were not 

 eliminated then, it would be more difficult to remove them in the future, their eventual 

 elimination never in question. The course set in 1980 has never wavered. It is this 

 same determined policy that led to elimination of power boats from part of the river 

 for part of the year in 1994, a course of action setting the stage to remove them from 

 the whole river for the whole year in the future. 



We do not question that boating use of the river, both power and float, must be 

 managed to provide a quality experience and protect the canyon's irreplaceable re- 

 sources. The amended Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires establishment of a carry- 

 ing capacity. As identified plateaus of acceptable conditions are approached, manage- 

 ment actions must take place. Strict regulation of access may eventually be indicated, 

 but should be the last, not first choice; regulations should be imposed only when and 

 where all alternative actions have proven insufficient. Every regulation carries with it 

 a loss of freedom, a cost not to be taken lightly. In Hells Canyon, however, regulation 

 was selected as the preferred tool in the most complex regulatory plan imposed for 

 any wild and scenic river in the Nation. It is an enormously expensive plan, one the 

 Forest Service can ill afford to implement. 



Quite clearly, the issue of power boating's validity on the whole river for the whole 

 year will not be settled until it is decided by the courts or Congress clarifies its intent 

 in PL 94-199. Unless this is done, the deeply ingrained prejudice against motorized 

 recreation within the managing agency will continue to plague that majority of Ameri- 

 cans who want to access the river within the recreation area by power boat. The 



