I’ve only recently discovered that the National Park Service is investigating restricting camping on my favorite section of the St. Croix River (PDF). Just to formally state my opinion and perhaps hear what some readers think, here’s the full text of my letter to the Park Service on the issue.
Jill,
I will not be able to attend tomorrow evening’s meeting regarding the proposed new camping regulations for the lower St. Croix River. Unfortunately, this is the first I have heard of the process of examining problems with camping in the waterway and the search for solutions to them. I reviewed documents on the Park Service Web site outlining the proposals and wish to voice my opinion.The St. Croix River is a very special place, I’m sure you’re well aware of that. The diversity of the scenery, the wildlife and the opportunities for recreation are truly impressive. Every time I paddle a canoe on its waters I am awed that such beauty and wildness exist so close to a major metropolitan area, and to my hometown of Stillwater. Part of what makes it such a special place is its accessibility to all citizens. It truly is the people’s land.
While the preservation of the natural environment, and the conservation of the riverway’s wildness, is extremely important, so is the freedom of all who visit it. To make camping on these public lands cumbersome and confusing through new regulations will discourage many people from visiting, unsure about the legality of camping or simply if they will be able to find a “designated campsite” for a night on the river. I believe this would destroy the spirit of the river and change for the worse the way that people think of it, which will result in a lack of feelings of ownership and consequent disrespect for the river. I am sure that a solution to garbage and erosion problems exists that is more creative and ultimately will be more effective than simply restricting camping.
Thank you to you and everyone who has surely invested a lot of time and thought in this process. I wish you luck and thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.
Sincerely,
My Name
My Address
St. Paul, MN
Don’t get me wrong for one second, I care about conservation tremendously. You can even call me an “environmentalist,” though most environmentalists refer to themselves as “conservationists” these days. I love the Boundary Waters with all its Leave No Trace regulations, the designated campsites, the entry permits. But o’ do I love the public lands of this nation, the National Forests open to all comers, and none more than my home forest: the St. Croix River National Scenic Riverway and truly, the fact that the doors of that river are always open is just as important as the quasi-pristine wilderness found within.
Update Feb. 2007
The Park Service has released a draft proposal for managing camping on this section of the river and I have begun a multi-part series on the issue:
RSS
5 Comments
Bum, nice letter. I hope it gets read out loud at the meeting and helps them come up with, as you put it, a more creative solution than just banning camping. Seems a waste to me as well.
dharma bum- as an “insider” to these sorts of things, lately I cringe whenever I hear the words “management planning process” or “public input meeting”. “Management planning” is usually an exercise in futility and use of public dollars to facilitate travel and meetings among resource coordinators who may have never experienced the very resource they are managing as someone like you has. A “public input meeting” is usually a way to present “Here’s what we’ve decided to do and why.” Sorry to be so negative about it, that’s just the way it seems to work. And I don’t like it.
Nevertheless, you have written a very thoughtful, courteous letter and I hope it gets the attention it is due. Certainly very few know and love this stretch of river like you do; that is very apparent from your posts. Keep up the good fight. Someone has to!
thanks deb and katie.
deb, I think I realized that this letter very well may fall on deaf ears. not knowing who was reading it motivated me to try to make my point as clearly as possible, and to celebrate a bit the river as i love it. i don’t claim to know this river better than anyone, but the last time i paddled it i said to my partner: “i hope to know everything i can about this stretch of river by the time i’m an old man.” that’s my goal, and i only see that happening if it remains both protected and welcoming for the ages so i can always paddle it on a whim, which is how i usually get out there.
when i heard the NPS was investigating new “alternatives” i was pretty freaked out, considering what the Park Service has been doing lately (trying to open Nat’l Park to more commercializatoin, cell phones, roads, snowmobiles, etc.) nonetheless, the more i thought about what they were actually proposing (which doesn’t seem to have much to do with those other things) the more dangerous the proposals appeared.
i chose to post it on here because i thought it was an okay letter and, if nothing else, brought up something which i hoped might lead to some discussion: this balancing of preservation vs. usage. like i said, i’m very conservation-minded and thus it was kind of interesting to me personally when i wrote this argument for continued practices in the waterway that might not be the best for conservation. i figured some of the people that stop by this blog (and you, deb, were on the top of that list because of the line of work that you’re in and your own knowledge of the river) might have some arguments on either side of the issue that i’d like to hear.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot today, and I guess I’m at a loss to come up with a solution to the problem of conservation vs. the right to enjoy the river. If garbage, human waste, and erosion are the main issues, and if they are serious, I don’t see an elaborate permitting system as a solution that addresses the core problem itself, and like you say it would have the effect of discouraging use of the river. Without the opportunity to directly experience what the river has to offer, people cannot fully develop an appreciation for it and, with that, a sense of stewardship.
I can’t also help but think that the NPS is trying to over-regulate something that actually has very little impact, compared with all of the other cumulative impacts within the watershed that are much more difficult to regulate. A little erosion at one site is nothing compared with massive siltation and nutrient loading from land use practices upstream. And, as far as rivers go, the St. Croix is not really in that bad of shape.
I see the comment period is open until January. I am definitely going to write my own letter about this, and I encourage others who read this blog to read up on the issue and do the same.
That’s just it. I don’t think the river is in such bad shape, especially not as a result of camping. Far be it for me to just rely on my own anecdotal evidence and isolated observations, but it’s a beautiful stretch of river and I rarely see signs of human destruction or littering.
Perhaps below the Arcola High Bridge (upstream of which boats can not travel from downstream) where a lot of boaters tie up on the islands and party all weekend there’s a small problem, but on the stretch I enjoy (and which constitutes the majority of the section in question) I’ve never seen much garbage, erosion or anything else.
Thanks a lot for your thoughts and words on this one. I know this stretch of river relatively well, but it helps a lot to have you in agreement. Seems a little optimistic of you to talk about writing a letter though, doesn’t it?