Keeping the E(thics) in Extreme Sports

The ethical issue I chose to explore was brought up by an author published by American Whitewater about log removal in rivers.  Log removal is a common practice in whitewater rivers and the logs often create life-threatening hazards to boaters. The author poses the question: "[How should we balance the need for safety and the preservation of the river eco-systems]". He makes the case that while large rivers are exposed to a great deal of organic matter to fuel the system, smaller creeks could be impacted by the removal of a single log as they are exposed to less organic matter.

Viewed from the _____ perspective:

Deontological:

According to the deontological perspective, any logs in rivers which do not have strong government protection are fair game. To remove these logs breaks no rules and is therefore ethically justified.

 Egoist:

The egoist point of view would claim that we should absolutely remove all of the logs from whitewater rivers. Paddling the brown without getting caught in a strainer is more important than the lives of some small fish and invertebrates.
Utilitarian:

The utilitarian view of this problem is complex and obscure. Who benefits from which solution and to what extent, how? Given the thorough complexity of ecological systems and how they relate to recreation communities and the overall economy, there are undoubtedly more than one utilitarian perspectives that would be difficult to prove. On one hand, it could be said that by removing the logs we maximize the good as boater lives are saved which could help protect whitewater in the public image and allow boaters to further work to protect rivers from damming efforts without distraction.  On the other hand, we could say that a key part of the whitewater experience is in exploring the wilderness; by damaging delicate ecosystems we're limiting our access to untouched wilderness and causing magnified damage through the ecosystem that is difficult to predict even for the doctors of such sciences. I personally agree with the utilitarian point of view brought up by the author, that we should consider the context of each log that we remove and remove as few as possible. He posted this table which shows how we could prioritize boater safety while still avoiding damage:


Do Not Remove Log

	↔	More OK to Remove Log
Ecological Considerations
Sand, Gravel, Cobble Banks	↔	Bedrock Banks
Floodplain Adjacent to Channel	↔	Cliffs Adjacent to Channel
Log Trapping Sediment	↔	Log Above Water Level
Log is Large and Long	↔	Log is Small and Short
Stream has Endangered Species	↔	No Endangered Species
No Riparian Vegetation	↔	Dense Riparian Vegetation
Heavily Impacted Watershed	↔	Intact Forested Watershed
Paddling Considerations
Log is Obvious	↔	Log is Hidden
Log is Avoidable While Paddling	↔	Log is Unavoidable
Log is Easily Portaged	↔	Log is Impossible to Portage
Log Unlikely to Entrap Paddler	↔	Log Likely to Entrap Paddler
Log in Seldom Paddled Reach	↔	Log in Popular Reach
Class V	↔	Class II/III
Wilderness	↔	Urban

Colburn, K. (2001). Large Woody Debris Removal Ecology and Ethics. Retrieved from American Whitewater: https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/stewardship:woody_debris