# Time for action in Pueblo?



## pbowman (Feb 24, 2004)

just a general question, did anyone at all (kayaks, rafts, tubers, idiots, anyone) float in the river BEFORE the park features were built? while it could be argued that the risk is slightly higher due to the park, the same risk of drowning still existed before the features were added.

the mother's quote:
"There should be somebody at the kayak park to monitor what people are using to ride the river," Carol McDaniel said.

like a parent? come on lady, take some responsability here for your actions. 

another quote:
State law requires recreational users of the river to wear a life jacket, Zupancic (the Assistant Fire Cheif) said.

sorry to be brash, but this boils down to darwinism in effect, and the stupid lady got her kid killed instead of herself. flame if you must.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

I tried to tone that down but that is basically the note I sent to the paper. I pointed out that if these kids took this raft on any body of water with no pfd's that the outcome could have been the same. Should we fence off every reservoir in Colorado? I am sure this woman has a lot to deal with right now and I am sorry for her loss but for all she knew her kid could have been skateboarding on I25. Can we honestly as a society remove every hazard that a person can run into? No. These kids walked by a sign stating the law of requiring pfds and chose to disregard it. They would have climbed over a fence as well.


----------



## jj_luv2play (May 9, 2005)

I read somewhere that before the park was built it was illigal to swim in the Ark through Pueblo. That law was revoked for the park. I want to know if any kids swam in it then? Kids will always break the rules and do stupid things. 

One kid was found dead today in the Springs in a culvert after the floods we had yesterday. He shouldn't of been playing in the creek either. 

jj


----------



## twitch (Oct 16, 2003)

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1119485579/2

Link to the article in the Pueblo Chieftain.


----------



## gapers (Feb 14, 2004)

damn, i wanna punch this woman in the brain. Does anyone take accountability anymore. "Lets destroy these awful man-eating rapids", and the mountains too, cause i know someone who died there once. And...ski resorts, forget it, way to dangerous. Lets 86 all the ski resorts while we're at it. And, what about all those Alpine-slides, like the one in golden and Breck, those things have been pissin me off for years. When are we gonna make this state idiot-proof? Stop the madness


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

I was wrong to indicate that she didnt know where her kid was. She may have known and he may have disobeyed her instructions. I honestly have no idea.


----------



## Staj (Mar 15, 2005)

As the folks who directly benefit from this park, we need to stay on top of the issue as Magfaser suggests. This means trying to diffuse the anticipated tirade of negativity towards the park, all the while being mindful of the fact that this was a tragedy. So write into the paper, but be tactful. 

Without a doubt, Sundays paper will be filled with a bunch of bullshit opinions similar to the quotes from todays article. If you do write into the paper; obviously, do not mention anything akin to natural selection at work.


----------



## Swim team capt. (Jun 22, 2005)

I see this every day I paddle, I was even talking to a park ranger I was paddling with today about it. 

The Law states that everyone on a single chamber inflatable including inner tubes must be wearing a pfd and that includes not just the rivers he told me even on lakes like Chatfeild. Today I saw 9 people float past without them. Wish I could write the tickets too.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

When the park was just getting started I ran into one of the Pueblo City Councilman that supported the park. I gave him very positive feedback and thanked him. He wanted some written feedback and he gave me his card so I sent him some emails but they came back undelivered. I still have the card so I called him today but he is out of town. I will keep trying him and if he wants more POSITIVE feedback I will post a message out here and take the best of the notes and fedex them to his office. Lets see what we can do to support the people who supported us.

"the kayak course is basically a place for spawning death for children who are impoverished", saying that the park "caters to higher-income enthusiasts rather than average Puebloans". 
After rereading this quote from the mother, who talks this way? Impoverished? Especially when they are upset. This is lawyer speak, she is already setting up to sue the city.


----------



## blazeboy (May 26, 2005)

I've got little kids, so I feel for the family. 

Boulder creek is safe, most of the time, for tubbers...
Golden is safe, most of the time, for tubbers....
My suggestion is that they modify the Pueblo WWP to be safe, most of the time, for tubbers....
This way the kayak community can still use it and tubbers can use it...

When the river is too high, they could keep tubbers off, just as they do in Boulder.


----------



## ChrisKelly (Feb 7, 2005)

*OK, Some of you guys need to chill way out.*

This self rightous nonsense will get published and hurt not only this WW Park but the entire development of Parks like this.

There is absolutly no reason to say anything negative about this mother and/or her dead child. This is a tragic death of a child which the entire community, boaters and others mourn. end of story.

A poster above suggested contacting the City Councilman. This absolutly needs to be done in a massive way by Park users.

Some thought needs to be given to ways to prevent furture similar problems. What can boaters do to help?

Remember, this forum is public. Anybody can and will access it and use what is said here. I have never been to this Park and will probably never use it but have been involved in enough access fights and lawsuits and civic battles to see when a community (us) is shooting itself in the foot. This is neither the time nor the place for self serving, self rightous, comments regarding theses people who experienced a terrible and avoidable tragedy.

As a former AW Access Chairman, I strongly urge you to get involved with the solution and to restrain harmful comments. I realize that these comments come only from a tiny minority of the boating community and like everyone else, we have thoughtless people but they can be very harmful. Chris Kelly


----------



## heliodorus04 (May 31, 2005)

I'm a professional editor for a living. If anyone wants their submission to the Chieftain reviewed or critiqued, contact me via private message at this site and I'll give you my personal e-mail address.


----------



## badkins (Oct 30, 2003)

I don't see how the Mom could successfully sue the city on this, an unsupervised 14, 12 and 9 year old walk past a big sign saying you need lifejackets on the river, and one of them drowns. Very sad, but in no way is the city liable to fence off the area or provide life gaurds. 

I agree, with the previous poster, they just need to shut down the river to tubers when they know it is going to be high in the spring. Boulder has been doing this for years, the police put up a bunch of fliers about a week before the run-off hits, and then they wait for the water to come down to reasonable levels before opening it again.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

I think it's easy to forget that most people don't have the context for accessing the danger of whitewater that experienced boaters do. Without that context it's not a person being stupid, it's just being unknowledgeable. For kids of teenagers that lack of context is just exacerbated by the exuberance of youth. 

A partial shutdown ala Boulder and signs warning of the danger, the severity of the water level (like the fire signs: lower/medium/high) or "people have died here", etc. is a great idea.

I really believe the solution is to educate people using these parks that are not experienced in whitewater, and of course enforcing existing laws like the life jacket.


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

*more to the point....*

More to the point is why was the kid down there, why wasn't the mother aware of what her child was doing, and why isn't she taking some reposibility here for not keeping up with what her kid does?

It could have been much the same had the kid been climbing up on the Flatirons without aid devices and falling to his death. Lord knows how many kids and college students I helped load up into a body bag there in the 70's.

The mechanism may have been the kid's unknowledgable and I will say it, STUPID act of floating in a whitewater park on an air bed, but the bottomline is his mother is as equally culpable in this. Kid's for the most part do not think in terms of consequences for actions, hence they try things. It's really quite a human thing to do so. Parents need to know what their kids are up to.


----------



## ryguy (Jan 19, 2005)

Many towns have big gnarly people eating white water features. How many ditches are filled with diversion dams? I guess it is always eaisier to point fingers.


----------



## J Rock (May 19, 2005)

I agree this mother is suffering a loss and is looking for some way to understand how this can happen. Blaming the WW park and the city is her outlet right now. Understandable. 

I doubt she will have much luck in a lawsuit against the city if she wants to head in that direction. The Colorado Governmental Immunities Act protects governments from being sued... not to say there aren't exceptions, but I doubt if this would fall into the exception category. It would be similar to someone being struck by lighting on a city owned golf course and then pressing a lawsuit... or a person falling into a city owned lake and drowning. Neither would have much luck in their attempts. 

I doubt the WW park is going anywhere as well. The park brings money and tax revenue into the city. All the people from C. Springs, Denver and other areas that come to Pueblo to use the park most likely wouldn't be coming to the city otherwise and the city council must realize that. The threat of losing the lawsuit is slim and the tax revenue generated is important. I agree with the poster who said this will blow over in a couple of weeks. For right now, it's just a sad story of the dangers involved with fast-moving, high water. A lesson for us all.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Even before I became a kayaker I would have known this wasnt safe. At 2200cfs this water is moving and big but I am tired of second guessing their choices. Should have never done that in the first place. It certainly wouldnt hurt to close the ww park to tubers, swimmers over something like 800 cfs or for a certain time period but as I stated there are signs saying that a pfd is required. If another sign was installed stating that the park is closed to tubers due to high water would it stop people from going?


----------



## badkins (Oct 30, 2003)

> If another sign was installed stating that the park is closed to tubers due to high water would it stop people from going?


It would keep some people off, but not all. It would provide a little more protection for the city from frivilous lawsuits.


----------



## Staj (Mar 15, 2005)

gh said:


> It certainly wouldnt hurt to close the ww park to tubers, swimmers over something like 800 cfs or for a certain time period but as I stated there are _signs saying that a pfd is required_.


Exactly the subjective point. Why don't we close the river off to tubers, etc. when the level is above 1 cfs? 800cfs? or 2000cfs? Who knows what level is sketchy enough to warrant a closing? Nobody, and it doesn't matter.

We have signs that say "PFDs required". Yet, it doesn't matter. People still go down the thing without PFDs. 

Yes, there is governmental immunity, however there are exceptions to it (i.e. where the entity waives immunity). This may fall within an exception.


----------



## Staj (Mar 15, 2005)

If you are interested, here is one exception to governmental immunity (meaning; if this is the case, the entity waives immunity and can be sued):
_A dangerous condition of any...public facility located in any park or recreation area maintained by a public entity...or swimming facility.

Nothing in this paragraph...shall be construed to prevent a public entity from asserting sovereign immunity for an injury caused by the *natural condition* of any unimproved property, whether or not such property is located in a park or recreation area or on a highway, road, or street right-of-way._

This doesn't mean that they would be successful, only that they could try.


----------



## blazeboy (May 26, 2005)

The city of Pueblo is going to feel compelled to do something in order to keep the White Water Park open. I've suggested they could copy either the Golden example (design) or the Boulder example (law). There is no perfect way, but if the park is too stay OPEN, they will want to do something. Otherwise the city could just shut down a perfectly good play park. I think the White Water community could offer support and suggestions that would satisfy the needs of the city and the needs of the community.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

I have to agree with an earlier assessment on this thread: there is a 100% probability that a lawsuit is imminent. No one refers to their condition or that of there children as impoverished -- via the media no less. That statement was whispered in that poor woman's ear by some scumbag, bloodsucker of a dog-bite lawyer looking to cash in on a tragedy. He/she's telling her what she wants to hear: "it's not your fault, it's the city's...and we'll make them pay (of course I get half)".
Regardless of whether or not they win, a lawsuit against this municipality regarding a playpark will go a long way toward thwarting efforts in other towns and cities. And who's to say they won't win? Didn't some dipshit get millions for spilling coffee on herself? I really hope this will blow over in a couple weeks like has been suggested...but I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## J Rock (May 19, 2005)

I agree that there are exceptions to the immunity act and you quote accurate paragraphs, staj. I just think that it would be highly unlikely the city would lose. She probably is talking with an attorney, anyone is free to try and sue the city. If it were so easy to sue the city even when considering those two paragraphs in the immunity act you would see more people doing it all the time and we would hear about it more than we do. My two cents.


----------



## whitewater wife (Jun 23, 2005)

*Time for action indeed*

One, in my mind, major point to this entire ordeal that is not being stated nearly enough is that play park or not, this happens every single year in Pueblo....probably elsewhere as well. Every year about this time, the kids get out of school, it's hot, they're bored, so they jump in the river. In one of the dozen or so articles I've read in the Chieftain and elsewhere is a fact that cannot be dismissed. *Since 1999 there have been five deaths on the Ark in Pueblo.* That's practically one every year. _One every year before the play park was ever constructed._

It is certainly a tragedy and I am very sorry for the family. I am more upset with the mother than anything. I think most of us feel that way. Human stupidity is sometimes beyond belief. Fences, gates and even 'monitoring', as it was so put, isn't going to solve the problem. You can only tell someone to get out of the water. Whether they listen is up to them.

There is most certainly going to be some call for action in this town. I watched so many of the Pueblo Paddlers work _so_ hard at making the dream of a park on the Ark become a reality. There will be, without a doubt, some sort of something come up in protest of the play park. It would be, and hopefully will be, nice to see fellow paddlers from across the state help do their part, whatever that may be, in defense of a great play park.


----------



## Mike B (Jun 24, 2004)

Chris Kelly said it well

[There is absolutly no reason to say anything negative about this mother and/or her dead child. This is a tragic death of a child which the entire community, boaters and others mourn. end of story. ]

I think the thoughts on educating the public in Pueblo to safety and hazards of moving water are useful. Please folks, let's keep a constructive focus on our contributions to such an emotionally charged topic. 

I don't want to offend anyone, but feel strongly that this is not the time to find fault.


----------



## TimWalker (Oct 25, 2003)

I was at the park last night and just thought what a tragedy it was for the family - I also had selfish thoughts about how I love number 4 and 6 at 2200 cfs. It is great that Pueblo turned this urban eyesore into a recreational gem. 

This mother is grieving right now and I'm sure she is desperate to find her son and have some level of closure to this incident. It appears she is no longer in denial and has entered the anger portion of the grieving process. I think the boating community should embrace her right now (before the scumbag lawers) by volunteering time to search for her son's body - this action may help her get through the anger phase and is also the right thing to do. Also, if some organizers out there could arrange a benefit rodeo at the play park to raise money for burial costs and to raise awareness of river safety it would do a world of good to show our sincere goodwill. 

On a similar note, two boys (13 and 14) died in Colorado Springs on 6/21 during an intense thunderstorm - they were somehow caught up in a storm surge in a usually almost dry creek. The surge was enough to carry one boy all the way to fountain creek, that's six miles down a rocky storm basin. Both incidents are a huge opportunity for community learning to occur so the deaths of these boys aren't in vain.

While it is easy to dig our heals in and attempt to protect our self interests, we should instead embrace the parents of these children by bringing awareness to the dangers and power of water, whether it is a storm drainage or a whitewater park.

Anyone out there agree? Does any Pueblo paddler out there want to lead this effort? The Edge? I can get involved but we just had a baby so I don't have a lot of time, or so says my wife.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

The benefit rodeo is a good idea.


----------



## pbowman (Feb 24, 2004)

my original comments were a knee jerk reaction. i did not intend to belittle her or her family's loss in any way, and i admit that i was not sensitive to the grief they must be experiencing. however i take complete responsibility for my statements and i have chosen not to edit the post.

any reasonable person with access to TV or radio media has been alerted to the dangers of high runoff this year. i disagree that the mother was simply uneducated - the media has brought this topic to the forefront throughout the state, and i do not see how any reasonable person could assert that they are unaware of the dangers present.

i am thankful that all of you have not persecuted me for being insensitive, and i hope a resolution is reached that is not detrimental to all the hard work of the local boating community.


----------



## Staj (Mar 15, 2005)

TimWalker said:


> I was at the park last night and just thought what a tragedy it was for the family - I also had selfish thoughts about how I love number 4 and 6 at 2200 cfs....I think the boating community should embrace her right now (before the scumbag lawers)...


Yep, I was out there yesterday and had the same thoughts. I felt awkward about playing in 3 while the search continued. On that note, I will be out there searching when the level drops. My feeling is that we will have to wait until the level drops substantially to find him.

For the most part, I agree with you Tim; which is odd, given your label of lawyers being scumbags. Or was it scumbag lawyers? Regardless, we should try and do something for the family, embrace the parents as you stated. Rodeo sounds good. Ill bring this up to Bob at The Edge. 

However, the more the parents place blame and indict others, the more difficult it is to be empathetic/sympathetic. I, for one, am completely irked that people are placing blame on the park. As others have expressed, this has happened before and without the park in place. If it gets out of hand (the negativity), we need to protect our self interests.


----------



## TimWalker (Oct 25, 2003)

Staj - I agree with protecting the parks image and the positive posturing is important for the public's perceptions. As for the lawyer comment, it was too general, I'm often guilty of that. I was specifically referring to the ambulance chasing lawyers that cost us billions by abusing the law - case in point is the McDonalds coffee incident, or the class action suit where I and thousands of other customers of Citibank were awarded checks for pennies and the law firm made millions (my check is for 8 cents and I have it displayed in my cubicle).


----------



## Jiberish (Oct 20, 2003)

I think educating the public would also help. Shutting down the river to tubbers is a good idea, I just don't know how politically correct it would sound. *like when they want to shut down the river to kayakers*. Bottom line, when you are wearing a life vest your chances of survival increase. Its similar to wearing a seatbelt in a car. 75% of peeps who die in a Rollover accident were not wearing seatbelts.... while 25% were.... I think educating the public, and getting across that the river is a fun natural resource....but like any resource, some precautions are imminent....(snow-avalanches)

this is one of the only times youd hear me preach on education....


Ben Guska


----------



## whitewater wife (Jun 23, 2005)

*A superb idea*

A benefit rodeo is an awesome suggestion. I too will do my part and talk to Bob and others to see what can be done. Excellent, excellent suggestion.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

If you guys need help with this, have Bob give me or one of the reps from the PPWC a call or post out here and we will get involved as well.


----------



## TimWalker (Oct 25, 2003)

I spoke with Bob @ The Edge. He thinks it is a great idea to have a benefit rodeo. He said he can handle permits, he stated that they can get a rodeo surge of +1000 for an event, and he also has access to a PA system. He said they're already at work to gather local communities and educate them as to the dangers of moving water. I've never organized a rodeo so looking for some talent here...any folks involved in the Denver, Golden, Summit or Upper Ark valley rodeo circuits care to participate (Mike Paris, Hobie, Earl, PT or others).


----------



## rwc (Jun 15, 2005)

I want to thank all of you for your discussion on the topic and working toward figuring out what needs to be done. I was one of the last to see the boy alive (from a distance) and have really been struggling with myself for not saying something to him and the other 2. Please keep this post updated on what is being planned so that I can help and be a part of it.

Also, as far as keeping tubes out, I really don't know how you can do that without closing the park in general. I am all in favor of the education proposition.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

rwc, I felt the same way when I helped someone down there and they lived. Honestly, many of us have spoken to people down there and they disregarded the advice. Everyone there did what they could from what I hear. Dont beat yourself up and find some peace.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Rusty, ease up on yo self. It they didn't listen to the sign they walked past they wouldn't have listened to a Texan. I seriously SERIOUSLY doubt that afternoon's events would have unfolded any differently...except you might have gotten the finger.


----------

