*******************
>Chris Bell wrote:
>....example of a challenging drop that would get a lot easier with the
log removed. A lot of people, me included, would be mighty pissed
if it was cut out. Consider the risks when you choose your river
craft and the drops you run in it, but don't alter runnable drops with
dynamite or chainsaws!
-- Chris
*******************
>Eric Lyde-stad wrote:
>A log is a log..
Don't be stupid cut the damn log out. Boaters have a right to safety
more
than the log has a right to be there.We do it herer in BC all the
time,it's
simply river mantenance.
Lifes Short Paddle Hard Erik :-)
********************
Philosophically, I agree with Chris. But practically, I have removed
strainers in the route when they represented a clear hazard to boaters.
Yet, I would not advocate dynamiting in any way, or even the filling in
of notorious undercuts.
And what about the sign "Keep Right" at Reeder's Rock on the Tellico
warning people of an insidious lethal undercut? I am sure there are many
other spots deserving of warning signs, as well. Rivers are more
aesthetically pleasing without signs, but we all know of undercuts that
are deadly, which even a trained eye can't always spot in time. Do we
let our brothers and sisters go into an undercut to preserve the
aesthetic?
Clearly, there are many steep creeks which would not be runnable without
the saw to open things up. Should they be left unrun?
I also noticed that someone moved the huge drum out of the current that
was in the middle of Quarter Mile on the Nolichucky. Does the same
ethic apply to man-made hazards such as steel and rebar?
*******************
>>Chris Bell wrote:
>>....example of a challenging drop that would get a lot easier with the
>log removed. A lot of people, me included, would be mighty pissed
>if it was cut out. Consider the risks when you choose your river
>craft and the drops you run in it, but don't alter runnable drops with
>dynamite or chainsaws!
*******************
>>Eric Lyde-stad wrote:
>>A log is a log.Don't be stupid cut the damn log out. Boaters have a
>right to safety more than the log has a right to be there.We do it herer
>in BC all the time,it's simply river mantenance.
********************
I say let the locals judge what should stay in and what shouldn't.
Sometimes it's obvious, but sometime's it's a fine line. The locals
will know best, not people discussing it in the abstract. But, if they
leave it in, they should get the word out.
Of course that can be dangerous too. Recently two boaters put in on
the Fishladder section of Great Falls of the Potomac near DC. The NPS
entrance booth had a clear warning sign of logs in the Fishladder
section. The boaters saw a huge log in the calm water at the lip of
the first slide, snuck under it, and proceeded downstream without
scouting the third and fourth slides (which must be run blind and
without stopping at that level).
Sure enough, there was a horrible log blocking the entire channel at
the lip of number four. Amazingly, both boaters were able to scamper
over it without injury. I saw the log, and I can say that these two
are lucky to be alive.
Just something to 'log' in the back of your brain.
PS: the logs mentioned in this post are now gone.
Don't modify rock. Nothing wrong with removing logs from river,
assuming
a) tree is dead
b) not done on grand scale. (ie cut out a dangerous log, but don't
remove a hundred fallen trees from a creek so it can be run. An
ecosystem won't depend on a single log, but if a creek has lots of them,
I would expect fish/birds/small animals depend on them in some way.)
Boaters who don't want to remove a log that makes a runnable drop
dangerous are being selfish (not wanting others to run their drop). The
challenge in kayaking should be to work with/against rock and water. If
a log is dangerous, it should be removed.
-Paul
Well ... I'm all better now, and see this issue very differently. BTW:
I never said it "should" be handled that way, I only asked why shouldn't
it. I got my a** handed to me anyway, but I guess it was a point well made.
Anyway ... my opinion is that in most cases, if the drop is runnable (ie.
not class VI) the log should stay. Rivers need to be wild. The question
is if you start there where do you end?
BTW: where does the "cleaning" of Dimple Rock (Lower Yough, PA) fit into
this picture.
Remember, you can always avoid the log. Portage, stay home, whatever.
Kyle
This is an interesting discussion. I think you never want to alter the
stream bed but logs is logs. Logs move around on streams all the time.
That is why we have to be on the lookout. I think it is almost always
fine to cut a dead log out of a creek. It would move along at some point
anyway and it is just debris. I think the important thing is to try and
cut in a way that doesn't create an additional hazard downstream. With
the amount of lumber that winds up in eastern creeks we are always
clearing something.
Moving rocks is another matter altogether. I guess it is probably
acceptable to move a rock if you can pick it up and don't use any type of
mechanical assistance -- otherwise leave it alone. Bulldozers and dynamite
are certainly unacceptable.
In mountain biking there is a great deal of etiquette involved with
moving logs. You can move logs that make the trail unrideable but should
leave anything that someone could possibly make. I hate it when people
clear the trail completely when there was a great log or series of logs.
Boating is really different because you can die. Generally logs do not add
to the fun. A fun log on a creek is an exception to the rule. For example
you will occasionally find a log that you can do a rail slide down -- that
is way fun and I'd be bummed if it was moved. Otherwise clear away. Log
maintainence is really a good thing. Rock moving is another deal
altogether.
tracy clapp
>Paul Skoczylas wrote:
> >
> >Don't modify rock
>
> Well, interesting issue. What if the rock is placed there by man?
Good point, put my post was mainly about logs. I suppose there can be
no hard and fast rules about anything. (I used to be into rock
climbing, and this debate rages there too.) The Kananaskis river near
Canmore has been largely modified for slalom kayaking. This river is
actually shut off at night by Trans-Alta Utilities at their dam. This
made it easier for people to modify the river bed, and guarantees they
weren't destroying an ecosystem.
-Paul
>Guys,
>This is an interesting discussion. I think you never want to alter the
>stream bed but logs is logs. Logs move around on streams all the time.
>That is why we have to be on the lookout. I think it is almost always
>fine to cut a dead log out of a creek. It would move along at some point
>anyway and it is just debris. I think the important thing is to try and
>cut in a way that doesn't create an additional hazard downstream. With
>the amount of lumber that winds up in eastern creeks we are always
>clearing something.
>Moving rocks is another matter altogether. I guess it is probably
Do you think we should remove the tree in Backender, Tracy?
If it was a new feature, I think there would be no question. Since it has been
there as long as people have been running the Green, it qualifies as a
somewhat permanent feature, and I think it would piss a lot of people off
to see it cut out.
On the other hand, I think it is just a matter of time before somebody dies
there. There have been a number of close calls, and I wouldn't put my
convictions about not altering a riverbed above the strong possibility of saving
somebody's life. Many people would respond that this kind of danger is
what makes the Green the Green, and that we assume that risk when we put on.
I have mixed feelings, but if somebody does drown, I'd hate to be on the
side that advocated conservation.
As somebody else pointed out, just because the tree isn't there doesn't mean
you can't pretend it still is and run the drop the same way. But it does mean
that the drop wouldn't evoke the same adrenaline.
Tough question.
Marsh
I suppose there can be
>no hard and fast rules about anything.
>
>-Paul
Yet another excellent point.
This, to me, describes the ability of the human species.
A computer can be programmed with "if-then"( if this; then
that).
A human mind can say, "if this then that, unless, and hey,
what about, and but"!
Our minds can see it all, backwards, sideways, and upside
down, all at the same time. That's where the reasonable,
sensible, prudent, responsible, safety minded, ethical, and
rational come in. Program all of this crap in to a decision
making machine? Don't waste your time tring to program one,
it already exists; it's your brain man.
If there's a spot in the river that is killing fricken'
people, are we going to say, "well, that doesn't pass the
inorganic clause which says we can't move rocks". No, we're
not. We're going to take control of the situation and modify
our environment in a safe and sensible way. Trees are
transient, and soon as we cut the thing out, there's going
to be another one there after the next flood anyway. Streams
need maintenance too.
BTW, blasting can cause some significantly sharp objects in
a stream bed ( especially in harder types of rock); if they
point upstream, you can really make a mess of things.
Glad to see all of this out in the air.
Dale
> Paul Skoczylas
>
> Don't modify rock. Nothing wrong with removing logs from river,
> assuming
> a) tree is dead
> b) not done on grand scale. (ie cut out a dangerous log, but don't
> remove a hundred fallen trees from a creek so it can be run. An
> ecosystem won't depend on a single log, but if a creek has lots of them,
> I would expect fish/birds/small animals depend on them in some way.)
>
> Boaters who don't want to remove a log that makes a runnable drop
> dangerous are being selfish (not wanting others to run their drop). The
> challenge in kayaking should be to work with/against rock and water. If
> a log is dangerous, it should be removed.
>
> -Paul
>
From a practical sense removing logs from a creek can be quite difficult -
and sometimes dangerous. Anyone that has unpinned a kayak or raft can
attest to that.
One day on the Little River outside of Knoxville a few of tried to remove
a log that was ~ 6" in dia. and who knows how long. It was pinned right in
the middle of one of the best rapids on the river. After 30 min,.or so we
gave up. After that experience I decided to wait for the next flood to
move things around.
>> >A log is a log..
>> Don't be stupid cut the damn log out. Boaters have a right to safety
>> more
>> than the log has a right to be there.We do it herer in BC all the
>> time,it's
>> simply river mantenance.
>
>
>Don't modify rock
Well, interesting issue. What if the rock is placed there by man? Good
example is the Yoho Bridge rapid on the Kicking Horse in BC Canada. It
appears to be formed, in large part, by the nearby railroad and the
construction of the bridge. It's a nasty keeper that has taken at least
one life and makes the entire section upstream dangerous to kayakers and
pretty well off limits to rafters.
Some other examples of natural rock modification was the dynamiting of
Bloomer Falls. A big slide in 1964 turned this into a damgerous 5-6 chute
that claimed the life of one kayaker. In the early 80's the Department of
Fish and Game blasted it "to make it easier for salmon to spawn." This
certainly didn't cause any protests from the boating community.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating anything here. I probably take
some issue with "purists" who watch as all types of non-boat related
modification and don't raise a hand, have no trouble using highways and
access roads cut through the mountains and forrests but get incredably
indignant with the removal of a log that is nothing more than a death
trap. I think we all have higher regard for human life.
Any thoughts? A real problem is who decides what to modify? An example
of overmodification is the Rogue, where in the 30's and 40's nearly all
the rapids were blasted out by dynamite to make the river easier to run
for boats that were then "state of the art."
Perhaps an easier example is construction debris or the remais of weirs,
bridges, etc. I understand on the Ocoee a rapid called Hellhole was was
clogged with some construction remains. In fact a dangerous piling even
had a target painted in it. I understand much of the has been removed.
Who removed it? Were there any objections?
>Don't modify rock. Nothing wrong with removing logs from
river,
>assuming
> a) tree is dead
> b) not done on grand scale. (ie cut out a dangerous
log, but don't
>remove a hundred fallen trees from a creek so it can be
run. An
>ecosystem won't depend on a single log, but if a creek has
lots of them,
>I would expect fish/birds/small animals depend on them in
some way.)
>
>Boaters who don't want to remove a log that makes a
runnable drop
>dangerous are being selfish (not wanting others to run
their drop). The
>challenge in kayaking should be to work with/against rock
and water. If
>a log is dangerous, it should be removed.
>
>-Paul
I like Paul's thinking here. It makes sense, and seems
reasonable.
As long as one is reasonable, sensible, prudent,
responsible, and safety minded, I see nothing wrong with
removing an organic obstruction from a drop. In fact, I
personally, would feel a certain sense of responsibility to
do so. If I came to a drop that looked potentially dangerous
to paddlers, and had the equipment to remove the obstruction
( which is usually the case), and didn't, and then someone
came through later in the day and was harmed, I'd have a
difficult time not feeling partially responsible. I believe
in self determination for all beings, but I also am more of
Conservationalist/ realist than a Naturalist/optimist.
This is a rather grey area at some points.
Glad to see it brought up and discussed.
db
>
>*******************
>
>>>Eric Lyde-stad wrote:
>>>A log is a log.Don't be stupid cut the damn log out. Boaters have a
>>right to safety more than the log has a right to be there.We do it herer
>>in BC all the time,it's simply river mantenance.
>
>********************
>
>I say let the locals judge what should stay in and what shouldn't.
>Sometimes it's obvious, but sometime's it's a fine line. The locals
>will know best, not people discussing it in the abstract. But, if they
>leave it in, they should get the word out.
>
We have had trees and slides to remove from the roads in abundance this year.
So far I haven't heard of any of the many and vocal E-Things protesting
their removal.
Guess it depends on who gets inconvenienced. How wrong are you free to be?
For sure you can do more harm than good trying to second guess mother
nature but there are logs that just have to come out or give the run up to
the would be class five daredevils with a death wish.
Glen Wooldridge blasted rocks on the Rogue and is a local hero as he
should be. The river is enjoyed by many who wouldn't be doing it if it was
any harder and it probably wouldn't have been designated (wild and scenic)
if it wasn't being boated.
gene
Log - 1.
Boaters - 0.
The next major flood took it on its way. While I don't think its bad to
remove logs its a bitch. And if its in the middle of some class 4 or higher
rapid - which is where its going to be if most people feel like it needs to
be moved - is a double bitch.
On that note why did the log stay in right crack on the Chattagooa so long?
tracy clapp <teamp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<5b5q35$c...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>Don't modify rock. Nothing wrong with removing logs from river,
>assuming
> a) tree is dead
> b) not done on grand scale. (ie cut out a dangerous log, but don't
>remove a hundred fallen trees from a creek so it can be run. An
>ecosystem won't depend on a single log, but if a creek has lots of them,
>I would expect fish/birds/small animals depend on them in some way.)
>Boaters who don't want to remove a log that makes a runnable drop
>dangerous are being selfish (not wanting others to run their drop). The
>challenge in kayaking should be to work with/against rock and water. If
>a log is dangerous, it should be removed.
I'm not totally against removing logs from rivers; as I've posted
elsewhere, I've removed a few myself. But Paul's list of criteria
is much shorter than mine. Add to Paul's:
The following must be true:
c) I have the permission of the land owner on which the creek or
river is located (or have VERY good reason to believe they
have no interest in my asking their permission);
d) the log is not a feature desirable to other users of the area
(e.g., a log used by hikers to cross the river or esthetically
appealing to photographers, hikers and paddlers);
e) the log is not a well-known, prominent feature of the drop it
is in;
Plus at least one of the following:
f) the drop the log is in is difficult to sneak or walk;
g) the log makes unrunnable what is otherwise a very attractive
drop;
h) the log creates a hazard out of character with the rest of the
run;
i) the log is obviously a temporary danger/inconvenience that will
soon wash out anyway.
In the case of the log in Zwick's Backender, a rapid on the Green River
Narrows, NC (hi Julie and Paul!), I would not remove the log because:
1. The log is a permanent feature. It has been there as long as
anyone has been running the Green.
2. The drop is easy to walk at all water levels, and at higher
levels it can be snuck.
3. In the what must be over 60 times I've run this rapid, only once
have I come anywhere near the log, and my paddling skills are well
within what I would consider the normal range of skills of people
who belong on this particular stretch of water. The drop is clearly
runnable with a fair degree of safety by those who belong there in
the first place.
4. Zwick's Backender, with the log, is clearly within the range of
difficulty posed by the rest of the run.
5. The log will rot given enough time, but it is not going to wash
out before then!
Clearly there is a lot of gray area in my list of criteria. Would I be
heart-broken if someone removed the tree from Zwick's? Would I try to
stop them if they actually took the effort to hike in and remove it?
Probably not; I would, after all, be one of the primary beneficiaries
seeing that this run is 45 minutes from my house. And I know the danger
is there, for anybody (including people at the top end of the skills
range...this is the log Clay Wright became acquainted with during the
recent Narrows race). Further, even with the log removed, one could
still have the pleasure of "hitting the right line" with only the
consequences of hitting the wrong line reduced somewhat (you'd still
be likely to get trashed in the hole near the log). BUT, all this said,
I wouldn't remove the log myself, and I wouldn't consider someone trying
to prevent someone from removing the log a zealot.
-- Chris
>>Chris Bell wrote:
>>....example of a challenging drop that would get a lot easier with the
>>log removed. A lot of people, me included, would be mighty pissed
>>if it was cut out. Consider the risks when you choose your river
>>craft and the drops you run in it, but don't alter runnable drops with
>>dynamite or chainsaws!
>Philosophically, I agree with Chris. But practically, I have removed
>strainers in the route when they represented a clear hazard to boaters.
>Yet, I would not advocate dynamiting in any way, or even the filling in
>of notorious undercuts.
I agree with this; I too have removed strainers.
>And what about the sign "Keep Right" at Reeder's Rock on the Tellico
>warning people of an insidious lethal undercut? I am sure there are many
>other spots deserving of warning signs, as well. Rivers are more
>aesthetically pleasing without signs, but we all know of undercuts that
>are deadly, which even a trained eye can't always spot in time. Do we
>let our brothers and sisters go into an undercut to preserve the
>aesthetic?
I've got no problem with signs if they are not overdone, especially in
case of heavily paddled rivers with hazards out of character of the
rest of the run and if they don't interfere much with the enjoyment of
the river by non-paddlers.
>Clearly, there are many steep creeks which would not be runnable without
>the saw to open things up. Should they be left unrun?
A tough call, but a call made easier by the criteria, "only cut if you
have the permission of the property owner." You're not going to get
this permission in most cases. You're almost certainly you're not going
to get it in National Parks or in Wilderness Areas, and I doubt many
private landowners are going to let you do this unless you know them
very well.
>I also noticed that someone moved the huge drum out of the current that
>was in the middle of Quarter Mile on the Nolichucky. Does the same
>ethic apply to man-made hazards such as steel and rebar?
First, the drum moved in a flood. I think it is the drum that is now in
the middle of the passage on river right at the bottom of Quarter Mile,
but I don't paddle the Nolichucky often enough to be sure.
Second, I have no qualms about removing accidental man-made hazards
because I have difficulty imagining ANYONE minding if they are removed.
Few find accidental hazards esthetically pleasing. If, for some reason,
I thought someone would mind the removal of such a hazard, I'd have to
think about this issue more carefully.
-- Chris
>I'm not totally against removing logs from rivers; as I've posted
>elsewhere, I've removed a few myself. But Paul's list of criteria
>is much shorter than mine. Add to Paul's:
> The following must be true:
> c) I have the permission of the land owner on which the creek or
> river is located (or have VERY good reason to believe they
> have no interest in my asking their permission);
> d) the log is not a feature desirable to other users of the area
> (e.g., a log used by hikers to cross the river or esthetically
> appealing to photographers, hikers and paddlers);
> e) the log is not a well-known, prominent feature of the drop it
> is in;
Oops...one more "must be true" criterion:
e+) the log must not be "in-play," i.e., a log that some boaters
purposely make a "log-move" off of.
-- Chris
Shayne
>>well at risk of having class V boaters flame this opinion, I think any
river/creek/stream which is run regularly by a wide variety of paddlers
must be policed to a reasonable level for safety. Safety has to come
BEFORE the indignation of a steep-creakin' hair boater who LIKES to
knotch his/her belt with death defying runs.
>>Does that mean we should bulldoze Bull's Sluice or Woodall Shoals? No,
they get in under the grandfather clause by being naturally created and
having been successfully run by a wide variety of paddlers for many years.
>>But what about an old undercut full of logs? I think you could build a
case for altering it IF there were resources locally (I like the LOCAL
comment previously made) and it could be done without changing the rapid
significantly. Yes, let the locals decide...
>>Not too many years ago some NOC staffers filled in a gap in the rocks
at the bottom of Nantahala Falls after a fatal leg entrapment. More
recently the rumour mill said the PA Park Service was going to dynamite
Dimple Rock on the Yough because several rafters had drownd there.
>>>The OBVIOUS issue here is when are we apping safety and when do we
start blowing the class V's into III's so they are a safer run? While
for some the distinction is gray and cloudy, but for me I don't see a
problem when the preservation of life is involved.
>>>The question can be answered by a simple formula: If I have a better
then 25% chance of dying if I end up in the worng place, a place created
by man artifically or by a temporary situation caused by nature, I better
not run that rapid or I better fix the problem. Just my two-cents worth...
The question
>is if you start there where do you end?
How about; maybe it should not be the decission of one agravated person? Consensus carries a lot of weight and discussion brings up alternatives. Irrational behavior can be forever. A bit of talk before altering nature forever does no harm!
Another touchy idea is that rivers aren't necessarily there just for us to
paddle. I personally take the position that I am paddling to experience
nature. If I were to modify the river for my own purposes, then is it
still natural? Its just not that hard to walk around things.
Steve Scarborough
DAve Bassage
Would it be wrong to remove it? Not really: it doesn't add anything to
the river, help fish or plantlife where it sits, and it isn't even alive.
It is going to rot or wash away someday, anyway.
In this case, the real problem is that it is BIG, wet, hard to access,
and right above numerous place we Really don't want it to stick. If
anyone gets an itchy chainsaw trigger finger, keep in mind that once you
alter the streambed you may be accountable for your actions. If it lodges
in Gorilla and some local drops into it it will NOT be a normal river
hazard and it will NOT be just an accident. Does anyone really want it
out enough to risk dealing with where it might go? If so, do it
completely and if problems develop (it ends up somewhere else) post the
new location at all put-ins and alert everyone who may be paddling the
river before the word gets out.
I think that meltdown will have to wait.
Clay
Many species, particularly salmonids, depend on fallen trees for cover.
The Crooked River stream restoration project (a tributary of the South
Fork Clearwater in Idaho that was totally dredge-mined for gold) was
largely unsuccessful in restoring fish populations until woody debris was
regularly added to the river. Some areas in the Northwest now require a
permit before one can remove trees from the river, with a stiff fine from
Fish and Game if caught.
Some sort of balance needs to be found, taking into account both boater
safety and biological requirements.
Happy Boating,
Chris Donohue
WSU - Pullman, WA
cdon...@wsunix.wsu.edu
"640 K ought to be enough for anybody."
- Bill Gates, 1981
"As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing."
- Anonymous
I personally take the position that I am paddling to experience
>nature. If I were to modify the river for my own purposes, then is it
>still natural? Its just not that hard to walk around things.
>Steve Scarborough
Just for discussion purposes, some people have to be protected from themselves. For example, life jackets and the USCG laws. Depending on the stream and the history, some obstacles should be modified. Example the rock in Nani Falls that kills people. It seems to me that the nature of Nature dictates that no rule fits every situation.
I have to admit that I havent really followed this thread from the
beginning but I will say that dead partially submerged logs can harbor
quite a variety of invertebrate species, and provide crucial habitat for
many fish species. I think it would be a mistake to summarily dismiss it
as worthless to animal life just because it is a dead log
Wayne
>If we adhere to a "Leave No Trace" ethic, then there is no
question
>of what should be done.
Gee,
is this the same ethic that says, "If you get sick, don't
take drugs to help yourself; let nature take its course"?
Guys and gals, I thought we were talking about remote
instances here. Remote instances that were clearly life
threatening to human beings, not invertibrates. If you lock
yourself into a certain, dogmatic way of thinking, you're
unable to see the forest for the trees.
What is it about my fellow americans that cuses them to
overcompensate so? Is it genetic? Why are we so laughed at
by the rest of the world for our constant over compensatory
reactions to evry situation?
I shall bend like the blade of grass in the wind.
Come on people, bend and flex your brains a bit. Remember
the first graphite boats? They were light, but they were too
stiff; they cracked to pieces. This is your brain on
graphite.
GTTRN ( Go to the river now!)
Dale
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Seriously; I'm just kidding. But I'm uncertain whether I'm
serious that I'm kidding, or kidding that I'm serious."
dailu's archimedial spiral of life (life= [r=theta/¸ for
theta ł 0])
Stevscarb <stev...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970112162...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> People may kill themselves on the rock in Nani falls or any other feature
> of the earth, but the rock in Nani falls doesn't do anything but sit
> there. If we adhere to a "Leave No Trace" ethic, then there is no
question
As for altering the streams for safety...I agree with those who say
don't touch the rocks or anything that takes a massive effort. (dynamite)
When it comes to trees I think there are some that should be moved--there
is one on a small creek in MD that I have a grudge against. :)
Being foolish and not that adept at kayaking I got myself stuck! The creek
was running high (has to be or else it's unrunnable). I KNEW that this tree
was there but just couldn't get over in time to miss it. (you have to go to
the extreme left bank and duck and you can slip through--BARELY. My father
made it through but I got stuck. My first lesson in how strong current is
when you're pinned! I was clinging to a branch bent backwards and couldn't
reach my grab loop. My father managed to grab the loop on my bow and pull the
boat a couple of inches--just enough for me to reach the loop. Got out,
chased boat downstream and emptied it. Got back in and finished the last 13
miles. Look back on it and chuckle though. I still can't believe that
I got stuck! However, that particular tree has claimed at least two lives
that I know of--one was a boyscout on a canoe trip another was an inner tuber.
--That tree i'd like to see removed.
Rachael
ps even though there was the tree episode on that trip, it was still a great
one..later on fog came in...the leaves had just started turning gold...
there were a couple of blue herons...and the rock garden was very fun!
--
IT'S OVER NOW, THE MUSIC OF THE NIGHT!!!!
We use to have a tree in a drop on Bear Creek called Fish Bowl. Some
brillant person (no names and not me) removed this tree. Now a lot of
people piton a rock that use to hold that tree in place right above the
drop. The tree
made the rapid a little more exciting but you didn't see as much havoc
as you do now. I'm not advocating one stance over another just want to
point out that anything you do to a river has consequences that you may
not realize until you've made your changes.
What about removing logs to make a stream paddleable? On the Delmarva
penninsula, there are dozens of beautiful small flowing (5-15
feet wide) flatwater creeks which are terrific for paddlers interested in
scenery and wildlife. Most are so choked with down trees that they are
almost never paddled. I've refrained from opening up such runs with a saw
for biological reasons. But I sure would like to see what's down there...
BTW, congrats to rbp posters on the logs and stream safety thread. This
is the *only* rbp thread I can remember in the past 3 years of daily
reading that has not devolved into flaming, wise-ass comments and
character assassination. It's been a pleasure! Now if we can only keep
up this standard of civility. Please?
>BTW, congrats to rbp posters on the logs and stream safety thread. This
>is the *only* rbp thread I can remember in the past 3 years of daily
>reading that has not devolved into flaming, wise-ass comments and
>character assassination. It's been a pleasure! Now if we can only keep
>up this standard of civility. Please?
I guess this is true if you don't consider having folks accuse you of
being a juvenile thrill seeker and of having a selfish desire to keep
paddlers of lesser ability than you off drops non-flames. I'd say the
lack of degeneration has been due to the fact that those flamed have
had the ability to recognize attacks undeserving of response and the
wisdom to refrain from responding.
-- Chris
Neither, evolution in action.
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
Copyright 1997 by Scott Weiser
>If man places a hazard in the
>river, man should remove it.
I man cuts down a log and leaves it in the upper reaches of a river
drainage and it later runs down into the river, did man place or did man
not place a hazard in the river?
Who gets to do this altering? Who gets to stop 'em? Do we try to put it
back the way it was? Suppose you get to this Zwicks log & it's been
removed & is up on the bank -- Do you try to put it back? Suppose the
Quartzite Falls vandals had merely removed a tree which prevented rafts
from getting into the eddy to portage -- Would you still be outraged?
Cecil
>For sure you can do more harm than good trying to second guess mother
>nature but there are logs that just have to come out or give the run up
to
>the would be class five daredevils with a death wish.
I wonder how many of the logs that run down the rivers would do so under
natural conditions (ie. if there were no logging and the resulting
debris)?
>I wonder how many of the logs that run down the rivers
would do so under
>natural conditions (ie. if there were no logging and the
resulting
>debris)?
This brings up an interesting observation a friend of mine
and I have discussed for some time now.
In the Missouri Ozarks, Logging at one time was extremely
heavy. It's now controlled, and as an industry, very small.
At one time, the clear cutting was everywhere, and yep, the
rivers were mighty handy for floating the logs down. On the
Eleven Point at "Mary Deckard Falls", the rocks on one
hillside were blasted out into the river, to stop the logs
from flowing downstream, so that they could be pulled out,
and taken to the sawmills. Ironically, it's one of the most
beautiful and scenic places on the river.
I'll mention three rivers as a case in point; The Eleven
point ( A wild and Scenic River), the Current River ( a
scenic river and A National Park), and the Black River ( no
designation, other than crystal clear, as are all of the
three). All three rivers are spring fed, and run all year
long. The water is cold, clear, and provides for great
trout, and smallmouth fishing.
Logging occurred on all three rivers, at staggered
intervals. The Eleven point was released from logging first,
then several years later(approx. 10 years I think), the
current, and then thirdly the Black.
Where this fact is most obvious is the amount of gravel bars
on these rivers. The Black river drainage, which was logged
most recently, is full of gravel bars. The whole stream bed
is just one big gravel highway. When all of the trees were
cleared from the mountain sides, the next rain through just
washed all of the surrounding hillside clean of their
gravel. Gravel bars are beautiful here in Missouri, and
they're the neatest place to set up camp, but finding sand,
and dirt can be a challenge on the upper stretches sometimes
( relatively speaking). The Current still has some gravel
bars, but they seem to be disappearing. The river seems to
be taking over the river banks again. On the Eleven point,
the gravel bars are almost extinct. They are rare, and
small. The USDA has fortunately made several campgrounds
along the river to allow for group camping.
It would be interesting indeed to see what the "Natural
State" of our rivers is, and was. When you read books like
"Stars Upstream", about the Current river in it's infancy
with Caucasian humans, it's like a whole different world.
What an awesome experience for those old guys. How lucky.
With agricultural contamination, channelization, wing dike
construction, Logging, road building, stream bank
stabilization, and who knows what else, the rivers don't
stand a chance.
Whew, what a ramble attack.
See you all later.
Dale
>For sure you can do more harm than good trying to second guess mother
>nature but there are logs that just have to come out or give the run up
to
>the would be class five daredevils with a death wish.
I wonder how many of the logs that run down the rivers would do so under
- Fish
I know, I ramble. I am at war with myself. Paradoxical in
nature at times.
Still, I refuse to let everything take me one way, or
another.
Just so you're clear on how I feel, I worship the rivers! I
love 'em. I'd do anything to get to 'em, and then stay there
as long as I can, and I always hate to leave. I don't like
to think of them being spoiled, or modified in any way, and
I do like things "Natural" ( remember Mr. Natural back in
the late seventies anyone? <g>). But in a singular, specific
case, looked at on all side, and judged to be
non-threatening to the river, but life-threatening to the
people on it, I say yank that puppy out of there.
I'm not against walking around any drop. I don't believe in
macho. If I see a line, I'll go, root-wad, or not. But in a
sense, you're protecting others from themselves, are you
not?
I dunno, this is a tuff issue, but then the depth, variance,
and dynamics of the issue is what makes it so intriguing. I
was initially disappointed with your statements, but I
understand better now, and respect them just the same.
Still, if you get a headache (from my posts?), do you take
an asperin?, or do you let nature take its course?
Dale
Are we not considered part of mother nature? Sometimes I get the
impression because we are human beings, we are not part of mother
natures big picture. Does mother nature consider what we do sometimes
part of her plans?
Hello Mother Nature! :-)
--
Happy trails...
Tom Jenkins
Why? How? You bet! Lets do it...
An excellent reason too. Wanting to see whats down there is not
sufficient reason to alter the habitat to the extent you describe.
Removing an occasional log is not going to have a huge impact,but if the
streams are *choked* as you describe, you're talking about major habitat
alteration.Very likely illegal too.
Wayne
>
>BTW, congrats to rbp posters on the logs and stream safety thread. This
>is the *only* rbp thread I can remember in the past 3 years of daily
>reading that has not devolved into flaming, wise-ass comments and
>character assassination. It's been a pleasure! Now if we can only keep
>up this standard of civility. Please?
>
AMEN aint this what this here newsgroups is supposed to be for?
Nature moves all logs out of the streambed eventually. Man is still a
part of nature (even though some would like to claim otherwise). If a man
only removes logs that he (and maybe a few buddies) can remove *without*
the aid of tools (i.e. saws, explosives, bulldozers, winches, etc.), then
he is doing no more to change the natural environment than any other large
animal might (bears and beavers come to mind).
If followed, this idea prevents large scale "re-engineering" of
rivers, but it still allows us to modify rapids somewhat if the
modification is deemed important enough. If a tree is sufficiently large,
it will remain a hazard for quite some time. If enough folks are
extremely upset by its presence, they may all band together (with some
seriously hard work) and manage to make it less of a threat. But no one
person can move it just because he/she takes offense to it.
Think of it as a way to check our natural urge to make tools and modify
our environment to suit us. Sort of tacks us to the top of the slippery
slope that is river modification.
I intend to not ever use tools to modify a river (except in life and death
emergencies if needed). If it's too big or too much trouble for me to
deal with with my bare hands, I'll leave it alone and portage. Can we all
agree to this?
And of course this would mean that the Corps could only build dams by
hand. Might limit them a bit... :)
- Fish
BAH! The rivers do indeed stand a chance!! It's like George Carlin
said, (loosely interpreting): The Earth doesn't care! It'll adapt, no
matter what we humans do to it. It was here before us, and will be
here after we are all just archaeological nonsense. Like George cited
in example, maybe the Earth just couldn't figure out how to make
plastics, so it evolved humans who could, and after we deposit enough
plastics in the Earth, we will go extinct, and the Earth will
incorporate all our waste into a new paradigm: the Earth + Plastics!
We humans tend to view the ecosystems and their relative "health" in
ways that tend to appeal to *us*. We say an ecosystem is "healthy"
when it appeals to us, and the way we'd like to see it. But if you
consider it, humans have only been around for a very short time, so
what kind of judge are we to say what the ecosystems should be like in
terms of geologic time?
Rivers, like every other natural feature, are transient. They appear
to be "timeless" to us only when we confine the time segment we
consider to one in whioch the river changes very little, if
perceptably at all. But 100,000,000 years ago, none of these Ozark
rivers even existed!! The whole area of the U.S. we refer to as the
Ozarks were an ocean bottom! You want to restore the area to it's
"natural state"? *WHICH* "natural state" are you gonna pick??!!
My intent here? Nothing really, except to clarify the limits in which
this discussion makes any sense at all. My hopes? Don't mess with
rivers, that's Mother Nature's job. Yeah, clearing the occasional log
jam isn't too bad, if Mom wanted it there, she'll put it back next
flood. But blowing up rock formations? Naaaa, leave that to the
Master!
And if you still think we're such a big screaming deal, watch the news
next time Mom wreaks her wrath, like the next hurricane, blizzard,
flood, etc. Remember 1993 here in the Midwest? ;-) Old Man River
climing out the banks, "ruining" acres of farmland, HAH! Betchan can't
dam *that*!
--
John Kuthe, aka jw...@cec.wustl.edu, St. Louis, Missouri | MWA Homepage: |
First Job of Government: Protect people from govermment.| http://digmo.org/ |
Second Job of Government: Protect people from each other.| ~akravetz/mwa.html |
It must *never* become the job of government to protect people from themselves!
Thanks to the folks that saved me especially to the unknown boater that
threw the rope to me that helped me keep my head above H2O.
Kathy Bolyn Medford
No we're not.
This kind of flawed logic can lead your to justify any environmental tragity.
"Oh ... Bikini Atol ... ah ... well it was just part of the natural process.
If Mother Nature didn't want us to blow up that island, she wouldn't have
invented uranium."
Nature is delicate and we are not (usually).
Kyle "who's been called un-natural many times"
God help us, Jimmy
--
-Richard Hopley, OC-1; Rockville, Maryland
Kyle,
I thank you missed my point by 180 degrees. ;-)
The biggest part of my paddling is being one with mother nature.
Everything about it. And now to find out mother does not want me to be
part of her? :-( What kind of logic is this? ;-) And what rule says
that we can not be part of nature? Hence, did we not come from the
same something(s) in the beginning.
I am not an extreme conservationlist, nor do I tear everything up.
Balance of these is what we are trying to achieve. I believe that is
what Dale Brown and many others are trying to say as well. Is it not a
dynamic question and quest?
Maybe I've been on the river and in the woods to long? :-)
--
Happy trails...
Tom Jenkins
Why? How? You bet! Lets do it... http://www.flash.net/~jenks/
>I wonder how many of the logs that run down the rivers would do so under
>natural conditions (ie. if there were no logging and the resulting
>debris)?
On the mid Atlantic streams that I paddle, practically all the "logs"
that end up in the river come from floods undermining and sweeping
trees from the banks and flood plain into the river. Many of these
are live trees. I see very little commercial logging near rivers;
most of it is near roads and dryer ground where land transportation is
practical.
~~~~ O__ ~~~~ Webmaster, Coastal Canoeists
~~(___|_/__)~~ http://www.comet.net/clubs/canoe
~~~~~ / ~~~~~ Club mail: ca...@comet.net
Simon Tracy Personal mail: st...@comet.net
>In article <32D569...@cfer.ualberta.ca>,
> Paul Skoczylas <P.Sko...@cfer.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>Don't modify rock. Nothing wrong with removing logs from river,
>>assuming
>> a) tree is dead
>> b) not done on grand scale. (ie cut out a dangerous log, but don't
>>remove a hundred fallen trees from a creek so it can be run. An
>>ecosystem won't depend on a single log, but if a creek has lots of them,
>>I would expect fish/birds/small animals depend on them in some way.)
>>Boaters who don't want to remove a log that makes a runnable drop
>>dangerous are being selfish (not wanting others to run their drop). The
>>challenge in kayaking should be to work with/against rock and water. If
>>a log is dangerous, it should be removed.
>I'm not totally against removing logs from rivers; as I've posted
>elsewhere, I've removed a few myself. But Paul's list of criteria
>is much shorter than mine. Add to Paul's:
> The following must be true:
> c) I have the permission of the land owner on which the creek or
> river is located (or have VERY good reason to believe they
> have no interest in my asking their permission);
> d) the log is not a feature desirable to other users of the area
> (e.g., a log used by hikers to cross the river or esthetically
> appealing to photographers, hikers and paddlers);
> e) the log is not a well-known, prominent feature of the drop it
> is in;
> Plus at least one of the following:
> f) the drop the log is in is difficult to sneak or walk;
> g) the log makes unrunnable what is otherwise a very attractive
> drop;
> h) the log creates a hazard out of character with the rest of the
> run;
> i) the log is obviously a temporary danger/inconvenience that will
> soon wash out anyway.
>
>In the case of the log in Zwick's Backender, a rapid on the Green River
>Narrows, NC (hi Julie and Paul!), I would not remove the log because:
> 1. The log is a permanent feature. It has been there as long as
> anyone has been running the Green.
> 2. The drop is easy to walk at all water levels, and at higher
> levels it can be snuck.
> 3. In the what must be over 60 times I've run this rapid, only once
> have I come anywhere near the log, and my paddling skills are well
> within what I would consider the normal range of skills of people
> who belong on this particular stretch of water. The drop is clearly
> runnable with a fair degree of safety by those who belong there in
> the first place.
> 4. Zwick's Backender, with the log, is clearly within the range of
> difficulty posed by the rest of the run.
> 5. The log will rot given enough time, but it is not going to wash
> out before then!
>Clearly there is a lot of gray area in my list of criteria. Would I be
>heart-broken if someone removed the tree from Zwick's? Would I try to
>stop them if they actually took the effort to hike in and remove it?
>Probably not; I would, after all, be one of the primary beneficiaries
>seeing that this run is 45 minutes from my house. And I know the danger
>is there, for anybody (including people at the top end of the skills
>range...this is the log Clay Wright became acquainted with during the
>recent Narrows race). Further, even with the log removed, one could
>still have the pleasure of "hitting the right line" with only the
>consequences of hitting the wrong line reduced somewhat (you'd still
>be likely to get trashed in the hole near the log). BUT, all this said,
>I wouldn't remove the log myself, and I wouldn't consider someone trying
>to prevent someone from removing the log a zealot.
>-- Chris
When one hears of a fellow boater nearly dying it may be so scary that
we immediately start problem solving to assure ourselves that this
could't have happened to us. In this case my gut reaction was cut out
the log. However without personally knowing the river situation this
may not actually be what should be done. We all can screw up but try
to repress these feelings.
Cheers, Brian
How do you do it with gear that is as lightweight as possible?
Folding saw and regular Z-rig maybe?
Please give us some advice. I'm not interested in debating the
merits, I'm just interested in learning how.
Thanks,
Bill
: The biggest part of my paddling is being one with mother nature.
: Everything about it. And now to find out mother does not want me to be
: part of her? :-( What kind of logic is this? ;-) And what rule says
: that we can not be part of nature? Hence, did we not come from the
: same something(s) in the beginning.
My own personal definition (which is worth?) of nature is that it's the
parts that wern't created or altered by us. If we start altering the runs
we're not truly in nature anymore. At some point we'll be in Disney Land.
This is just the beginning of this sport. If we justify small river bed
changes now, what will be justifiable in fifty years? I _really_ don't
want to see anyone hurt or killed. But I'd protect them by educating them
(I help to teach novices classes in the spring) rather than modifying the
stream to fit them or me.
With all that high-on-horse stuff said ... I think it's okay to remove
logs that just showed up in commonly run (comercialy rafted) rivers.
These rivers are consistently being run by folks who either don't know enough
to look or who've run it so many times they don't think they need to look. An
example of this would be the "cleaning" of the debris out of Dimple Rock on
the Lower Yough. Although that was a knee jerk reaction, it was not out-of-
line, IMHO.
: I am not an extreme conservationlist, nor do I tear everything up.
: Balance of these is what we are trying to achieve. I believe that is
: what Dale Brown and many others are trying to say as well. Is it not a
: dynamic question and quest?
I didn't think you were, and I guess I was a bit dramatic in the Bikini Atol
thing. Sorry.
: Maybe I've been on the river and in the woods to long? :-)
Never!
Kyle
> BAH! The rivers do indeed stand a chance!! It's like George Carlin
> said, (loosely interpreting): The Earth doesn't care! It'll adapt, no
> matter what we humans do to it. It was here before us, and will be
> here after we are all just archaeological nonsense. Like George cited
> in example, maybe the Earth just couldn't figure out how to make
> plastics, so it evolved humans who could, and after we deposit enough
> plastics in the Earth, we will go extinct, and the Earth will
> incorporate all our waste into a new paradigm: the Earth + Plastics!
Oh, John, you missed the point. Rivers can be destroyed and ruined. As my
first example, I use the Osage River in Missouri. That is a shadow what it
used to be. As for rivers lasting forever, well, that is true to a certain
extent. In the Missouri and Arkansas Ozarks, people used to like to do
instream gravel mining. That is where companies take trucks and scoup out
the bottom of the gravel bed.
In a short bit, that is terrible for the fish, the stream and the stream
banks. The erosion changes the stream. Now, the stream will try to fix
itself and that could happen, but it takes years and years of us leaving
hte thing alone.
And besides, who wants to wait that long. Also, That little bit sounded
like something out of Jurassic Park....
andy
--
-------------------------------------
Andy Kravetz, Graduate Student
The University of Missouri School of Journalism
c68...@showme.missouri.edu
http://www.missouri.edu/~c681357
>My own personal definition (which is worth?) of nature is that it's the
>parts that wern't created or altered by us. If we start altering the runs
>we're not truly in nature anymore. At some point we'll be in Disney Land.
>
>This is just the beginning of this sport. If we justify small river bed
>changes now, what will be justifiable in fifty years?
I think this whole line of thought that if we alter nature any then it will lead to creating a disneyland effect is jumping to conclusions. As a similiar line of thought I submit the logic that computers would create the paperless office. I work in a 28 story building that is full of these things and TONS of paper. Give humans some credit.
Yes, your point about where the trees come from has merit,...however,
if we go "up stream" to find the cause (flooding) of that symptom
(washed out trees), it is very clear that human development of land
is a major factor in the amount of flood water after heavy rains
(e.g. a 10acre parking lot at Walmart, or REI, etc. sends all of the
rain fall into a drainage system which empties into the natural
waterways eventually,...everywhere we live, work, shop, drive is part
of the problem. If North America was still forested in virgin timber
as it was a few hundred years ago, when the native indians were the only
ones here to respect this land, there would be much less flooding, and
when flood waters occurred, they would not be as high (of course this
only applies to watersheds which were originally forested).
Hey! wait a minute,..over development causes higher flood waters?!?!
All you paddlers rush down to your local town council and encourage
them to approve that new 20-plex theater and shopping mall!
Happy trails,
Clay
When looked at from a universal perspective, it is easy to see the
human race as nothing more than a form of inter-planetary cancer.
(thoughts from an old friend,..who may have gotten it from a sci-fi
book...does anyone know of such a book?)
--
YeaHa!
` ` ` O /
/~` /~` /~` \ o~ ` `~ `
/ ( / ( \___/(`____\/#)_/%____/ /%% /%`~
~~~~~/ (~~~~~~~/ (~~~~~~~/ (~~~~~\~~/ (~~~~~~/ (~~~~~~/%%%%~~~
KingKaya \
Inland Sea Kayaking Adventures @
Sven saw and rope. I actually carry the components of a z-drag on
my person in my waistbelt throw-rope and PFD pockets, but have
never used it on a log. Typically we will only cut part of the
strainer -- that which blocks or overhangs the main channel. And
we don't get 'em all -- we really like to get to the takeout before
dark. (^BD
I'm really amazed at this thread. The Canoe Cruisers' Ass'n and
the Blue Ridge Voyageurs of greater Washington DC have instituted a
program of stream maintenance, where a list is maintained of
popular whitewater streams within a coupla hours drive of the
beltway, and in August parties go out to repaint gauges and remove
strainers with *chainsaws*. We also have an Adopt-a-Stream
program, where someone volunteers to keep an eye on a stream near
his home and do these things and other things like making friendly
contact with the people who live near the access points. Here I
thought this was a good thing, making these streams more fun for
everyone to paddle, and suddenly I read this thread and discover I
am a log-sawin' eco-thug.
Perhaps it's because I came up in the "club" environment, where you
have elderly and middle-aged paddlers, tandem couples, and children
who paddle only occasionally, who are not strong healthy young
adult males and who cannot easily portage or skillfully avoid a
Class IV hazard on the Class II stream they have carefully and
cautiously chosen to float.
Yessir, This log is wedged into the earth very snugly. I did hike in once
with a chainsaw to remove it. Both danger holes could then become
excellent play spots. So why is it still there? Add this to your list:
There is a danger that the loggerjack will lose an arm, leg, or stomach
while removing the offending stick.
This log is in a very slippery place. It would be quite risky to attempt
to cut it even when the water is off, as it was when I went. I don't feel
cheated - now that I know how badly it wants to be there, I respect its
choice for a home, clearly a place many of us would prefer to spent a few
decades...
Tom
also, I couldn't get the bloody saw to start!
Be careful with sharp knives.
snip
>Oh, John, you missed the point. Rivers can be destroyed and
ruined. As my
>first example, I use the Osage River in Missouri. That is a
shadow what it
>used to be. As for rivers lasting forever, well, that is
true to a certain
>extent. In the Missouri and Arkansas Ozarks, people used to
like to do
>instream gravel mining. That is where companies take trucks
and scoup out
>the bottom of the gravel bed.
>
>In a short bit, that is terrible for the fish, the stream
and the stream
>banks. The erosion changes the stream. Now, the stream will
try to fix
>itself and that could happen, but it takes years and years
of us leaving
>hte thing alone.
>andy
I agree with Andy, when he said that John is a snivelling
butthead.<g>
Dailuskiyev
+++++++ http://www.inlink.com/~dailu/ ++++++
"Seriously; I'm just kidding. But I'm uncertain whether I'm
serious that I'm kidding, or kidding that I'm serious."
dailu's archimedial spiral of life (life= [r=theta/¸ for
theta ł 0])
>
>This kind of flawed logic can lead your to justify any environmental tragity.
>
>"Oh ... Bikini Atol ... ah ... well it was just part of the natural process.
>If Mother Nature didn't want us to blow up that island, she wouldn't have
>invented uranium."
>
>Nature is delicate and we are not (usually).
>
>Kyle "who's been called un-natural many times"
Dream on ! Nature raises hell on a pretty regular basis. Nothing is going
to stay the same except man's vanity.
gene
Ava,"Yes I would cut out a new hazzard" Jane
>as it was a few hundred years ago, when the native indians were the only
>ones here to respect this land, there would be much less flooding,
For the record the Native Americans regullarly burned the forests to minimize the ground cover to make it easier to hunt. They had been doing it forever before the Europeans got here. So, what is natural?
HAIKU
tree grows, tiger hunts
for what is part of nature
nature will provide
> Perhaps it's because I came up in the "club" environment, where you
> have elderly and middle-aged paddlers, tandem couples, and children
> who paddle only occasionally, who are not strong healthy young
> adult males and who cannot easily portage or skillfully avoid a
> Class IV hazard on the Class II stream they have carefully and
> cautiously chosen to float.
>
Richard,
This brings up another issue: is there public obligation to provide
access for people/everyone that wants to partake in the river
experience?
A few years ago some people wanted more roads put into the Big South
Fork National Recreation Area so more people could "enjoy" it. Also, I
understand there is a "movement" to require wilderness areas to be made
wheelchair and handicapped accessible, so eveyone can see.
While I would support this on a VERY limited basis, there is too great a
danger of destroying the WILDerness in the process. I have compassion
and respect for those in wheelchairs, but were I to find myself confined
to one someday, I think that I would accept that it meant there were
some places I just would no longer be able to get to. And when my body
and skills deteriorate, I will not expect someone to sanitize a river so
I can continue to float it.
I will not expect someone to sanitize a river so
>I can continue to float it.
There is a big difference between "sanitizing a river" and useing good sense to remove a hazard. This idea of sanitizing everything on the river is repulsive to me also. The difference is the use of good judgement by way of discussion and analysis.
> I will not expect someone to sanitize a river so
>>I can continue to float it.
>
OK, I got one...........
If a six foot long, razor sharp knife blade washed in to the
river, completely by accident, and lodged itself right at
the entrance to double suck on the Ocoee, would this be
natural? Or would it be deemed "Prudent for removal"?
Just wondering. Every other non-sensical deviation from
common sense has been explored thus far, and I figured it
wouldn't hurt to take it a bit farther to gain perspective.
Dale
Mabey, if all of the sudden, a Geological Tectonic Platonic Movement
suddenly raised the Cumberland Plateau 2000 vertical feet, would we bring
in the dump trucks to level it out and rebuild our favorite rivers and
creeks.
Hey, Dale made a cheep shot, so why can't I
Anyway, you could get around a 6 foot long razor blade easily. You just
might end up having a rodeo in the bottom hole with mulitpul boats being
stuck at the same time. Ouch, that would hurt.
anyway, If there is a log blocking the ONLY POSSIBLE ROUTE through a
rapid. And that means if you would die if you took a different line. I
might see the point of moving the log.
I have run rapids with logs in them, and I'm still here.
shayne
>Hey, Dale made a cheep shot, so why can't I
(snip)
>I have run rapids with logs in them, and I'm still here.
>
>shayne
Shane Sir,
That was an inexpensive shot, not a cheap shot. And as to
wether or not your still here, well, that's a debateable
subject.<g>
>If North America was still forested in virgin timber
>as it was a few hundred years ago, when the native indians were the only
>ones here to respect this land, there would be much less flooding, and
>when flood waters occurred, they would not be as high (of course this
>only applies to watersheds which were originally forested).
Interestingly, at the time DeSoto made his travels through my neck of
the woods, significant expanses of the Southern Appalachians were open
balds, balds created by fires set by the native human inhabitants to
encourage elk and bison.
-- Chris
>In article <32DFFC...@bnr.ca>, Clay Harless <char...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>>Simon Tracy wrote:
>
>>If North America was still forested in virgin timber
>>as it was a few hundred years ago, when the native indians were the only
>>ones here to respect this land, there would be much less flooding, and
>>when flood waters occurred, they would not be as high (of course this
>>only applies to watersheds which were originally forested).
>
The mother of all floods on the Umpqua was long before the county was logged.
>Interestingly, at the time DeSoto made his travels through my neck of
>the woods, significant expanses of the Southern Appalachians were open
>balds, balds created by fires set by the native human inhabitants to
>encourage elk and bison.
>
>-- Chris
gene
I agree with your position on this issue (removing trees). But I'm curious
what this fact justifies? Are you just mentioning it as a curious factoid?
Other than the fact that man has been trying to ruin this planet from day
one.
Geeze, this whole discussion just bumms me out. Maybe it was watching
Chain Reaction (the movie) last night. Sorry all. I'm gonna go outside
(in downtown Philly) and hug a tree. I'll probably get busted for something.
Kyle
Chris Bell (be...@unca.edu) wrote:
<snippage>
: Interestingly, at the time DeSoto made his travels through my neck of
Do we need to 'show you' the effects of a deadly "natural entrapment?"
>Just when I was beginning to fear that the newsgroup was moving to a
>higher level, hence, away from me, Andy Kravitz and Dale Brown agreed
>that John Kuthe is a "sniveling butthead". ALLRIGHT!!!! Now we are really
>discussing the finer points of the ethics of altering streams. I of
>course, as another Missourian, agree completely with Andy and Dale.
Now Chris, I didn't call him that. And now, he is going to flood my
mail box with all kinds of letters. Good Grief.
And for the rest of the newsgroup, John and I are good friends who
like to poke a bit of fun at each other.
andy
------------------------------------
Andy Kravetz, reporter
The Columbia Missourian
c68...@showme.missouri.edu
>Chris Bell (be...@unca.edu) wrote:
><snippage>
>: Interestingly, at the time DeSoto made his travels through my neck of
>: the woods, significant expanses of the Southern Appalachians were open
>: balds, balds created by fires set by the native human inhabitants to
>: encourage elk and bison.
>I agree with your position on this issue (removing trees). But I'm curious
>what this fact justifies? Are you just mentioning it as a curious factoid?
>Other than the fact that man has been trying to ruin this planet from day
>one.
<snippage>
Just a curious factoid.
-- Chris
Vince
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~ /
~~~~~ /
Vince Thompson <OOO/OO> Vince's Idaho Rafting Page
Twin Falls, Id. & http://netnow.micron.net/~rafter
raf...@micron.net <OOO\OO> IRU, AWA, AR, ICL
~~~~~ \
~~~~~~~ \
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>On 22 Jan 1997 20:30:43 GMT, ckell...@aol.com
(CKelly1022) wrote:
>
>>Just when I was beginning to fear that the newsgroup was
moving to a
>>higher level, hence, away from me, Andy Kravitz and Dale
Brown agreed
>>that John Kuthe is a "sniveling butthead". ALLRIGHT!!!!
Now we are really
>>discussing the finer points of the ethics of altering
streams. I of
>>course, as another Missourian, agree completely with Andy
and Dale.
>
>Now Chris, I didn't call him that. And now, he is going to
flood my
>mail box with all kinds of letters. Good Grief.
>
>And for the rest of the newsgroup, John and I are good
friends who
>like to poke a bit of fun at each other.
>
>andy
Andy, et al,
Actually this was my doing. Andy didn't say John was a
butthead. Kendal, my three year old and I had just been
watching "Babe" on video, and there's this bit where the
little pig calls the sheep "you big buttheads". For some
reason, this stuck in my mind, and as I read Andy's initial
posting, I imagined He was the pig saying " You snivelling
Butthead", to john who was the sheep. Go figure huh?
I think I had John's image as a sheep stuck in my mind,
because he and I had recently been to a race, and general
meeting together, And andy, because he's always criticizing
my web page. Chris, I actually imagined you as the "Duck"
from Babe. I guess it's because you'd been by the house on
your way back to Columbia.
Maybe I should seek a little therapy, because I imagined
Herm Smith as the farmer's wife!
Do you need to hear of every single Foot Entrapment. If anything, you
should fill holes in the rivers. Not cut trees down.
I can't see the point of altering streams. If your not up to the
challange, stay at home and watch videos.
Shayne
Kind of humorous in an ugly sort of way, Nature has made a mess of the
Payette, and man is not allowed to fix it, as the stream is protected.
Now the stream is going to cover the road in the Spring runoff. Glad I
don't live in Garden Valley!
The good news is that there are some new class IV rapids on the South
Fork, and it will be interesting to find out what has happened in the
Canyon stretch. We will be doing a whole brand new river on our home
river this summer, for better and for worse.
Wink
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Heirloom quality jewelry at 50 to 70% of what you
would pay a traditional retailer. Please visit Winfield's at:
Wink Jones
If you are cranky, irritable, or just plain mean, there
will be a $10 charge just for putting up with you!
-------------------------------------------------------
>>If North America was still forested in virgin timber
>>as it was a few hundred years ago, when the native indians were the only
>>ones here to respect this land, there would be much less flooding, and
>>when flood waters occurred, they would not be as high (of course this
>>only applies to watersheds which were originally forested).
>
>Interestingly, at the time DeSoto made his travels through my neck of
>the woods, significant expanses of the Southern Appalachians were open
>balds, balds created by fires set by the native human inhabitants to
>encourage elk and bison.
>
>-- Chris
Of course, native humans were also responsible for the extinction of the
wooly mammoth, and the majority of bird species in Hawaii were gone before
Europeans came along. The difference is that we now have greater
population, greater technology, greater means for messing up nature. We
also have greater understanding of the long-term consequences of our
actions, and more alternatives. So let's use care when we decide what to
modify.
Riviera Ratt
>I think I had John's image as a sheep stuck in my mind,
>because he and I had recently been to a race, and general
>meeting together, And andy, because he's always criticizing
>my web page. Chris, I actually imagined you as the "Duck"
>from Babe. I guess it's because you'd been by the house on
>your way back to Columbia.
I am in Columbia so don't bag on the city because if you do... well,
then it is time to pop open a can of Whup-Ass (tm). But don't worry.
John is baging on my page and the MWA page all the time. What is that
old saying, those who do, do. Those who can't, criticize. Get the
picture.
>Maybe I should seek a little therapy, because I imagined
>Herm Smith as the farmer's wife!
Oh, Well, I don't think that Herm is going to like that. But then
again, he doesn't have the legs to be a farmer's wife. Maybe the goat
but not the farmer.
Finally, the Columbia Area River Paddlers are sponsoring their Annual
Pool Slalom on Feb. 1 at the Columbia Hickman High School. The pool
slalom is a great way to practice those moves and a good excuse to get
in your boat in the middle of the winter time. The cost is only $7.50
and the race begins at 8:30. For more information, email me at
akra...@digmo.org
>My own personal definition (which is worth?) of nature is that it's the
>parts that wern't created or altered by us. If we start altering the runs
>we're not truly in nature anymore. At some point we'll be in Disney Land.
>
>This is just the beginning of this sport. If we justify small river bed
>changes now, what will be justifiable in fifty years?
I think this whole line of thought that if we alter nature any then it will lead to creating a disneyland effect is jumping to conclusions. As a similiar line of thought I submit the logic that computers would create the paperless office. I work in a 28 story building that is full of these things and TONS of paper. Give humans some credit.
no, I don't think it is depressing. I do think it is a point approiate to discuss. Just need to get people to think instead of emotional responses. Also, I think there is a thing called "kaykar Syndrome" which is where a good paddler has forgotten what it is like to not know all about the river and have all the paddling skills or the moxy to to daredevil stunts.
>Keith
>
>
>< Content-Type: text/html; Filename: text03.htm >
>
Did any of you see the story in the (your) paper late last week reporting
that the families of the folks in Oregon killed last year in a mudslide
alledged to have been caused by logging above their home are suing the
logging company that did the cutting?
There was a very interesting article on the flood, mudslide and deaths
in High Country News, the little bi-weekly paper out of Paonia, CO
that covers news of the West, especially news with an environmental
slant. The article appeared within the last month. HCN has a web page
with archives of their articles. I don't have the URL handy, but you
could get it in a hurry with AltaVista, key word "High Country News."
Great paper. I get it and I no longer live in the West!
-- Chris
The reason I took the view of no you shouldn't remove trees was set on a
expert caliber run, like the Green, that is of course how this thread got
started. Saturday, I went down the Hair of the Bear, as it is called in
Plunge, and we had to portage many rapids due to strainers. And yes, one
of the members of my group got stuffed on a tree but managed to remove
himself from it.
Anyways, hope for more rainny thursdays and fridays
Shayne
:Also, I think there is a thing called "kaykar Syndrome" which is where a
:good paddler has forgotten what it is like to not know all about the river
:and have all the paddling skills or the moxy to to daredevil stunts.
For the folks who have evaluated the risk and their ability it requires
neither "moxy" nor "daredevil stunts". For those WITH the ability it's
just the status quo. Just like your status quo (whatever that is).
Please do not attempt to advocate dumbing down the run's you're not capable
of, just so you can run 'em. Insted, why not try practice. We did, I'm
sure you'll be glad you did too.
As for your paperless office metaphor, are you serious? Who made you that
promise? Are you aware of the advances in electronic commerce? You're
on the internet, fool, and you're talking about how computers are failing
to deliver useful technology? Get a clue.
Kyle
<snip>
> The good news is that there are some new class IV rapids on the South
> Fork, and it will be interesting to find out what has happened in the
> Canyon stretch. We will be doing a whole brand new river on our home
> river this summer, for better and for worse.
It will be interesting to see the Canyon... I would imagine it hasn't
changed that much. The quantity of water going through there was big, but
probably not that much bigger than the last two spring's peak run-off. It
seemed to me that the real flooding was a little lower down in elevation,
and that quite a few of the changes made to the Staircase stretch were
caused by mud slides, not just high water.
Of course, I haven't been over there yet (not sure if the road from
Crouch to Banks is open yet, and Banner Summit's still closed), just going
on what I've heard.
--
Sea Bass Sears -- Sea...@intbuild.com -- Interface Builders
AWA, IRU -- http://www.intbuild.com -- Ketchum, ID.
Home of Worldgroup for Mac, telnet://wgmac.intbuild.com
Apparently a dagger kayak has signed up with AOL and is posting to this
group! Is this a result of genetic/plastic engineering going on up in
Harriman? They're apparently crossbreeding hairboaters (who'll mate with
just about anything) and kayaks to produce "intelligent" boats that can
run class V water by themselves and can escape form holes even when
paddled by a novice tuber. Apparently the boat will even defend it's
owner if provoked (see above article).
What will they think of next?
- Fish