# Tuber drowns on Boulder Creek



## doublet (May 21, 2004)

The short version is that a group of tubers tried to run the elephant buttress rapid.

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/county_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2423_4768168,00.html


----------



## cecil (May 30, 2005)

BOULDER - A young man tubing down Boulder Creek died after losing control of his tube. 
The man's identity has not been released by police, but he's between 18-25 years old. He was with a group of five other tubers in the creek on Sunday afternoon. 

The victim's friends said their tubes were starting to flip over when they lost sight of him.


Witnesses on the scene tried to revive the man by administering CPR, but were unable to do so. 

The victim's friends say he is from Colorado and had just returned from Thailand where he was teaching English.

Boulder County Sheriff Commander Phil West, says Boulder Creek was running at double the normal flow because of a water release from the Barker Dam on Saturday. Usually, the river flows at about 250 cubic feet per second, but Sunday's flow was at about 500 cubic feet per second. 

The water release from the Barker Dam was necessary to prevent the dam from overflowing, officials said.

Stay safe out there guys...


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

was this a no shirt no pfd beer in hand tuber and not a wetsuit, helmet, pfd tuber? still sorry to hear about it.


----------



## leery (May 16, 2005)

*where is elephant buttress*

where is the elephant buttress rapid? Is that the double drop about half way through the park?

i was watching the report from 9news.com and it sounded like some folks pulled him out of the creek in the pool underneath widow maker. 

thanks for any info.
ryan


----------



## cayo (Mar 20, 2005)

Sorry to hear about the tuber.Not to be callous but, is BC really running 500 the flows page shows 357 and so did Watertalk last night. The town run play gets good high ,the canyon at 350 excellent.
Do the cops just make stuff up?"usually runs 250??" usually is below 100,from May to July 100 to 800 cfs.with alot of variation.

Not to be a fascist but maybe if they ticketed tubers without PFD'S they could save a life or two,at least over certain flows they could post lifejacket required signs.To preserve the eye candy scene all female tubers would be required to remove pfd's when on shore,jk.


----------



## doublet (May 21, 2004)

The Elephant Buttress rapid is the class IV+ rapid where the river leaves the road - about 1 mile upstream of the playpark. 

I'm not sure what to say about ticketing lifejacket-less tubers. I'd probably tube the town section even at these flows. Sounds like the tuber was clue-less that the canyon section is a lot bigger than the town section.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

> where is the elephant buttress rapid? Is that the double drop about half way through the park?


No, elephant buttress is just below the bridge & climbing area upstream maybe a mile from the park. It's the main event on the run - a continous class IV+ section that I wouldn't want to tube or swim. We were putting on about the time this happened. We saw a lone tube in an eddy right below the Buttress, perhaps one of the party's. I'm not certain, but we talked to a news guy in the parking lot at the takeout and it sounded like it was a swim trunks, no safety gear kind of tuber.

The creek was running about 350 cfs, not 500. I wrote to the 9 news editor complaining about the inaccuracy and sensationalizing of their reporting, but no response.

Anyway, I always look at these events as really sad. The guy probably wasn't a bad person, just ignorant with respect to the risks of whitewater. I guess the lesson is, if you see guys running stuff unprepared, there's no shame in warning them they shouldn't be there.


----------



## redbeard (Nov 6, 2003)

hmm, any news on the lone kayak mentioned at the end of the article?


----------



## heliodorus04 (May 31, 2005)

Pueblo took the pro-active step last year to make it a CITY ordinance that Life Jackets are mandatory on the Arkansas in their jurisdiction.

You may recall a 14-year old drowned there last year in the PlayPark while tubing without a PFD. This year, at the entrances on each side of the play park are clear signs indicating PFDs are required by law.

Anything like that posted around Boulder?

Sorry to hear about the drowning. My sympathies to the family and friends.

Helio


----------



## Geezer (Oct 14, 2003)

More reporting inaccuracies. Channel 2 news started with a notice of a kayaker dead on Boulder Creek. When they got to the story, it was about a tuber. Again with the 500 CFS. 

Maybe they got their information from the Durango Herald :roll:


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

ouch!


----------



## JCKeck1 (Oct 28, 2003)

Just wanted to throw in on river politics. I'm completely against requiring life jackets to get into the river. I'm also against seat belt laws for adults. If you want to make a stupid personal decision - that's your choice and not one the government should make for you. I do encourage people to wear jackets and belts, but why does everything that one person believes is stupid need a law. I should mention that throwing your body off waterfalls in a silly piece of plastic is extremely dangerous and stupid, but none of you are out to make a law against it even though it might save someone's life.

I'm all for signage and education, not for rules and laws.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

jckeck

i have to agree - but...

say you have a no helmet wearing motorcyclist who wrecks and has permanent brain damage thus requiring medicare or workers comp or some expense that drains the economy somehow. not to mention lung cancer patients who smoked all their life, etc. etc.

many permitted rivers required a pfd - so i don't see why a city should not be allowed to require one. i agree that banning boating all together or banning certain type of craft is just plain stupid.

tough question to be sure. err on the side of personal freedom though.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

I am not a fan of regulation but when it came to the Pueblo decision, I campaigned to the city council for it. Before the law it left the policing of the ww park to kayakers and it was just not a good time. Something had to be done to make people think. I am all for people making their own decisions but with such easy access to the water in Pueblo something had to be done.


----------



## raft3plus (Apr 24, 2004)

Joe, you sure challenge my perspectives with your ideas..... shocking and true at the same time. It seems prudent to use and encourage the use of pfds, without requirement, yet one also has the duty to inform those not doing so of the risks involved.

Much love on the river to you all. It sucks to lose any life, let us prevent further losses please.


----------



## Ed Hansen (Oct 12, 2003)

heliodorus04 said:


> You may recall a 14-year old drowned there last year in the PlayPark while tubing without a PFD.
> 
> Helio


Actually, he and his cousin were going down on an inflatable mattress. Pueblo is a kinda low-income sorta place and the kids just use what ever they find in the garage: tube, mattress, k-mart raft, pool floaty... Of all the kids I've seen there since the park was built, not a single parent has been with them at the river. Almost none of their families have made buying lifejackets a priority, let alone quality gear made for moving water.

Along the bike path, about the middle of the park, there is a home-made memorial cross with flowers, like the kind you see on the side of the highways. Maybe that reminder has saved few of the kids from getting in the water.


----------



## thecraw (Oct 12, 2003)

Just to bring up more possible innacuracies...

I did the buttress section last night and it was pretty stompy in there. Some big holes form up above 300 and I was completely stopped several times trying to get through.

As I was going through I was saying to myself "who in the hell would get in here with a tube".

Well, when I got to the bottom a guy mentioned that the he was there the day the kid died and saw the body. Apparently he wasn't in the buttress section proper... but rather he put in just above the bridge that cross's boulder creek before heading up the canyon, or better stated, he put in just in front of that row of nice houses along the creek at the bottom of the butress. 

I was not there, but asked the guy for sure and he was certain on his end. Just goes to show that the press is rarely accurate unless you are a 60 minutes caliber outfit. Bad info sucks, and so does the person who wrote that article if in fact he was this inaccurate.


----------



## lmaciag (Oct 10, 2003)

Another article that upsets me: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4770005,00.html

I just wrote a letter to the author and editor regarding this quote and explained 'foot entrapment' to them and admonished them for including it in the story.

"In reality, it's not that bad," she said. "If you feel you're in trouble, you just stand up. There are only a few places where it's not shallow enough to stand."


----------



## heliodorus04 (May 31, 2005)

Wow. What a gaper!

There's a reason my professional newspaper career lasted 3 days...

Helio
(that's the first time since I started boating last year that I've felt justified calling someone a gaper...)


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I talked to two non-boating folks last night and today who both told me the same type of story... Friend goes to tube boulder creek thinking its a fun mellow thing to do, friend then proceeds to lose flip flops, camera, get beat up, and get the shit scared out of them. Unfortunately I think that people see others with a tube and a smile and think its fun, which is not always the case.

As for life jacket laws, I am wary on this one. More regulation does not mean more safety and could lead to worse access and more issues. Its a slippery slope and must be done correctly. If worded correctly, I would not be opposed a law that would require PFDs on class III and above whitewater. This would not impact kayakers and rafters, as they wear them anyway. It would still allow for mellow tube trips on class I-II, but it would provide some distinction and warning. The problem is that most lawmakers are not boaters, and if laws start getting made as knee jerk reactions, boaters could suffer.


----------



## MikeG (Mar 6, 2004)

What is the danger of requiring PFDs? That makes no sense. The problem is that there is no perceived danger with tubing. For example, about five years ago I had the damndest time trying to convince some kids not to run the upper narrows of the Poudre on tubes and without pfds. They just didn't think it was that dangerous- especially after watching kayakers smooth their way through it. They were foolish kids but didn't deserve to die for it. People may ignore regulations but it helps people understand that there is a real danger. Also, don't forget the rescues involved, both professional and citizen-based. Kayakers are generrally good people who will do everything in their power to save a total stranger but is it fair to put them (us) at risk?Pfds would prevent some accidents and make some rescues easier/more successful. I admit that it makes me chuckle to see a cocky frat boy on a tube get worked in widowmaker and crawl out with dinner plate sized eyeballs but requiring pfds would save a lot of headeaches and lives.


----------



## JCKeck1 (Oct 28, 2003)

You know what would save headaches and lives - outlawing driving. Driving is the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 17 and 65. 

Also we should outlaw junk food and fast food. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for those over 65.

Furthermore, the majority of smart people think drinking and smoking are stupid. Liver failure and lung cancer can result from these risky activities. Therefore it's definitely time to outlaw drinking and smoking. 

In fact, we should all live in padded rooms with alcohol hand sanitizer continually available and be fed only a diet rich in tofu and spinach. This way no one will ever die.

I do feel for those who have lost loved ones along the way - including me, but if I die kayaking please don't outlaw it because it's dangerous and stupid. 

Wearing a pfd is a personal decision not one that should be made for you. It is also your personal decision to attempt to rescue someone in the river not wearing one. You are certainly not required to do so.
"If freedom is the ability to choose between the lesser of two evils every four years, then I'll pass" -Edward Abby (not exact)
joe


----------



## lolak (Aug 22, 2005)

I understand it is my personal "choice" to rescue someone on the river or not. However, I can't imagine anyone standing by watching death just happen. Being a new boater to the community I am a little taken aback by your strong opinions on trying to make the river safer for all. It scares me to think that if I am in trouble, you are the person near by exercising his choice to rescue me or not. Your examples are interesting. If you think about it there has been some governing on all of these items. Public smoking, blood alcohol limits, driving, posting nutritional details of fast food. Nothing here is outlawed but allow those, who don't use common sense, to perhaps think twice before they act. Since actions of one do directly impact those around us. I am all for making my own decisions and not being told what to do however we all need a little reminder every once in a while. There is always a need for boundaries and right now on the river there are none.


----------



## thecraw (Oct 12, 2003)

Lolak...

Joe is not saying that he would not... nor any kayaker for that matter would ever let someone die in front of them. But think about it, if someone doesn't take the precautions to stay as safe as possible, why risk your life for some dumbf#ck that now just pawned his lack of responsibility on you... It's a brutal truth, but a truth nonetheless. I akin it to this... if I see a boat going by after someone just swam... I try to get the boat flipped and into an eddie. If the jackass doesn't care enough to not put float bags in his boat and I can't work it to shore... then asta la vista baby! I sure as hell ain't going to put myself at risk when you don't even care to do the right things to start with.
Joes points are extremely valid here. Ones that I hope we all consider. Take care of yourself, don't leave it to others to take care of you.


----------



## Cheyenne (Oct 14, 2003)

Personally -- I believe that it's the lack of ability to realize the consequences of one's actions. In todays world kids are not exposed to situations that require them to really make safety decisions. The decisions are usually already made for them, either by some official or their parents. A few bumps and bruises are needed when growing up (and maybe a couple of broken bones to really instill a lesson -- not trying to be callous). These little accidents help one to learn where the boundries are. Without these lessons, one cannot learn how to judge for oneself. If one does learn, then when exposed to the real life and death type of decisions, one might have some real life experience to draw on.

As an example, when grown up, a friend's parents were terrified of sharp knives, every knife in their kitchen was about as dull as a butter knife (the mom would dull the blades on purpose). None of the kids were allowed to own a pocket knife, etc. None of the kids in the family even knew how to handle a knife correctly. Sure enough, the older brother (14, or 15 at the time) of my friend nearly sliced his finger off -- he was at a relative's house and grabbed a sharp knife by the blade the same way that he grabbed knives that where in his own kitchen. His parents had thought that they were protecting their kids by making the knives "safe". Instead of teaching the kids how to use and handle a knife properly, they "taught" them not to be even aware of the dangers of a tool. 

So to fit this back to the subject at hand. Instead of creating laws, teach kids to not just assume that something is safe, but to assume that they need to determine if something is safe. I believe that the failure is not at the individual level, but on society for not preparing the individual with the necessary skills in order to survive.


----------



## tellutwurp (Jul 8, 2005)

I disagree about the perceived risk. I tubed this section prior to learning to kayak and used helmet and pfd, I knew it was going to be rough, some people lack common sense, such as 16yr old female drivers or drunk ********. People are always going to do dumb shit, and it sucks that when one finally gets hurt or killed then talk of regulation starts flying. Next thing you know, you can't tube down the creek, even if you are the Zoltan type, if the flow is higher than x. Or it seems that beer and tubing don't mix so all of a sudden you can't enjoy a beer after playing in the creek. I don't know, I suppose education rather than regulation is my point. Cops and government suck, when they are protecting you from yourself.


----------



## CUkayakGirl (Mar 31, 2005)

We always joke about tubers being natural selection but i don't think anyone could just sit back and watch them being worked and not help them.

We saved some tubers a few weeks ago on Foxton at like 700 CFS. The guy and girl didnt have PFDs or helmets, missed their take out and headed into the class III/III+ section a few miles below the fork in the road. After we saved the mostly naked big boobed girl on the other side of the river (the guys were pretty excited about that part) and lectured them, we left.
My question is this: If she would have let go of the rope, somehow got stuck in the hole below and died. Could her parents sue us or even if she didnt die, could she sue us? People have told me that it has happened many times in emergency situations that the person doing the saving has ended up getting f***ed later on. Are we protected under any law for attempting to save these people?


----------



## Cheyenne (Oct 14, 2003)

CUkayakGirl said:


> My question is this: If she would have let go of the rope, somehow got stuck in the hole below and died. Could her parents sue us or even if she didnt die, could she sue us? People have told me that it has happened many times in emergency situations that the person doing the saving has ended up getting f***ed later on. Are we protected under any law for attempting to save these people?


Here is the colorado good samaritan law



> Colorado Good Samaritan Law
> 
> 13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from liability. (1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or anv other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover.
> 
> ...


Basically my understanding of this, is that as long as you act in good faith, where not grossly negligent, and did not receive compensation for the act - you will not be held liable for any civil damages. The tricky part is the "grossly negligent" part, which I take as don't exceed your training.

Maybe one of the lawyer types could chime in


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I think that there is a good samaritan law that protects people trying to help out in accidents or bad situations. I know that this is the case for Doctors at least.


----------



## TimmyHo (Jun 24, 2005)

I'm not the lawyer type, but as a recreation professional, negligence vs gross negligence comes up WAY too often...

Grossly negligent means that you KNOWINGLY did something wrong, or in many cases KNEW something was wrong but didn't fix it when you owed a duty of care.


----------



## robanna (Apr 20, 2004)

As far as requiring a life jacket for tuber:

I'm no lawyer but I have been told (maybe incorrectly) that a lifejacket is required if you're in a boat on any body of water in colorado, but not for tubers. Why require it for a kayaker but not a tuber?


----------



## lolak (Aug 22, 2005)

Good points brought up by all. I would like to add that I agree that these dumb#$%@'s bring it on themselves by not using common sense. However we all know that we would try to rescue them. I would just love the advantage of them wearing a pfd to help raise my chances of rescue and survival as well. So, this goes back to mandating the wearing of a pfd on the river. They have already established they have poor judgement......yada yada yada and the banter goes on


----------



## sandbagger (Feb 1, 2006)

CUkayakGirl said:


> My question is this: If she would have let go of the rope, somehow got stuck in the hole below and died. Could her parents sue us or even if she didnt die, could she sue us? People have told me that it has happened many times in emergency situations that the person doing the saving has ended up getting f***ed later on. Are we protected under any law for attempting to save these people?


First off, nothing can prevent someone from suing you, the real question is whether such a suit has a chance.

The Good Sam law has been posted. Basically, what it does is raise the bar from mere negligence to gross negligence. The common law doesn't include a duty to rescue. However, once you undertake a rescue, under the common law you could be held liable if you perform that rescue negligently. The good sam law just changes the common law rule, making you liable only if you were grossly negligent.

What those 2 terms mean has been litigated to death, and it's impossible to define. Basically, ask yourself this: would a reasonable person consider your actions negligent? Would they consider them grossly negligent?

I suspect that if you did your best and didn't do anything exceedingly stupid you might be negligent, but not grossly negligent. If instead you tried to perform open heart surgery, that might be grossly negligent.


----------



## Cheyenne (Oct 14, 2003)

I saw a good description for the negilent part....



> ... as the responder acted as a rational person of the same level of training would have under the same circumstances.


Which sounds reasonable.


----------



## JCKeck1 (Oct 28, 2003)

A few points:

I agree and I am all for river side signs educating people on why they should use life jackets. That way they can make their own informed personal choice.

I would never stand by and watch anyone drown, but you can if you want to. In colorado, if you are not being paid as a rescue professional, you are not required to act.

My understanding of the good sam law as it's been explained to me by my EMT and Swift Water instructors is that you cannot be held liable for attempting to rescue someone as long as you attempt it in good faith and are acting under your education. A prime example is performing a trach (where you cut into a person's trachea because they are choking or having an asthma attack and cant breathe). Unless you are a surgeon or one of a few other personal trained to perform said procedure, you will be prosecuted for attempting one. This applies even if you are trying to save their life.

Also, if you attempt to rescue someone and make contact with them (ie strong swimmer rescue), make sure you get them out. Failure to do so could be construed as abandonment and expose you to lawsuit. Abandonment also applies if you have advance medical training and get involved in care. You have the decision to participate in care or not if you are not working. However, once you begin care, you must hand off care to someone with at least as much medical training as yourself. As an example, a doctor who happens to be on scene for a car wreck and participates in care, generally will have to go to the hospital with the patients to avoid abandonment.

I have to say that I'm not 100% sure on all of the details, but this is how I've understood teachings from EMT and SRT professionals.
joe


----------



## sandbagger (Feb 1, 2006)

JCKeck1 and Cheyenne, both good posts. JCKeck1, I only want to amend one thing you said: 


JCKeck1 said:


> you cannot be held liable for attempting to rescue someone as long as you attempt it in good faith and are acting under your education.


That is sort of true, but it is important to remember that the Good Sam law does not shield you from liability for gross negligence, which is not really the same thing as "acting under your education". Your info is good, though, I just want to make sure that people know the legal rule.


----------



## MikeG (Mar 6, 2004)

*regulations*

Again,
I have to strongly disagree with the perceived risk. I don't think most tubers have any idea of the consequences. Requiring a PFD would at least add a layer of though into the process. Regulation is not all bad. Talk to someone who has been in a bad car accident (to use the example above). How many people use seat belts to avoid tickets? Many. Until they've been in an accident and experienced the forces involved, they might never get it. Unless society takes on the role of flawlessly educating the public on all the dangers possible, regulation must fill in the gaps by requiring some safety precautions as a stop-gap measure. Who in the kayaking community has ever been negatively affected by a pfd law? The reality is that the general public sees no difference between kayaking and tubing so when people die the immediate reaction is to close it to all users (as we saw last year...or was it the year before?). It may not hold up in court but its still lost paddling time.


----------



## Alek (Oct 23, 2003)

*Re: regulations*



MikeG said:


> Again,
> I have to strongly disagree with the perceived risk.


I disagree with the disagreeal  I don't think we should require people to wear helments when riding a motorcycle, seat belts in the car nor PDFs on the river.

The rule is simple: if the only person that gets hurt is you, it is not mandatory to protect yourself. It's different if you endanger others (drunk driving, child seat and so on).

Otherwise some senator is going to decide that you are endangering yourself by base jumping/skiing/kayaking and will ban the whole thing. Everyone's perception of the level of risk is different: you might think kayaking class V is a sane thing to do, someone else likes to ride a bike at 75 mph without a helmet. The only objective way to handle it is to ask: "Will anyone else get hurt when this guy makes a mistake?".

I am in favor of letting natural selection take its course...


----------



## lolak (Aug 22, 2005)

I am in agreement with MikeG here. There is a risk to others in this case. We have established that we would more than likely assist those who are using poor judgement. It would be much easier to rescue someone with a pfd on than not. No one is talking about banning a sport here just providing some regulation.


----------

