Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

Just finished reading Debbie's article about this issue! I just wish it could have been posted on here! Kuddos Debbie!!!!

+1

Is this a publicly available article?

Zach, if you want to PM me your e-mail address, I will forward the PDF file to you.

Thanks,
Paul

Or ...you could join and get it every Quarter..

what renee said - thanx debo for bringing some sanity to the Richland
'discourse' - mitch

Thanks for the positive responses to the article. It is much appreciated! The August newsletter is now up on the members only page if you did not get it by email.

DeBo wrote:Thanks for the positive responses to the article. It is much appreciated! The August newsletter is now up on the members only page if you did not get it by email.

Hi gang:

How do us technologically challenged members find the members only page? I am registered on it. Thanks!

Login here

http://www.arkansascanoeclub.com/

Click on Member Only - ACC Publications

Regud wrote:Login here

http://www.arkansascanoeclub.com/

Click on Member Only - ACC Publications

Thanks for the link.

This is an awesome article, MUST READING FOR ALL. Superb logic, specific incidents, great viewpoint, really on target, a call to action when needed. A++

louis c

Thanks to Debo for great writeup on this. Perhaps what's needed in the other environmental threads on the message board are ugly comments from several pro-bulldozer, pro-fracking, pro-logging posers? That would get the debates and name calling going and create the kind of train-wreck spectacle that produces 2000+ views and a couple pages of responses... On the other hand, I'm not sure the lack of responses isn't a measure of how solidly in favor of those environmental threads the readership of the message board is. Perhaps a better measure could be obtained be if we had a "Like" button ala FaceBook. :)

I'll also say that I have seen a few environmental issues that got a bunch of sustained support in the past both on and off the board. The Pine Mountain (Lee Cr.) Dam issue was one such case. The timbering of the Little Mill / Fern area was another, though not quite as dramatic. Not all environmental issues get the cold shoulder, though it would seem that mass destruction of whitewater and/or scenery generate orders of magnitude more concern than issues impacting relatively flat-water streams or water quality. Not that surprising - what whitewater paddlers lack in numbers they more than make up for in fanaticism in my experience.

- Fish

I know that people really stepped up for Lee Creek and Fern Gully. These were tangible and imminent threats that we really pushed and a lot of paddlers responded.

However, I had access to the comment lists that were sent to ADEQ on Lee Creek and although we had a significant number of comments from paddlers we didn't hold a candle to several other conservation organizations. Members of the ACC did better than paddlers who were not members but most younger non ACC members sent no comments at all, even for Lee Creek!

I think that our demographic is more about having fun on the creeks. Some care about the aesthetics of maintaining at least the appearance of untouched wilderness but most feel powerless to do anything about the crushing real environmental problems we face. It is a form of cognitive dissonance. And I'm saying that unless we take this seriously we are going to lose our creeks!

In order for people to like something ala Facebook, they have to at least look at it. My last several posts asking for comments on important issues have not even been viewed by more that a few!

Most comments only take a few minutes to send and really do make a difference. Please do this one little thing!

Perhaps I need to create more flaming titles to my posts or go into some kind of rant. I will try to do better.

DeBo wrote: I think that our demographic is more about having fun on the creeks. Some care about the aesthetics of maintaining at least the appearance of untouched wilderness but most feel powerless to do anything about the crushing real environmental problems we face. It is a form of cognitive dissonance. And I'm saying that unless we take this seriously we are going to lose our creeks!

Well said, but given that our demographic IS more about having fun on the rivers and creeks, the ACC needs to walk a more careful line than purely environmentalist organizations when it comes to opposing stream modifications. We all want beautiful, pristine streams to paddle, but, being interested in recreation on those streams (as opposed to simply knowing they exist), we also have to consider access. That could include building concrete steps at a well-used takeout or even building a "park" to enhance access to recreational paddling opportunities. It can also include avoiding backlash in terms of access from private landowners and governmental agencies who support and engage in various modifications of stream environments. We might find that if we fight to not lose our creeks to lesser modifications, we will end up losing the ability to enjoy them in a boat or any other way. That argues that we should pick our battles - perhaps it is good that we don't get really fired up until a threat is "tangible and imminent."

I believe mankind will value and try to preserve nature only if we get out in it, "use" it, and grow to love it. To me, preserving access and preserving wilderness go hand-in-hand - we must strive for a balance that makes sense.

- Fish

Also well said and I don't think anything that I said is really in conflict with what you said. In fact I agree wholheartedly with everything you said with one exception. I just think that we run a serious risk of reacting too late and losing if we refuse to act on things before they become imminent threats. The best doctor prevents the disease before it occurs.

I know that conservation is not the primary function of the cIub but I always hope that getting people into the outdoors will bring such a deep appreciation to them that they will want to do everything they can to protect what is left of the natural world. For that reason, I am also working on access issues but that is also an area where members and chapters are going to have to step up before it is too late.

DeBo wrote:I know that conservation is not the primary function of the cIub but I always hope that getting people into the outdoors will bring such a deep appreciation to them that they will want to do everything they can to protect what is left of the natural world. For that reason, I am also working on access issues but that is also an area where members and chapters are going to have to step up before it is too late.

The club promotes paddle sports that we typically enjoy in somewhat remote and usually public areas. If we don't conserve, we won't have those places in which to enjoy our sport. To that end, we need to be proactive and not simply reactionary, saying "Man, can you believe that's gone? How did that happen?"

Good work Debbie.