158 



A lot of people who engage in many different recreational activities and have 

 diverse opinions in relation to river management might also tloat rivers in 

 nonmotorized craft. A few of these people might favor the posihon of the HCA in 

 relation to motorized use on the Snake River. But when put in context, this claim 

 of HCA is little different than if advocates of a nonmotorized experience on the 

 Snake River claimed they also represent motorized recreationists because some of 

 their members water ski. 



Moreover, floaters and jet boaters ai£ two distinct constituencies. The HCNRA Act 

 itself makes this distinction. (See, Exhibit F.) It states clearly that control of the use 

 and number of both "motorized" and "nonmotorized" rivercraft is required on the 

 Snake River. If there were no distinction between the two uses, the Act would 

 simply have said "rivercraft" rather than making the distinction that both uses 

 must be regulated. 



MYTH #2 The contention that jet boats negatively impact the desired recreation 

 experiences of floaters or other recreationists is a contrivance 



There are two collections of information which illustrate that jet boats and 

 motorized traffic does significantly impact other recreationists. 1) The demand for 

 both private and commercial float trip opportunities on nonmotorized rivers far 

 exceeds that of motorized rivers. 2) Surveys of people recreating (in both motorized 

 and nonmotorized craft) on the Snake River consistently show that the most 

 frequently named negative aspect of their experience involved jet boats. 



1) On the Middle Fork of the Salmon River, a nonmotorized river, commercial 

 outfitters fill far more of available seats than on the Snake and Main Salmon 

 Rivers, which are motorized rivers. About 70 percent of available seats are filled on 

 the Middle Fork, while roughly 45 percent are filled on the Snake and 35 percent on 

 the Main Salmon. These figures reflect an average for the years 1993, 1994, and 1995. 

 (See, Exhibit G.) 



It is doubtful that factors other than the availability on the Middle Fork of a 

 nonmotorized experience would account for its preferred status. For example, the 

 rapids on the Main Salmon and Snake are comparable to those on the Middle Fork, 

 and at some flow levels are even more challenging. The Snake provides a more 

 intact wilderness surrounding, particularly in its upper 16 miles, than the Middle 

 Fork. 



The primary attracrion of the Middle Fork Salmon is that it is one of few completely 

 non-motorized experiences one can obtain. Clearly the commercial float outfitting 

 client prefers this kind of experience. Another profound example of this fact is the 

 success rate for obtaining private float permits. 



In 1994, the Forest Service calculated the success rate for obtaining a private permit 

 for the Middle Fork Salmon and Selway Rivers (which are nonmotorized rivers) 



Tesbmony of HCPC on River Management 



