# incident on the gunnison?



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

not sure what all happened but as we floated down the river today we kept picking up tidbits of information regarding a possible accident on the gunnison river. everything we have heard is heresay from fellow guides and river users but as far as anything concrete i havent heard yet. what we heard was a guy launched this morning with his three kids on the raft from McCabe's Lane, the common takeout for the gunny town run, located west of town. they were headed downstream when somewhere near or before coopers ranch, the raft tipped/flipped (not sure yet) and apparently the guy was thrown out, and he did not have a life jacket. the word is he drowned, but the kids were ok. we saw a whole crew of rescue personnel at McCabes when we took out but they werent readily handing out information, so again i have no concrete info at this point and am just waiting for further news. if i hear any more i will post, anybody else in town hear about anything?


----------



## John Peterson (Jun 26, 2007)

News : Man dies in Gunnison River rafting accident (Montrose, CO)


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

*Gunnison death*

What I heard about the death on the Gunnison is this. 2 adults male and female and three kids, two boys and girl, non family. The man lived in Denver but visited his house on the East river almost every weekend. I do not know his ability as a boatmen. One thing I did hear is neither of the adults were wearing a safety vest or helmet. I thought this was absurd seeing that the Gunnison is pumping at high water right now. It goes to show you that Colorado needs a law not only requiring enough vets on the boat but that the people wear them as well. Apparently the accident occurred in "non usual" area of CLASS II. Respect the river.


----------



## John Peterson (Jun 26, 2007)

The flow yesterday would have been about 4300 - that's very high for this stretch.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

the article did not mention if he was wearing a PFD or not. If he was not and they did not report it - this is a complete disservice to the readers and the boating community.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

Talked to some more folks last night who were near the hubbub....

As far as I've heard from everybody, the guy was not wearing a life jacket. Like John said, it was about 4300 in that stretch, 3400 from the Gunny and 900+ from Tomichi Creek, and that is big for the Gunnison.

As far as the stretch he flipped in......it isnt so much a "non-usual" stretch of river, it's just not the most popular run in the valley, but it is damn scenic. While there are no real wide "rapids", its all moving water, the problem lies within a section i like to call "the bends", where the river meanders back and forth wildly for a couple of miles. Several of the bends are near 180 bends and if you're not paying attention you could very easily get swept into a logjam on one of those banks. That is likely the cause of the "multiple abrasions" reported on the survivors, and he probably took some downtime somewhere in one of those bends.

Condolences to the family, bummed to see #2 go down in my backyard.


----------



## JHimick (May 12, 2006)

BrownTrout said:


> It goes to show you that Colorado needs a law not only requiring enough vets on the boat but that the people wear them as well... Respect the river.


Education and personal responsibility is the answer, not more laws. A PFD sitting on a boat is useless. Anyone ever try to put on a vest in the water, moving water no less?

The majority of drownings usually involve not having a PFD or drinking alcohol Combine them and you're creating a recipe for disaster. Respect the river indeed.


----------



## UserName (Sep 7, 2007)

Colorado Does have a law requiring life jackets on rivers, even in the flat water. in fact it is the only law for private boaters. I think the fine is $100 weather a buckle is undone or just not wearing a pfd.


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

There is no law requiring a person in Colorado to wear a life jacket. You do however have to have enough life jackets for everyone on board. Its the same bullshit mentality that does not require a biker to wear a helmet. The law requires enough vets for everyone on board, common sense says you wear them. Well obviously people are not using common sense. I have boated enough flat water to know that a life jacket can be a pain especially if you wanna work on your tan, well people thats what the shore is for. What is wrong with requiring people to wear their jackets?????? It might be the the difference between a responsible "good" boater and the yahoos who think they know what the hell's going on.


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

From what I have heard, he hit his head on something and did not "hangout" in a log jam. What I meant about non-usual is that when looking at the location of accidents on the Gunnison this place does have any accidents in the past. Most of the carnage occurs around the water park. I am interested to see if officials will close the water park. When you think about it if you mess up at high water around the water park, where are you gonna recover? Private property???


----------



## puma2fish (Nov 12, 2003)

BrownTrout said:


> What I meant about non-usual is that when looking at the location of accidents on the Gunnison this place does have any accidents in the past. Most of the carnage occurs around the water park. I am interested to see if officials will close the water park. When you think about it if you mess up at high water around the water park, where are you gonna recover? Private property???


I have personally done rescue/recovery on the stretch below McCabes. Yeti is right about sharp bends and wood.


----------



## BillyD (Oct 10, 2003)

Very Tragic. Condolences to the family. That being said we should change BrownTrout to FinlessBrownSewerTrout. More Laws More Laws. If you don't look both ways they should throw you in jail. Dog off a leash, ten years at least. Don't be such a turd, let people take responsibility for themselves. Proper education is the answer, not laws and more laws. LAME


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

*Irresponsible boaters ruin it for the rest*

I agree, I like to ride my motorcycle without a helmet, fuck it, let the rescue team scrape my ass off the pavement. I also enjoy boating on water without a helmet or lifejacket, search and rescue is payed by our taxes right, they can save me. So personal responsibility and education is the answer huhn? Why are people still dying? People have know what a life jacket is for a while now. Why is there a law making sure there are enough life jackets on the boat? That must be bullshit to you too Billy D? I feel a law on the books would open peoples eye's and be education in itself. Remember Billy D, people also used to think driving drunk was a personal freedom too.


----------



## Snowhere (Feb 21, 2008)

*Darwin's Natural Selection at work*

Natural selection at work here. Also on the Poudre with the tuber sans life jacket. Not meaning any disrespect to any of the families, as it is a tragic loss that could have been easily prevented. 

I started wearing a ski helmet in 95 because I realized the need for it back then. Since my kids need to wear a life jacket all the time, so do I just to keep the playing field level. I like to lead by example and if they see me wear one all the time, they will just feel it is the way to go about boat safety. 

I wear my motorcycle helmet 98% of the time. But I do just jump on and buzz over to the hardware store or super market near by, sans helmet. We do not need more laws, education usually works, but I find it hard to believe a doctor would not know he should wear a life jacket on a spring runoff river. He made the wrong decision and unfortunately, he paid for it with his life.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

an update. apparently they (investigators) are not saying yet if the victim was wearing a pfd and the paper is reporting that.

http://www.montrosepress.com/articles/2008/06/02/news/doc48438abde9b09716757558.txt

a lot of you have not worn a pfd in class II so don't go pointing too many fingers but do start wearing one even on ruby h. sad but possibly preventable it seems.


----------



## BillyD (Oct 10, 2003)

You really think people thought drunk driving was a personal freedom?? Personal freedom and endangering the lives of others are two totally different things. Thus drunk driving laws. Search and rescue, not sure, but I believe is mostly funded by donations. At least it some of both. And you don't need to wear a helmet in Colorado. Its eye protection, so go for it.


----------



## masonjones (Mar 13, 2008)

*Delta to Whitewater?*

I have never floated this section of the Gunny where this happened but I have floated Delta to Whitewater. I have a 3 year old and we did it last summer, it was flat but great for a family float. We are planning to go again this weekend with friends but this tragedy raises possible concerns.

Can ayone help me with a few questions? 

1. What kind of boat was he in? Was this a full size raft (we would be in our 14 SB) or a little Walmart boat or something like that? I have no idea what that stretch is like or if people treat it like Boulder Creek (tubes, tiny rafts, no experience and no PFD's or helmets).
2. How does this stretch compare to the Delta - Whitewater stretch? When we ran the lower section last year I could not imagine a place where a full size raft with an average oarsman could flip but obviously high water changes everything.

I am a competent 3/4 rafter but not a professional guide and I have no desire to scare my children, we want these trips to be confidence building. Thanks for any info you can provide.


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

BrownTrout said:


> I feel a law on the books would open peoples eye's and be education in itself.


You can't legislate common sense. This is definitely natural selection at work. And I don't know why (or if) there is a law requiring a boat to contain enough PFD's for all passangers, but it is as equally ridiculous as a law requiring you to wear a PFD, or a seat belt or helmet. Do you really think that requiring people to wear a PFD will reduce the number of preventable accidents out there?? Dumb asses still tool around without seat belts, without helmets, and without lifejackets, and they pay the consequences. Why should I have to deal with more Johnny Law barking up my tree b/c John Q Retard is retarded. Just let people live their lives and stop trying to save them...If they want to be stupid, maybe they shouldn't be saved:twisted: :twisted:


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Werd. Anyone who advocates putting more laws on the books in this already ridiculously over regulated society deserves a kick sqare in the balls.

I think using the phrase "natural selection at work" in this context might be a little harsh, though. It seams like this guy thought he was in for (what is normally) a mellow float. Would I have a pfd on? Maybe. I live in the Gspot and know that the river is ready to tip it's banks and moving fast on every stretch. Maybe he didn't. But we're not talking about a dude who welded jet booster engines onto his car and drove/flew into a cliff or rested his hands on the rim of an industrial glue barrel to enjoy the fumes only to pass out and fall down, hands glued to the barrel, thus pulling the barrel down onto him and gluing himself to the floor to expire from hypoxia (both Darwin award winners). Let's give this guy the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Justin S. (Oct 9, 2006)

First- common sense isn't common.

Second- unless there was another incident this weekend, this guy went to church with my boss. Any remarks about alcohol or any other wrong doing can be taken back. As my boss is pretty hurt by it, and told me about the guy, well needless to say he was a man of God. He might have made an error in judgement but by no means was he being reckless. I don't know details, was just told about how he lived his life (the only really important thing there is to know).


----------



## onebakedpotato (May 12, 2005)

Mason,

The stretch of river that this incident happened on is very different from the delta/whitewater section. This section has many splits and strainers in it. Many times it is uncertain which fork to take and there could be 2-4 choices around any given bend. And with the high water things could change overnight. Lots of decision making and blind corners.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

This happens every year. You are talking about people losing their lives and basing your posts on rumors and sketchy reports. We all have an opinion but I think on a thread about someone losing their life that you should post responsibly and think how you would feel if a family member were to read it. It has happened many times over the years where their were some serious hard feelings. There is quite a bit of BS and slinging of poo on this website and thats all good but there is a time and place for everything and this is not the time or the place. RESPECT, say it with me.

And...my condolences to family and friends.


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

*3 out of 4 without LIFEJACKET*

Looks like there has been four deaths this year, three of the people did not have life-jackets on. I wonder if they knew the dangers of a river, especially without a life-jacket on. What's wrong with people wearing seat-belts? Whats wrong with people wearing life jackets. I repeat myself.... there needs to be a law that covers life jacket safety in a boat. Why do people have to take a hunter education course but not a whitewater education coursE? ASK YOURSELF THIS, WERE DID YOU LEARN RESPECT FOR THE RIVER? AND WHY IS IT NATURAL SELECTION IF SOMEONE DOES NOT KNOW HOW DANGEROUS A RIVER IS??? SEEMS LIKE BULLSHIT TO ME.


----------



## Snowhere (Feb 21, 2008)

I do not mean any disrespect for the family, it is a tragedy and a loss of life is always a sad time for those involved.

I will take back my Natural Selection call. The incident does not meet the technical aspects to be considered natural selection.

Too many people take river safety like lake safety. One can fall off a boat in a warm lake and easily get back in the boat. River safety, especially at spring run off is a non-forgiving mistress. The cold water saps your strength and the current will pull you down with out flotation. I know this is not news to most the people on here, but if just one newbie reads this and decides to wear a PFD on some easy class II, we will have maybe saved someone. I have survived swims through keeper holes that would of killed me if I did not have my pfd on. Looking back on my younger days I am amazed I did not die. Here is to hoping we all make it through big water this year.


----------



## JHimick (May 12, 2006)

Justin S. said:


> Second- unless there was another incident this weekend, this guy went to church with my boss. Any remarks about alcohol or any other wrong doing can be taken back. As my boss is pretty hurt by it, and told me about the guy, well needless to say he was a man of God. He might have made an error in judgement but by no means was he being reckless. I don't know details, was just told about how he lived his life (the only really important thing there is to know).


Sincere question here. What are you saying? I interpret this to mean that because he was a man of God he could do no wrong. I can't help but think of all the priests that molested little boys. I'm sorry but in today's world being a man of God means nothing when it comes to good values and responsibility.

This discussion has nothing to do with God my friend. It has to do with knowing how to be responsible on the river.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

BrownTrout said:


> I repeat myself.... there needs to be a law that covers life jacket safety in a boat. Why do people have to take a hunter education course but not a whitewater education coursE? ASK YOURSELF THIS, WERE DID YOU LEARN RESPECT FOR THE RIVER? AND WHY IS IT NATURAL SELECTION IF SOMEONE DOES NOT KNOW HOW DANGEROUS A RIVER IS??? SEEMS LIKE BULLSHIT TO ME.


I personally learned respect for the river/water at a drainage ditch, it was completely dry and I happened by when it had literally just been turned on. I could see it pushing all this garbage along and hear the huge concrete chunks bouncing along the bottom. Poudre Falls at very low water is an enlightening experience as well. 

I disagree with the life-jacket law, you have to go to hunter safety so you don't kill OTHER people not yourself.
Seat-belts and PFD's are common sense, if people make the choice to push their luck and not wear one it's no different than someone who makes constant small decisions that can kill them like smoking, being an alcoholic or drug addict.

It's called FREEDOM OF CHOICE, don't try to turn our country into a communist dictatorship run by folks who "know" what's best for everyone.


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

I would rarely advocate adding laws for anything, but some laws are helpful.
1. What's wrong with a law requiring PFD's if those of us who are informed all agree that one should be worn at all times?
2. Cataract Canyon for one does require a PFD to be worn in the 17 miles past the Danger sign.
3.Originally, policing the people and creating laws was designed to PROTECT AND SERVE, not ruin anyone's fun.
4. I spent my whole life on rivers rafting, tubing, and duckying without a PFD until I did guide school 4 years ago. I only wore one when wakeboarding. Nothing ever happened to me or anyone I know and not technically being part of the boating community, I never considered it a big deal. Now I always wear one, even on flat water (since I'm usually drunk then).
Bottom line: A law would provide education to those who don't know; would protect and serve them; and would not change what the rest of us do anyway.
Even with the argument that one law leads to more laws, this law could be a necessary evil.


----------



## heliodorus04 (May 31, 2005)

Laws that are in practice, unenforceable, are futile.
We have laws that require a pfd for each member of a boat, yet people still get on rivers without them.

There's no practical difference to a law that requires you to wear your PFD than the law to have a PFD on the boat. People will still violate it. And die. And the only thing that would change is that we in this forum would say "victim X was stupid and breaking the law." (Not saying this gunnison death had anything to do with stupidity - there's no confirmation that people had no PFDs, so from an AW safety perspective, I can't say anything about that.

Should people who get on rivers be educated? Yeah. Should permits be issued for everything? Maybe. Maybe there should be an educational/testing course to get on rivers the same way there is for drivers' licenses. I agree with TMTTR that educating out the ignorance about the difference between rivers and lakes makes sense.

But these kinds of laws only serve to make law enforcement look like bigger dicks than they are already perceived to be, and to make people angry when their tax lottery number comes up. For that reason, I'm against laws such as these.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

I would guess theat 1/2 or the rafters and 1/3 of the kayakers on the paddle out of westwater on a typical day don't have vests on. I think anyone throwing out the stupidity card on this one is over stepping. Just a bad decission that cost him his life. It really sucks. I know I have paddled alot of flat water with my skirt unattached and my vest under my butt as a cushion. I need to rethink that.


----------



## cma (Dec 19, 2003)

BrownTrout said:


> Why do people have to take a hunter education course but not a whitewater education coursE?


Who has to take a hunter education course?


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

Hunters do, so if you want to poach Westy you don't need a jacket. Logical right?


----------



## Claytonious (Jan 17, 2008)

*Outlaw class five kayaking.*

Maybe we should have a law that makes anything dangerous illegal. Maybe we should outlaw class five kayaking. Paddling class five with all the necessary safety gear is probably more dangerous than paddling flat water without a life jacket. 

Many people get on rivers because it is adventurous. When you get on your raft or in your kayak you are taking a risk. Sometimes people die. We will never be able to create laws that can protect people in all possible circumstances. 

I wear a life jacket, I also don't kayak rapids that I think will kill me, it is a personal choice. I would never tell another adult that they can't do something because it may be harmfull, unless by doing the act they were putting others in danger. If you eliminate all possible danger, you take the adventure out of things.


----------



## jbarnow (Sep 10, 2007)

Sorry to the family and friends of the victim this is a tradic and unlucky event. Condolences.

A new thread needs to be started to discuss your additional PDF regulations/laws and darwinism theories. This is not the place!


----------



## rwhyman (May 23, 2005)

Agree, see new thread

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f11/pfd-laws-19215.html#post99259





jbarnow said:


> Sorry to the family and friends of the victim this is a tradic and unlucky event. Condolences.
> 
> A new thread needs to be started to discuss your additional PDF regulations/laws and darwinism theories. This is not the place!


----------



## JHimick (May 12, 2006)

jbarnow said:


> A new thread needs to be started to discuss your additional PDF regulations/laws and darwinism theories. This is not the place!


Bullshit. This thread is not a memorial. This thread started because someone sought more information on an accident and now its a discussion about river safety. If you want to start a memorial thread go right ahead. This is a prefectly acceptable forum to talk about about PFDs and responsible river actions, whether or not unpopular opinions are expressed.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

JHimick, Maybe we need a thread asking if assholes should be allowed on the internet?


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

JHimick said:


> Bullshit. This thread is not a memorial. This thread started because someone sought more information on an accident and now its a discussion about river safety. If you want to start a memorial thread go right ahead. This is a prefectly acceptable forum to talk about about PFDs and responsible river actions, whether or not unpopular opinions are expressed.


Agreed. I think that the logical progression of the conversation is to how we can better educate and/or/not regulate safety on rivers. I religiously read Charlie Walbridges accident summary's to try and understand what I can do to be safer on the water. I have been following this thread for the same purpose. No one has made any personal remarks regarding the victims actions other than to try and state the known facts. The fact that a discussion on safety and river regulation has emerged is not calous or disrespectful....its pragmatic. Stop being so sensitive.  

Here's a new topic for you: Why is everyone so concerned about what context/forum/thread you can have a discussion about something?? Maybe we should just add a whole NEW forum dedicated to river safety and a whole NEW forum dedicated to memorials for river accidents. That way, no one's feelings will get hurt even though everyone hides behind an anonymous internet handle!!


----------

