Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

Expand Messages
  • Jon Bolt
    Dear Lake Managers: A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 24 8:38 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Lake Managers:
       
      A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
       
      I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
       
      An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
       
      Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding, which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restricting the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
       
      I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
       
      Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
       
      Regards,
      Jon Bolt
      Boise, Idaho
       
    • William
      Right on Jon !!!!!! Life is to short not to Kiteboard when ever possible Billy McMaster
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 24 8:49 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Right on Jon !!!!!!

        Life is to short not to Kiteboard when ever possible
        Billy McMaster


        On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:38, Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...> wrote:

        Dear Lake Managers:
         
        A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
         
        I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
         
        An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
         
        Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding,  which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restrictin g the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
         
        I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding  restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
         
        Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
         
        Regards,
        Jon Bolt
        Boise, Idaho
         

      • Gear Daddy LLC
        I would like to Second Jon Bolt¹s request as stated below. There is no reason to discriminate against kiteboarding. It is a true Sailing activity. This sport
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 24 8:55 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Re: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions... I would like to Second Jon Bolt’s request as stated below.

          There is no reason to discriminate against kiteboarding. It is a true Sailing activity.  

          This sport is not the sport of “kite tubing”  (water-ski like Tube behind boat that flies like a kite) which has been banned nationally.  Please do not confuse the 2 sports.

          Eddy Petranek
          Boise, ID
          Kiteboarding since 1997



          From: Kiter - Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...>
          Reply-To: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>
          Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:38:48 -0600
          To: <deerflat@...>, <thelake@...>, <elaine_johnson@...>
          Cc: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>, <idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

           
            

            

          Dear Lake Managers:
           
          A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
           
          I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
           
          An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
           
          Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding, which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restricting the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
           
          I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
           
          Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
           
          Regards,
          Jon Bolt
          Boise, Idaho
           
            
              


        • Whitney Rearick
          Hi - I m writing to offer my services as a community organizer.  Y all can fight this and maybe even win, but you have to get organized, and, even better, put
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 24 9:07 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi -
             
            I'm writing to offer my services as a community organizer.  Y'all can fight this and maybe even win, but you have to get organized, and, even better, put together a plan.  Clearly there are enough of you out there that feel strongly about this to make it happen. 
             
            I'm working with grassroots organizations all over the west right now to work with (or against) the Forst Service and other agencies to allow nonmotorized trail access.  All the same principles apply.  Let me know if you want to set up a meeting to get something together, and I'll show up.
             
            Whitney


            From: Gear Daddy LLC <geardaddyllc@...>
            To: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>; deerflat@...; thelake@...; elaine_johnson@...
            Cc: idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:55:30 AM
            Subject: Re: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

            I would like to Second Jon Bolt’s request as stated below.

            There is no reason to discriminate against kiteboarding. It is a true Sailing activity.  

            This sport is not the sport of “kite tubing”  (water-ski like Tube behind boat that flies like a kite) which has been banned nationally.  Please do not confuse the 2 sports.

            Eddy Petranek
            Boise, ID
            Kiteboarding since 1997



            From: Kiter - Jon Bolt <idakiteman@gmail. com>
            Reply-To: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>
            Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:38:48 -0600
            To: <deerflat@fws. gov>, <thelake@canyonco. org>, <elaine_johnson@ fws.gov>
            Cc: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>, <idahokiteboarding@ yahoogroups. com>
            Subject: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions. ..

             
              

              

            Dear Lake Managers:
             
            A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
             
            I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
             
            An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
             
            Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding,  which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restrictin g the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
             
            I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding  restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
             
            Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
             
            Regards,
            Jon Bolt
            Boise, Idaho
             
              
                



          • Jon Bolt
            I forgot to tell the snowkiteidaho group: Elaine Johnson is the Deer Flat manager, but is departing today for a new job. Her replacement has not been hired,
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 24 9:15 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              I forgot to tell the snowkiteidaho group:  Elaine Johnson is the Deer Flat manager, but is departing today for a new job.  Her replacement has not been hired, so it may be months before that position is filled.  In the meantime the refuge enforcement officer, Todd Fenzl, says no single person has been designated as interim manager.   Elaine's email is an FWS.gov suffix, so it will follow her to her new job in Arizona, and if you send her messages about Deer Flat, she likely would forward them to someone back here who might be empowered, so keep sending communication to her.  BUT also, cc: Susan Kain (susan_kain@...).  She is the 'visitor services manager'.  The enforcement officer is Todd Fenzl (todd_fenzl@...).
               
              Bury them quick and hard w/ feedback...
               
              Jon

              On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Gear Daddy LLC <geardaddyllc@...> wrote:


              I would like to Second Jon Bolt’s request as stated below.

              There is no reason to discriminate against kiteboarding. It is a true Sailing activity.  

              This sport is not the sport of “kite tubing”  (water-ski like Tube behind boat that flies like a kite) which has been banned nationally.  Please do not confuse the 2 sports.

              Eddy Petranek
              Boise, ID
              Kiteboarding since 1997



              From: Kiter - Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...>
              Reply-To: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>
              Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:38:48 -0600
              To: <deerflat@...>, <thelake@...>, <elaine_johnson@...>
              Cc: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>, <idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...


               
                

                

              Dear Lake Managers:
               
              A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
               
              I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
               
              An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
               
              Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding, which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restricting the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
               
              I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
               
              Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
               
              Regards,
              Jon Bolt
              Boise, Idaho
               
                
                  



            • Jason Brickner
              Hello, My name is Jason Brickner. I also want to voice my concern over the recent apparent ban on kiteboarding. I have been kiteboarding there for the past
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 24 10:41 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello,
                 
                My name is Jason Brickner.  I also want to voice my concern over the recent 'apparent' ban on kiteboarding.  I have been kiteboarding there for the past 3 years with no restriction.  I would hate to see such a 'green and clean' sport banned from the refuge.  Please reconsider your recent 'apparent' ban.
                 
                -Jason Brickner


                From: snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com [mailto:snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gear Daddy LLC
                Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:56 AM
                To: Snowkiteidaho; deerflat@...; thelake@...; elaine_johnson@...
                Cc: idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

                I would like to Second Jon Bolt’s request as stated below.

                There is no reason to discriminate against kiteboarding. It is a true Sailing activity.  

                This sport is not the sport of “kite tubing”  (water-ski like Tube behind boat that flies like a kite) which has been banned nationally.  Please do not confuse the 2 sports.

                Eddy Petranek
                Boise, ID
                Kiteboarding since 1997



                From: Kiter - Jon Bolt <idakiteman@gmail. com>
                Reply-To: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>
                Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:38:48 -0600
                To: <deerflat@fws. gov>, <thelake@canyonco. org>, <elaine_johnson@ fws.gov>
                Cc: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>, <idahokiteboarding@ yahoogroups. com>
                Subject: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions. ..

                 
                  

                  

                Dear Lake Managers:
                 
                A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
                 
                I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
                 
                An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
                 
                Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding,  which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restrictin g the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
                 
                I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding  restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
                 
                Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
                 
                Regards,
                Jon Bolt
                Boise, Idaho
                 
                  
                    


              • Steve Linane
                Whitney What is our next step we all emailed our concerns . I can get Mayor Tom Dale of Nampa if we need him . Steve ... From: Whitney Rearick To:
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 24 4:21 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  
                  Whitney
                  What is our next step we all emailed our concerns . I can get Mayor Tom Dale of Nampa if we need him .
                  Steve
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 10:07 AM
                  Subject: Re: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

                  Hi -
                   
                  I'm writing to offer my services as a community organizer.  Y'all can fight this and maybe even win, but you have to get organized, and, even better, put together a plan.  Clearly there are enough of you out there that feel strongly about this to make it happen. 
                   
                  I'm working with grassroots organizations all over the west right now to work with (or against) the Forst Service and other agencies to allow nonmotorized trail access.  All the same principles apply.  Let me know if you want to set up a meeting to get something together, and I'll show up.
                   
                  Whitney


                  From: Gear Daddy LLC <geardaddyllc@ gmail.com>
                  To: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>; deerflat@fws. gov; thelake@canyonco. org; elaine_johnson@ fws.gov
                  Cc: idahokiteboarding@ yahoogroups. com
                  Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:55:30 AM
                  Subject: Re: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions. ..

                  I would like to Second Jon Bolt’s request as stated below.

                  There is no reason to discriminate against kiteboarding. It is a true Sailing activity.  

                  This sport is not the sport of “kite tubing”  (water-ski like Tube behind boat that flies like a kite) which has been banned nationally.  Please do not confuse the 2 sports.

                  Eddy Petranek
                  Boise, ID
                  Kiteboarding since 1997



                  From: Kiter - Jon Bolt <idakiteman@gmail. com>
                  Reply-To: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>
                  Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:38:48 -0600
                  To: <deerflat@fws. gov>, <thelake@canyonco. org>, <elaine_johnson@ fws.gov>
                  Cc: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>, <idahokiteboarding@ yahoogroups. com>
                  Subject: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions. ..

                   
                    

                    

                  Dear Lake Managers:
                   
                  A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding" ...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
                   
                  I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
                   
                  An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
                   
                  Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding,  which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restrictin g the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
                   
                  I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding  restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
                   
                  Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
                   
                  Regards,
                  Jon Bolt
                  Boise, Idaho
                   
                    
                      



                • Gear Daddy LLC
                  Steve , If you know the Mayor. Call him ASAP. A little upper level power could solve this fast. Eddy From: Kiter - Steve & Kris Linane
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 25 7:23 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Re: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions... Steve ,

                    If you know the Mayor.  Call him ASAP.

                    A little upper level power could solve this fast.

                    Eddy


                    From: Kiter - Steve & Kris Linane <stevelinane@...>
                    Reply-To: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>
                    Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:21:17 -0600
                    To: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>
                    Subject: Re: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

                     
                      

                      

                    
                    Whitney
                    What is our next step we all emailed our concerns . I can get Mayor Tom Dale of Nampa if we need him .
                    Steve

                    ----- Original Message -----
                     
                    From:  Whitney  Rearick <mailto:whitnuld@...>  
                     
                    To: snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com  
                     
                    Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 10:07  AM
                     
                    Subject: Re: [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on  lake low recreational use restrictions...
                     

                     
                     

                     

                    Hi -
                     
                     
                     
                    I'm writing to offer my services as a community organizer.  Y'all  can fight this and maybe even win, but you have to get organized, and, even  better, put together a plan.  Clearly there are enough of you out there  that feel strongly about this to make it happen.  
                     
                     
                     
                    I'm working with grassroots organizations all over the west right now to  work with (or against) the Forst Service and other agencies to allow  nonmotorized trail access.  All the same principles  apply <http://www.winterwildlands.org/grassroots/start.php> .  Let me know if you want to set up a meeting to get something  together, and I'll show up.
                     
                     
                     
                    Whitney
                     

                     


                    From:
                    Gear Daddy LLC  <geardaddyllc@...>
                    To: Snowkiteidaho  <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>; deerflat@...;  thelake@...; elaine_johnson@...
                    Cc:  idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:55:30  AM
                    Subject: Re:  [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use  restrictions...

                     
                     

                    I would like to Second Jon Bolt’s request as stated  below.

                    There is no reason to discriminate against kiteboarding. It is a  true Sailing activity.  

                    This sport is not the sport of “kite  tubing”  (water-ski like Tube behind boat that flies like a kite) which  has been banned nationally.  Please do not confuse the 2  sports.

                    Eddy Petranek
                    Boise, ID
                    Kiteboarding since  1997


                     

                    From: Kiter - Jon Bolt <idakiteman@gmail.  com>
                    Reply-To: Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>
                    Date: Fri, 24  Apr 2009 09:38:48 -0600
                    To: <deerflat@fws.  gov>, <thelake@canyonco. org>, <elaine_johnson@ fws.gov>
                    Cc: Snowkiteidaho  <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>, <idahokiteboarding@ yahoogroups. com>
                    Subject:  [snowkiteidaho] New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions.  ..

                     
                      

                      

                    Dear Lake  Managers:
                     
                    A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell  and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing  recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me  that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction  that has not been listed in past years.
                     
                    I'd like to request a  copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of  the brochure that lists this new restriction.
                     
                    An article in  today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has  initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake  Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to  present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding  has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded  there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using  Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years  past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever  been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction  on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the  'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to  Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input  (or input from the community of affected users).
                     
                    Additionally, I  am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is  not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water  craft.  Surely kiteboarding,  which is essentially sailing on a  small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat  than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking  oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the  water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and  impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained  near the few areas that have suitable launch/land  features.  Restrictin g the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding  while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems  inconsistent and unreasonable.
                     
                    I would like to appeal this new  kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making  process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all  other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be  misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be  rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as  restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive  confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and  other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste  everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of  historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively  enforcing a kiteboarding  restriction when far more disruptive  uses are permitted.
                     
                    Please remove the new restriction on  kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making  process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the  restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new  rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is  concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its  outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and  needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may  arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an  activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on  Lake Lowell.
                     
                    Regards,
                    Jon Bolt
                    Boise,  Idaho
                     
                      
                        





                     

                     
                       


                  • Jon Bolt
                    Elaine and Todd, Thank you both for taking the time to reply to my recent inquiries on behalf of the Boise Sailor s Association. While I am no expert on public
                    Message 9 of 14 , May 2, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Elaine and Todd,
                       
                      Thank you both for taking the time to reply to my recent inquiries on behalf of the Boise Sailor's Association.
                       
                      While I am no expert on public uses of Federal Wildlife Refuges, with regard to regulations for public use I note the Code of Federal Regulations states the following:
                       
                      Title 50, Subpart C:  Public Use and Recreation;
                      Sec. 26.32  Recreational uses:    Recreational uses such as, but not limited to, sightseeing, nature observation and photography, interpretive centers and exhibits, hunting and fishing, bathing, boating, camping, ice skating, picnicking, swimming, water skiing, and other similar activities may be permitted on national wildlife refuges. When such uses are permitted the public will be notified under the provisions of this subchapter C.

                      Title 50, SubpartC, Part 26.33 (6):  Special regulations [i.e, for individual wildlife refuges] for public use, access, and recreation are published in the daily issue of the Federal Register and may be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. They shall be issued in compliance with procedures contained in the Departmental Manual.
                       
                      TITLE 50, Subpart C, Sec. 26.34:  What are the special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges?
                          The following refuge units, listed in alphabetical order by State and unit name, have refuge-specific regulations for public access, use, and recreation....
                       
                      In light of the above, permit me to ask five questions: 

                      1)  In the Federal Register, why is there no regulation restricting kiteboarding at Lake Lowell?  26.33.6 suggests posting in the Federal Register is a required element of establishing a special regulation restriction? 
                       
                      2)  Regulation 26.34 answers: "What are the special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges".  Why does 26.34 fail to contain any special regulations whatsoever restricting uses for Lake Lowell when it clearly details restrictions at other refuges?  26.33.6 states "Special regulations for public use...are published in the daily issue of the Federal Register and may be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.  However, while other refuges publish their restrictions in the Federal Register and have clearly codified them in the CFR's, why has Deeflat done neither, including for the alleged ban on kiteboarding?
                       
                      3)  Title 50, Subpart C, Sec. 26.41:  "What is the process for determining if a use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use?
                          "...This section provides guidelines for making compatibility determinations, and procedures for documenting compatibility determinations and for periodic review of compatibility determinations..."
                      The section goes on to detail the analyses and questions-to-be-answered prior to determining whether a use is compatible or incompatible.
                       
                      Since for over 7 years a kiteboarding ban was never alleged or enforced (i.e., it was permitted) we'd like to understand the analysis and rationale behind this new treatment of kiteboarding.  Why has it been judged to be an incompatible use when so many other uses are permitted that are vastly more threatening to wildlife?  One of our members mentioned Todd explaining something about "airspace" as the reason for considering a ban.  We'd like to understand the analysis and answers to the types of questions in 26.41 so we may better understand the objective reasons why kiteboarding is alleged to be an incompatible use, when other far more pervasive and incompatible uses are permitted.
                       
                      4)  What are the procedures in the Interior Department's "Departmental Manual" that are to be followed prior to issuing a special regulation?  Our members have kiteboarded at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (not just a couple of years), unavoidably visible to attentive refuge personnel.  Never over that long period (until last year) did any refuge personnel ever allege potential of a ban and never at any time have they enforced such a ban.  In law, such a "course of dealing" is often sufficient to establish entitlement to a right and a waiver of an enforcer's right to enforce.  Law aside, the observations raised in questions 1 to 3 above, the long pattern of permitting our use, the total absence of any engagement with us to pose questions about or understand our use, and the sudden change in policy (evidenced by change to the refuge brochure) makes us wonder whether the proper procedures were performed prior asserting existence of a ban?  Please furnish the content of the Departmental Manual detailing procedures to be followed prior to issuing special regulations and restrictions, so we may assure all proper procedures were followed prior to establishing any bans. 
                      5)  May we also know, is windsurfing (also know as sailboarding) a permitted activity?
                       
                      Thanks in advance for replying to the above questions.  I will shortly attempt to setup a meeting with Susan and Todd to introduce ourselves and further discuss this issue.
                       
                      Regards,
                       
                      Jon Bolt
                      Boise Sailors' Association

                      On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:20 PM, <Elaine_Johnson@...> wrote:

                      I have received your e-mails and would like to take the opportunity to tell you a bit about National Wildlife Refuges and their regulations and management.

                      National Wildlife Refuge lands are different than many other Federal lands. Refuges are closed to all activities unless specifically authorized. Kiteboarding has never been authorized or sanctioned. Kiteboarding was added to the list of prohibited activities in our flyer as we have seen an increase in the number of users participating in this unlawful activity. It is not a new restriction. Since refuges are closed to activities unless opened, the list of prohibited activities is not all inclusive. Instead we try to focus on allowed activities. The list of prohibited activities includes activities commonly inquired about or an unauthorized activity we have seen occurring regularly.

                      We first encountered kiteboarders a couple years ago and explained to the folks we talked with that kiteboarding was not allowed. There have been several other times over the last couple years that we have encountered and spoken with kiteboarders. This is not a case of an unauthorized activity continuing due to unresponsiveness from the refuge.

                      While there are a number of activities occurring on the lake that were not authorized, these activities have been occurring for decades. They will be reviewed and addressed in our up-coming Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).

                      The refuge has a specific legislated purpose - to provide a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife. The refuge is part of a national network of lands with a mission to conserve, manage, and restore where possible, wildlife and wildlife habitat. Our primary emphasis is on wildlife.

                      Recreation occurring on refuges is to be wildlife-dependant and includes six specified activities – hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Even these uses must be compatible and occur at a level and a location that does not interfere with our wildlife and habitat conservation mission. Activities which are not wildlife dependent are not to be encouraged on refuges.

                      The refuge will soon be developing a long-term (15 year) management plan for the refuge. In the development of the CCP, current and future management and public uses activities will be evaluated in the context of the refuge purpose. The CCP will be developed with input from partners and the public. Your name has been added to our contact list.

                      In the mean time, the refuge will continue to enforce no kiteboarding as it has in the past.

                      Elaine Johnson
                      Refuge Manager




                      Inactive hide details for Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...>Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...>



                      To

                      deerflat@..., thelake@..., elaine_johnson@...

                      cc

                      Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>, idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com

                      Subject

                      New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

                      Dear Lake Managers:
                       
                      A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
                       
                      I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
                       
                      An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
                       
                      Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding, which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restricting the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
                       
                      I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
                       
                      Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
                       
                      Regards,
                      Jon Bolt
                      Boise, Idaho
                       


                    • Jason Brickner
                      Hey John, Not sure it matters much here, but my neighbor used to windsurf at Lake Lowell in the late 80 s/early 90 s. He said they were never told it was
                      Message 10 of 14 , May 2, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hey John,
                         
                        Not sure it matters much here, but my neighbor used to windsurf at Lake Lowell in the late 80's/early 90's.  He said they were never told it was illegal.
                         
                        Thanks for all the work you're doing on this.  Isn't it crazy... we only use Lake Lowell about 10-20 times per year.
                         
                        -Jason


                        From: snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com [mailto:snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Bolt
                        Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 8:40 AM
                        To: elaine_johnson@...; susan_kain@...; Todd_fenzl@...
                        Cc: Boise Sailors Association; idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com; Snowkiteidaho; thelake@...; Jon Bolt
                        Subject: [snowkiteidaho] Re: New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

                        Elaine and Todd,
                         
                        Thank you both for taking the time to reply to my recent inquiries on behalf of the Boise Sailor's Association.
                         
                        While I am no expert on public uses of Federal Wildlife Refuges, with regard to regulations for public use I note the Code of Federal Regulations states the following:
                         
                        Title 50, Subpart C:  Public Use and Recreation;
                        Sec. 26.32  Recreational uses:    Recreational uses such as, but not limited to, sightseeing, nature observation and photography, interpretive centers and exhibits, hunting and fishing, bathing, boating, camping, ice skating, picnicking, swimming, water skiing, and other similar activities may be permitted on national wildlife refuges. When such uses are permitted the public will be notified under the provisions of this subchapter C.

                        Title 50, SubpartC, Part 26.33 (6):  Special regulations [ i.e, for individua l wildlife refuges] for public use, access, and recreation are published in the daily issue of the Federal Register and may be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. They shall be issued in compliance with procedures contained in the Departmental Manual.
                         
                        TITLE 50, Subpart C, Sec. 26.34:  What are the special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges?
                            The following refuge units, listed in alphabetical order by State and unit name, have refuge-specific regulations for public access, use, and recreation.. ..

                        In light of the above, permit me to ask five questions: 

                        1)  In the Federal Register, why is there no regulation restricting kiteboarding at Lake Lowell?  26.33.6 suggests posting in the Federal Register is a required element of establishing a special regulation restriction? 
                         
                        2)  Regulation 26.34 answers: "What are the special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges".  Why does 26.34 fail to contain any special regulations whatsoever restricting uses for Lake Lowell when it clearly details restrictions  at other refuges?  26.33.6 states "Special regulations for public use...are published in the daily issue of the Federal Register and may be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.  However, while other refuges publish their restrictions in the Federal Register and have clearly codified them in the CFR's, why has Deeflat done neither, including for the alleged ban on kiteboarding?
                         
                        3)  Title 50, Subpart C, Sec. 26.41:  "What is the process for determining if a use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use?
                            "...This section provides guidelines for making compatibility determinations, and procedures for documenting compatibility determinations and for periodic review of compatibility determinations. .."
                        The section goes on to detail the analyses and questions-to- be-answered prior to determining whether a use is compatible or incompatible.
                         
                        Since for over 7 years a kiteboarding ban was never alleged or enforced (i.e., it was permitted) we'd like to understand the analysis and rationale behind this new treatment of kiteboarding.  Why has it been judged to be an incompatible use when so many other uses are permitted that are vastly more threatening to wildlife?  One of our members mentioned Todd explaining something about "airspace" as the reason for considering a ban.  We'd like to understand the analysis and answers to the types of questions in 26.41 so we may better understand the objective reasons why kiteboarding is alleged to be an incompatible use, when other far more pervasive and incompatible uses are permitted.
                         
                        4)  What are the procedures in the Interior Department's "Departmental Manual" that are to be followed prior to issuing a special regulation?  Our members have kiteboarded at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (not just a couple of years), unavoidably visible to attentive refuge personnel.  Never  over that long period (until last year) did any refuge personnel ever allege potential of a ban and never at any time have they enforced such a ban.  In law, such a "course of dealing" is often sufficient to establish entitlement to a right and a waiver of an enforcer's right to enforce.  Law aside, the observations raised in questions 1 to 3 above, the long pattern of permitting our use, the total absence of any engagement with us to pose questions about or understand our use, and the sudden change in policy (evidenced by change to the refuge brochure) makes us wonder whether the proper procedures were performed prior asserting  existence of a ban?  Please furnish the content of the Departmental Manual detailing procedures to be followed prior to issuing special regulations and restrictions, so we may assure all proper procedures were followed prior to establishing any bans. 
                        5)  May we also know, is windsurfing (also know as sailboarding) a permitted activity?
                         
                        Thanks in advance for replying to the above questions.  I will shortly attempt to setup a meeting with Susan and Todd to introduce ourselves and further discuss this issue.
                         
                        Regards,

                        Jon Bolt
                        Boise Sailors' Association

                        On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:20 PM, <Elaine_Johnson@ fws.gov> wrote:

                        I have received your e-mails and would like to take the opportunity to tell you a bit about National Wildlife Refuges and their regulations and management.

                        National Wildlife Refuge lands are different than many other Federal lands. Refuges are closed to all activities unless specifically authorized. Kiteboarding has never been authorized or sanctioned. Kiteboarding was added to the list of prohibited activities in our flyer as we have seen an increase in the number of users participating in this unlawful activity. It is not a new restriction. Since refuges are closed to activities unless opened, the list of prohibited activities is not all inclusive. Instead we try to focus on allowed activities. The list of prohibited activities includes activities commonly inquired about or an unauthorized activity we have seen occurring regularly.

                        We first encountered kiteboarders a couple years ago and explained to the folks we talked with that kiteboarding was not allowed. There have been several other times over the last couple years that we have encountered and spoken with kiteboarders. This is not a case of an unauthorized activity continuing due to unresponsiveness from the refuge.

                        While there are a number of activities occurring on the lake that were not authorized, these activities have been occurring for decades. They will be reviewed and addressed in our up-coming Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).

                        The refuge has a specific legislated purpose - to provide a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife. The refuge is part of a national network of lands with a mission to conserve, manage, and restore where possible, wildlife and wildlife habitat. Our primary emphasis is on wildlife.

                        Recreation occurring on refuges is to be wildlife-dependant and includes six specified activities – hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Even these uses must be compatible and occur at a level and a location that does not interfere with our wildlife and habitat conservation mission. Activities which are not wildlife dependent are not to be encouraged on refuges.

                        The refuge will soon be developing a long-term (15 year) management plan for the refuge. In the development of the CCP, current and future management and public uses activities will be evaluated in the context of the refuge purpose. The CCP will be developed with input from partners and the public. Your name has been added to our contact list.

                        In the mean time, the refuge will continue to enforce no kiteboarding as it has in the past.

                        Elaine Johnson
                        Refuge Manager


                        To

                        deerflat@fws. gov, thelake@canyonco. org, elaine_johnson@ fws.gov

                        cc

                        Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>, idahokiteboarding@ yahoogroups. com

                        Subject

                        New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions. ..

                        Dear Lake Managers:
                         
                        A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
                         
                        I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
                         
                        An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
                         
                        Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding,  which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restrictin g the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
                         
                        I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding  restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
                         
                        Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
                         
                        Regards,
                        Jon Bolt
                        Boise, Idaho
                         


                      • Jon Bolt
                        Yes, and I don t think sailboarding s illegal there today. I asked the question to get them on record saying sailboarding is permitted . This would open the
                        Message 11 of 14 , May 2, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yes, and I don't think sailboarding's illegal there today.  I asked the question to get them on record saying "sailboarding is permitted".
                           
                          This would open the door to another line of challenge.  Kiteboarding is sailboarding or windsurfing.  There simply is a difference in shape of board and sail.  (Although to the untrained eye, directional kiteboards are about indistintuishable from windsurf board appearance, so maybe its mainly a change in shape of sail).  It's an evolution.  When water-skiing evolved to wakeboarding, involving a new board shape and skylons for getting big air, wakeboarding was not prohibited (nor explicitly approved I bet).  When shapes changed further to tow tubes, that new medium was probably neither prohibited or approved.  If those activities were permitted as acceptable extensions of water skiing, or never explicity approved but permitted, I think we could equally claim kiteboarding to be permitted based on its classification as a form of sailboarding.
                           
                          Jon

                          On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Jason Brickner <jasonbrickner@...> wrote:


                          Hey John,
                           
                          Not sure it matters much here, but my neighbor used to windsurf at Lake Lowell in the late 80's/early 90's.  He said they were never told it was illegal.
                           
                          Thanks for all the work you're doing on this.  Isn't it crazy... we only use Lake Lowell about 10-20 times per year.
                           
                          -Jason


                          From: snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com [mailto:snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Bolt
                          Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 8:40 AM
                          To: elaine_johnson@...; susan_kain@...; Todd_fenzl@...
                          Cc: Boise Sailors Association; idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com; Snowkiteidaho; thelake@...; Jon Bolt
                          Subject: [snowkiteidaho] Re: New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

                          Elaine and Todd,
                           
                          Thank you both for taking the time to reply to my recent inquiries on behalf of the Boise Sailor's Association.
                           
                          While I am no expert on public uses of Federal Wildlife Refuges, with regard to regulations for public use I note the Code of Federal Regulations states the following:
                           
                          Title 50, Subpart C:  Public Use and Recreation;
                          Sec. 26.32  Recreational uses:    Recreational uses such as, but not limited to, sightseeing, nature observation and photography, interpretive centers and exhibits, hunting and fishing, bathing, boating, camping, ice skating, picnicking, swimming, water skiing, and other similar activities may be permitted on national wildlife refuges. When such uses are permitted the public will be notified under the provisions of this subchapter C.

                          Title 50, SubpartC, Part 26.33 (6):  Special regulations [i.e, for individual wildlife refuges] for public use, access, and recreation are published in the daily issue of the Federal Register and may be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. They shall be issued in compliance with procedures contained in the Departmental Manual.
                           
                          TITLE 50, Subpart C, Sec. 26.34:  What are the special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges?
                              The following refuge units, listed in alphabetical order by State and unit name, have refuge-specific regulations for public access, use, and recreation....

                          In light of the above, permit me to ask five questions: 

                          1)  In the Federal Register, why is there no regulation restricting kiteboarding at Lake Lowell?  26.33.6 suggests posting in the Federal Register is a required element of establishing a special regulation restriction? 
                           
                          2)  Regulation 26.34 answers: "What are the special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges".  Why does 26.34 fail to contain any special regulations whatsoever restricting uses for Lake Lowell when it clearly details restrictions at other refuges?  26.33.6 states "Special regulations for public use...are published in the daily issue of the Federal Register and may be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.  However, while other refuges publish their restrictions in the Federal Register and have clearly codified them in the CFR's, why has Deeflat done neither, including for the alleged ban on kiteboarding?
                           
                          3)  Title 50, Subpart C, Sec. 26.41:  "What is the process for determining if a use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use?
                              "...This section provides guidelines for making compatibility determinations, and procedures for documenting compatibility determinations and for periodic review of compatibility determinations..."
                          The section goes on to detail the analyses and questions-to-be-answered prior to determining whether a use is compatible or incompatible.
                           
                          Since for over 7 years a kiteboarding ban was never alleged or enforced (i.e., it was permitted) we'd like to understand the analysis and rationale behind this new treatment of kiteboarding.  Why has it been judged to be an incompatible use when so many other uses are permitted that are vastly more threatening to wildlife?  One of our members mentioned Todd explaining something about "airspace" as the reason for considering a ban.  We'd like to understand the analysis and answers to the types of questions in 26.41 so we may better understand the objective reasons why kiteboarding is alleged to be an incompatible use, when other far more pervasive and incompatible uses are permitted.
                           
                          4)  What are the procedures in the Interior Department's "Departmental Manual" that are to be followed prior to issuing a special regulation?  Our members have kiteboarded at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (not just a couple of years), unavoidably visible to attentive refuge personnel.  Never over that long period (until last year) did any refuge personnel ever allege potential of a ban and never at any time have they enforced such a ban.  In law, such a "course of dealing" is often sufficient to establish entitlement to a right and a waiver of an enforcer's right to enforce.  Law aside, the observations raised in questions 1 to 3 above, the long pattern of permitting our use, the total absence of any engagement with us to pose questions about or understand our use, and the sudden change in policy (evidenced by change to the refuge brochure) makes us wonder whether the proper procedures were performed prior asserting existence of a ban?  Please furnish the content of the Departmental Manual detailing procedures to be followed prior to issuing special regulations and restrictions, so we may assure all proper procedures were followed prior to establishing any bans. 
                          5)  May we also know, is windsurfing (also know as sailboarding) a permitted activity?
                           
                          Thanks in advance for replying to the above questions.  I will shortly attempt to setup a meeting with Susan and Todd to introduce ourselves and further discuss this issue.
                           
                          Regards,

                          Jon Bolt
                          Boise Sailors' Association

                          On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:20 PM, <Elaine_Johnson@...> wrote:

                          I have received your e-mails and would like to take the opportunity to tell you a bit about National Wildlife Refuges and their regulations and management.

                          National Wildlife Refuge lands are different than many other Federal lands. Refuges are closed to all activities unless specifically authorized. Kiteboarding has never been authorized or sanctioned. Kiteboarding was added to the list of prohibited activities in our flyer as we have seen an increase in the number of users participating in this unlawful activity. It is not a new restriction. Since refuges are closed to activities unless opened, the list of prohibited activities is not all inclusive. Instead we try to focus on allowed activities. The list of prohibited activities includes activities commonly inquired about or an unauthorized activity we have seen occurring regularly.

                          We first encountered kiteboarders a couple years ago and explained to the folks we talked with that kiteboarding was not allowed. There have been several other times over the last couple years that we have encountered and spoken with kiteboarders. This is not a case of an unauthorized activity continuing due to unresponsiveness from the refuge.

                          While there are a number of activities occurring on the lake that were not authorized, these activities have been occurring for decades. They will be reviewed and addressed in our up-coming Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).

                          The refuge has a specific legislated purpose - to provide a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife. The refuge is part of a national network of lands with a mission to conserve, manage, and restore where possible, wildlife and wildlife habitat. Our primary emphasis is on wildlife.

                          Recreation occurring on refuges is to be wildlife-dependant and includes six specified activities – hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Even these uses must be compatible and occur at a level and a location that does not interfere with our wildlife and habitat conservation mission. Activities which are not wildlife dependent are not to be encouraged on refuges.

                          The refuge will soon be developing a long-term (15 year) management plan for the refuge. In the development of the CCP, current and future management and public uses activities will be evaluated in the context of the refuge purpose. The CCP will be developed with input from partners and the public. Your name has been added to our contact list.

                          In the mean time, the refuge will continue to enforce no kiteboarding as it has in the past.

                          Elaine Johnson
                          Refuge Manager




                          Inactive hide details for Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...>Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...>



                          To

                          deerflat@..., thelake@..., elaine_johnson@...

                          cc

                          Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>, idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com

                          Subject

                          New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

                          Dear Lake Managers:
                           
                          A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell.   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
                           
                          I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
                           
                          An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell.  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
                           
                          Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding, which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restricting the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
                           
                          I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
                           
                          Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
                           
                          Regards,
                          Jon Bolt
                          Boise, Idaho
                           



                        • Gear Daddy LLC
                          Kiteboarding is to windurfing As Snowboarding is to skiing Sent from Eddy Petranek ... Kiteboarding is to windurfing As Snowboarding is to skiing Sent from
                          Message 12 of 14 , May 2, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Kiteboarding is to windurfing 

                            As

                            Snowboarding is to skiing

                            Sent from 
                            Eddy Petranek 


                            On May 2, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...> wrote:

                            Yes, and I don't think sailboarding's illegal there today.  I asked the question to get them on record saying "sailboarding is permitted".
                             
                            This would open the door to another line of challenge.  Kiteboarding is sailboarding or windsurfing.  There simply is a difference in shape of board and sail.  (Although to the untrained eye, directional kiteboards are about indistintuishable from windsurf board appearance, so maybe its mainly a change in shape of sail).  It's an evolution.  When water-skiing evolved to wakeboarding, involving a new board shape and skylons for getting big air, wakeboarding was not prohibited (nor explicitly approved I bet).  When shapes changed further to tow tubes, that new medium was probably neither prohibited or approved.  If those activities were permitted as acceptable extension s of water skiing, or never explicity approved but permitted, I think we could equally claim kiteboarding to be permitted based on its classification as a form of sailboarding.
                             
                            Jon

                            On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Jason Brickner <jasonbrickner@ msn.com> wrote:


                            Hey John,
                             
                            Not sure it matters much here, but my neighbor used to windsurf at Lake Lowell in the late 80's/early 90's.  He said they were never told it was illegal.
                             
                            Thanks for all the work you're doing on this.  Isn't it crazy... we only use Lake Lowell about 10-20 times per year.
                             
                            -Jason


                            From: snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Jon Bolt
                            Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 8:40 AM
                            To: elaine_johnson@ fws.gov; susan_kain@fws. gov; Todd_fenzl@fws. gov
                            Cc: Boise Sailors Association; idahokiteboarding@ yahoogroups. com; Snowkiteidaho; thelake@canyonco. org; Jon Bolt
                            Subject: [snowkiteidaho] Re: New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions. ..

                            Elaine and Todd,
                             
                            Thank you both for taking the time to reply to my recent inquiries on behalf of the Boise Sailor's Association.
                             
                            While I am no expert on public uses of Federal Wildlife Refuges, with regard to regulations for public use I note the Code of Federal Regulations states the following:
                             
                            Title 50, Subpart C:  Public Use and Recreation;
                            Sec. 26.32  Recreational uses:    Recreational uses such as, but not limited to, sightseeing, nature observation and photography, interpretive centers and exhibits, hunting and fishing, bathing, boating, camping, ice skating, picnicking, swimming, water skiing, and other similar activities may be permitted on national wildlife refuges. When such uses are permitted the public will be notified under the provisions of this subchapter C.

                            Title 50, SubpartC, Part 26.33 (6):  Special regulations [ i.e, for individua l wildlife refuges] for public use, access, and recreation are published in the daily issue of the Federal Register and may be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. They shall be issued in compliance with procedures contained in the Departmental Manual.
                             
                            TITLE 50, Subpart C, Sec. 26.34:  What are the special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges?
                                The following refuge units, listed in alphabetical order by State and unit name, have refuge-specific regulations for public access, use, and recreation.. ..

                            In light of the above, permit me to ask five questions: 

                            1)  In the Federal Register, why is there no regulation restricting kiteboarding at Lake Lowell?  26.33.6 suggests posting in the Federal Register is a required element of establishing a special regulation restriction? 
                             
                            2)  Regulation 26.34 answers: "What are the special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges".  Why does 26.34 fail to contain any special regulations whatsoever restricting uses for Lake Lowell when it clearly details restrictions  at other refuges?  26.33.6 states "Special regulations for public use...are published in the daily issue of the Federal Register and may be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.  However, while other refuges publish their restrictions in the Federal Register and have clearly codified them in the CFR's, why has Deeflat done neither, including for the alleged ban on kiteboarding?
                             
                            3)  Title 50, Subpart C, Sec. 26.41:  "What is the process for determining if a use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use?
                                "...This section provides guidelines for making compatibility determinations, and procedures for documenting compatibility determinations and for periodic review of compatibility determinations. .."
                            The section goes on to detail the analyses and questions-to- be-answered prior to determining whether a use is compatible or incompatible.
                             
                            Since for over 7 years a kiteboarding ban was never alleged or enforced (i.e., it was permitted) we'd like to understand the analysis and rationale behind this new treatment of kiteboarding.  Why has it been judged to be an incompatible use when so many other uses are permitted that are vastly more threatening to wildlife?  One of our members mentioned Todd explaining something about "airspace" as the reason for considering a ban.  We'd like to understand the analysis and answers to the types of questions in 26.41 so we may better understand the objective reasons why kiteboarding is alleged to be an incompatible use, when other far more pervasive and incompatible uses are permitted.
                             
                            4)  What are the procedures in the Interior Department's "Departmental Manual" that are to be followed prior to issuing a special regulation?  Our members have kiteboarded at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (not just a couple of years), unavoidably visible to attentive refuge personnel.  Never  over that long period (until last year) did any refuge personnel ever allege potential of a ban and never at any time have they enforced such a ban.  In law, such a "course of dealing" is often sufficient to establish entitlement to a right and a waiver of an enforcer's right to enforce.  Law aside, the observations raised in questions 1 to 3 above, the long pattern of permitting our use, the total absence of any engagement with us to pose questions about or understand our use, and the sudden change in policy (evidenced by change to the refuge brochure) makes us wonder whether the proper procedures were performed prior asserting  existence of a ban?  Please furnish the content of the Departmental Manual detailing procedures to be followed prior to issuing special regulations and restrictions, so we may assure all proper procedures were followed prior to establishing any bans. 
                            5)  May we also know, is windsurfing (also know as sailboarding) a permitted activity?
                             
                            Thanks in advance for replying to the above questions.  I will shortly attempt to setup a meeting with Susan and Todd to introduce ourselves and further discuss this issue.
                             
                            Regards,

                            Jon Bolt
                            Boise Sailors' Association

                            On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:20 PM, <Elaine_Johnson@ fws.gov> wrote:

                            I have received your e-mails and would like to take the opportunity to tell you a bit about National Wildlife Refuges and their regulations and management.

                            National Wildlife Refuge lands are different than many other Federal lands. Refuges are closed to all activities unless specifically authorized. Kiteboarding has never been authorized or sanctioned. Kiteboarding was added to the list of prohibited activities in our flyer as we have seen an increase in the number of users participating in this unlawful activity. It is not a new restriction. Since refuges are closed to activities unless opened, the list of prohibited activities is not all inclusive. Instead we try to focus on allowed activities. The list of prohibited activities includes activities commonly inquired about or an unauthorized activity we have seen occurring regularly.

                            We first encountered kiteboarders a couple years ago and explained to the folks we talked with that kiteboarding was not allowed. There have been several other times over the last couple years that we have encountered and spoken with kiteboarders. This is not a case of an unauthorized activity continuing due to unresponsiveness from the refuge.

                            While there are a number of activities occurring on the lake that were not authorized, these activities have been occurring for decades. They will be reviewed and addressed in our up-coming Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).

                            The refuge has a specific legislated purpose - to provide a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife. The refuge is part of a national network of lands with a mission to conserve, manage, and restore where possible, wildlife and wildlife habitat. Our primary emphasis is on wildlife.

                            Recreation occurring on refuges is to be wildlife-dependant and includes six specified activities – hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Even these uses must be compatible and occur at a level and a location that does not interfere with our wildlife and habitat conservation mission. Activities which are not wildlife dependent are not to be encouraged on refuges.

                            The refuge will soon be developing a long-term (15 year) management plan for the refuge. In the development of the CCP, current and future management and public uses activities will be evaluated in the context of the refuge purpose. The CCP will be developed with input from partners and the public. Your name has been added to our contact list.

                            In the mean time, the refuge will continue to enforce no kiteboarding as it has in the past.

                            Elaine Johnson
                            Refuge Manager




                            <graycol.gif>Jon Bolt <idakiteman@gmail. com>


                            <ecblank.gif>
                            To
                            <ecblank.gif>
                            deerflat@fws. gov, thelake@canyonco. org, elaine_johnson@ fws.gov
                            <ecblank.gif>
                            cc
                            <ecblank.gif>
                            Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@ yahoogroups. com>, idahokiteboarding@ yahoogroups. com
                            <ecblank.gif>
                            Subject
                            <ecblank.gif>
                            New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions. ..
                            <ecblank.gif><ecblank.gif>

                          • Jack Harrison
                            It may be best to link both kiting and sailboarding to sailing. Windsurfing may have been initially allowed because it was sailing with a sail on a small
                            Message 13 of 14 , May 2, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment

                              It may be best to link both kiting and sailboarding to sailing. Windsurfing may have been initially allowed because it was sailing with a sail on a small “boat”…called a “board” (back then all boards were longboards). Kiteboarding is sailing with a kite on a board. The kite is a sail with lines, instead of a mast. The board is a very small boat. (will be have to by a permit?)

                               

                              What would happen if we used our kites while sitting in a boat to sail around the lake. Would we be sailing or kiting? 

                               

                               = If a “sailor” with a kite (instead of a sail) got a ticket, what would a judge say? 

                               

                               = If a sailor with a kite on a board got a ticket, and a sailor with a kite in a boat did not get a ticket, what would the judge say?

                               

                              Anyone interested in doing a little “Kite-boating”?  Who’s got a kayak?  And, maybe we could get our longboards out and do some Kite-longboarding.  (Maybe we need a flotilla on Cinco-de-Mayo!) It wouldn’t take much wind and we could include a bird spotting contest. There a few shore birds I haven’t ckecked-off my list.

                               

                              Sorry, I can get carried away….but the point is how do we make the point that kiting IS sailing!

                               

                              Jack

                               


                              From: snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com [mailto: snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jon Bolt
                              Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 9:58 AM
                              To: snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [snowkiteidaho] Re: New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

                               




                              Yes, and I don't think sailboarding's illegal there today.  I asked the question to get them on record saying "sailboarding is permitted".

                               

                              This would open the door to another line of challenge.  Kiteboarding is sailboarding or windsurfing.  There simply is a difference in shape of board and sail.  (Although to the untrained eye, directional kiteboards are about indistintuishable from windsurf board appearance, so maybe its mainly a change in shape of sail).  It's an evolution.  When water-skiing evolved to wakeboarding, involving a new board shape and skylons for getting big air, wakeboarding was not prohibited (nor explicitly approved I bet).  When shapes changed further to tow tubes, that new medium was probably neither prohibited or approved.  If those activities were permitted as acceptable extensions of water skiing, or never explicity approved but permitted, I think we could equally claim kiteboarding to be permitted based on its classification as a form of sailboarding.

                               

                              Jon

                              On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Jason Brickner <jasonbrickner@...> wrote:

                               

                              Hey John,

                               

                              Not sure it matters much here, but my neighbor used to windsurf at Lake Lowell in the late 80's/early 90's.  He said they were never told it was illegal.

                               

                              Thanks for all the work you're doing on this.  Isn't it crazy... we only use Lake Lowell about 10-20 times per year.

                               

                              -Jason

                               


                              From: snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com [mailto:snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Bolt
                              Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 8:40 AM
                              To: elaine_johnson@...; susan_kain@...; Todd_fenzl@...
                              Cc: Boise Sailors Association; idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com; Snowkiteidaho; thelake@...; Jon Bolt
                              Subject: [snowkiteidaho] Re: New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

                              Elaine and Todd,
                               
                              Thank you both for taking the time to reply to my recent inquiries on behalf of the Boise Sailor's Association.
                               
                              While I am no expert on public uses of Federal Wildlife Refuges, with regard to regulations for public use I note the Code of Federal Regulations states the following:
                               
                              Title 50, Subpart C:  Public Use and Recreation;
                              Sec. 26.32  Recreational uses:    Recreational uses such as, but not limited to, sightseeing, nature observation and photography, interpretive centers and exhibits, hunting and fishing, bathing, boating, camping, ice skating, picnicking, swimming, water skiing, and other similar activities may be permitted on national wildlife refuges. When such uses are permitted the public will be notified under the provisions of this subchapter C.

                              Title 50, SubpartC, Part 26.33 (6):  Special regulations [i.e, for individual wildlife refuges] for public use, access, and recreation are published in the daily issue of the Federal Register and may be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. They shall be issued in compliance with procedures contained in the Departmental Manual.
                               
                              TITLE 50, Subpart C, Sec. 26.34:  What are the special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges?
                                  The following refuge units, listed in alphabetical order by State and unit name, have refuge-specific regulations for public access, use, and recreation....


                              In light of the above, permit me to ask five questions: 

                              1)  In the Federal Register, why is there no regulation restricting kiteboarding at Lake Lowell ?  26.33.6 suggests posting in the Federal Register is a required element of establishing a special regulation restriction? 

                               

                              2)  Regulation 26.34 answers: "What are the special regulations concerning public access, use, and recreation for individual national wildlife refuges".  Why does 26.34 fail to contain any special regulations whatsoever restricting uses for Lake Lowell when it clearly details restrictions at other refuges?  26.33.6 states "Special regulations for public use...are published in the daily issue of the Federal Register and may be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.  However, while other refuges publish their restrictions in the Federal Register and have clearly codified them in the CFR's, why has Deeflat done neither, including for the alleged ban on kiteboarding?
                               
                              3)  Title 50, Subpart C, Sec. 26.41:  "What is the process for determining if a use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use?
                                  "...This section provides guidelines for making compatibility determinations, and procedures for documenting compatibility determinations and for periodic review of compatibility determinations..."

                              The section goes on to detail the analyses and questions-to-be-answered prior to determining whether a use is compatible or incompatible.

                               

                              Since for over 7 years a kiteboarding ban was never alleged or enforced (i.e., it was permitted) we'd like to understand the analysis and rationale behind this new treatment of kiteboarding.  Why has it been judged to be an incompatible use when so many other uses are permitted that are vastly more threatening to wildlife?  One of our members mentioned Todd explaining something about "airspace" as the reason for considering a ban.  We'd like to understand the analysis and answers to the types of questions in 26.41 so we may better understand the objective reasons why kiteboarding is alleged to be an incompatible use, when other far more pervasive and incompatible uses are permitted.

                               

                              4)  What are the procedures in the Interior Department's "Departmental Manual" that are to be followed prior to issuing a special regulation?  Our members have kiteboarded at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (not just a couple of years), unavoidably visible to attentive refuge personnel.  Never over that long period (until last year) did any refuge personnel ever allege potential of a ban and never at any time have they enforced such a ban.  In law, such a "course of dealing" is often sufficient to establish entitlement to a right and a waiver of an enforcer's right to enforce.  Law aside, the observations raised in questions 1 to 3 above, the long pattern of permitting our use, the total absence of any engagement with us to pose questions about or understand our use, and the sudden change in policy (evidenced by change to the refuge brochure) makes us wonder whether the proper procedures were performed prior asserting existence of a ban?  Please furnish the content of the Departmental Manual detailing procedures to be followed prior to issuing special regulations and restrictions, so we may assure all proper procedures were followed prior to establishing any bans. 

                              5)  May we also know, is windsurfing (also know as sailboarding) a permitted activity?
                               

                              Thanks in advance for replying to the above questions.  I will shortly attempt to setup a meeting with Susan and Todd to introduce ourselves and further discuss this issue.

                               

                              Regards,


                              Jon Bolt
                              Boise Sailors' Association

                              On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:20 PM, <Elaine_Johnson@...> wrote:

                              I have received your e-mails and would like to take the opportunity to tell you a bit about National Wildlife Refuges and their regulations and management.

                              National Wildlife Refuge lands are different than many other Federal lands. Refuges are closed to all activities unless specifically authorized. Kiteboarding has never been authorized or sanctioned. Kiteboarding was added to the list of prohibited activities in our flyer as we have seen an increase in the number of users participating in this unlawful activity. It is not a new restriction. Since refuges are closed to activities unless opened, the list of prohibited activities is not all inclusive. Instead we try to focus on allowed activities. The list of prohibited activities includes activities commonly inquired about or an unauthorized activity we have seen occurring regularly.

                              We first encountered kiteboarders a couple years ago and explained to the folks we talked with that kiteboarding was not allowed. There have been several other times over the last couple years that we have encountered and spoken with kiteboarders. This is not a case of an unauthorized activity continuing due to unresponsiveness from the refuge.

                              While there are a number of activities occurring on the lake that were not authorized, these activities have been occurring for decades. They will be reviewed and addressed in our up-coming Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).

                              The refuge has a specific legislated purpose - to provide a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife. The refuge is part of a national network of lands with a mission to conserve, manage, and restore where possible, wildlife and wildlife habitat. Our primary emphasis is on wildlife.

                              Recreation occurring on refuges is to be wildlife-dependant and includes six specified activities – hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Even these uses must be compatible and occur at a level and a location that does not interfere with our wildlife and habitat conservation mission. Activities which are not wildlife dependent are not to be encouraged on refuges.

                              The refuge will soon be developing a long-term (15 year) management plan for the refuge. In the development of the CCP, current and future management and public uses activities will be evaluated in the context of the refuge purpose. The CCP will be developed with input from partners and the public. Your name has been added to our contact list.

                              In the mean time, the refuge will continue to enforce no kiteboarding as it has in the past
                              .

                              Elaine Johnson
                              Refuge Manager




                              Inactive hide details for Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...>Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...>

                              Jon Bolt <idakiteman@...>

                              04/24/2009 09:38 AM

                               

                               

                              To


                              deerflat@..., thelake@..., elaine_johnson@...

                               

                               

                               

                               

                              cc

                               


                              Snowkiteidaho <snowkiteidaho@yahoogroups.com>, idahokiteboarding@yahoogroups.com

                               

                              Subject

                              New Flier on lake low recreational use restrictions...

                               

                               

                               

                               

                              Dear Lake Managers :
                               
                              A friend was windsurfing yesterday at Lake Lowell and was approached by a refuge officer who presented a brochure listing recreational restrictions on Lake Lowell .   It was described to me that the flier listed a new restriction on "Kiteboarding"...a restriction that has not been listed in past years.
                               
                              I'd like to request a copy of that flier.  Please reply to this email with a scanned copy of the brochure that lists this new restriction.
                               
                              An article in today's Idaho Statesman describes a new process refuge administration has initiated to arrive at restricting some present recreational uses at Lake Lowell .  The article quoted Elaine Johnson as saying no changes to present uses would be made without public input.  However, kiteboarding has been going on at Lake Lowell since before 2002 (I myself first kiteboarded there in 2002 and I am not the first), and a growing number have been using Gott Point and a launch on the South Side for several years.  In years past no fliers listed kiteboarding as restricted, and no kiteboarders had ever been confronted by officers enforcing a restriction on kiteboarding.  Clearly the addition of kiteboarding to the 'restricted uses' list in the brochure is a new change that, contrary to Elaine's assurances in today's Statesman, was implemented without public input (or input from the community of affected users).
                               
                              Additionally, I am told that while kiteboarding is restricted on this new list, windsurfing is not, nor is sailing, nor water-skiing or wakeboarding, nor personal water craft.  Surely kiteboarding, which is essentially sailing on a small board, is without doubt far less disruptive to wildlife and habitat than motorized boats and watercraft making noise, water turbulence , leaking oil and gas into the water way, and spilling trash and beverages into the water, etc.  Also, motorized boats and watercraft travel and impact the entire lake where kiteboarding tends to be locally contained near the few areas that have suitable launch/land features.  Restricting the fairly benign activity of kiteboarding while allowing uses whose disruption is enormously more pervasive seems inconsistent and unreasonable.
                               
                              I would like to appeal this new kiteboarding restriction and ask that it be included in the new rule-making process, and that until that process is concluded, it be treated like all other historical uses that have been allowed even though they may be misaligned with the role of a wildlife refuge (i.e., the restriction be rescinded until/if the eventual process establishes kiteboarding as restricted).  I make this request seeking to avoid unproductive confrontations that otherwise may inevitably happen with reserve officers and other refuge enforcement personnel.  Such episodes could easily waste everyone's time by escalating to court where the inconsistent treatment of historically permitted uses would likely estop the refuge from selectively enforcing a kiteboarding restriction when far more disruptive uses are permitted.
                               
                              Please remove the new restriction on kiteboarding, include kiteboarding as a candidate use in the new rule-making process, and please email me a copy of the new brochure that lists all the restricted uses.  If kiteboarding users are involved in the new rule-making process, and it ends up restricted after that process is concluded, I am sure all kiteboarding users would honor that process and its outcome.  Until then, however, I am seeking to avoid wasted time and needless headaches (for refuge personnel and users) that may arise from arbitray imposition of a new selective restriction on an activity that, like many others, has long occurred and been permitted on Lake Lowell.
                               
                              Regards,
                              Jon Bolt
                              Boise, Idaho
                               

                               



                            • Tom von Alten
                              ... We ll see how that works. You just invited them to say boardsailing is prohibited, and I d say it s an even bet they ll take the invitation. _____________
                              Message 14 of 14 , May 2, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Jon Bolt wrote:
                                > Yes, and I don't think sailboarding's illegal there today. I asked
                                > the question to get them on record saying "sailboarding is permitted".

                                We'll see how that works.

                                You just invited them to say boardsailing is prohibited, and I'd say
                                it's an even bet they'll take the invitation.
                                _____________
                                Tom von Alten http://fortboise.org/
                                tva@...
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.