# Two Dead after Numbers Incident...



## JCKeck1 (Oct 28, 2003)

Anyone know the exact location? I was hearing they were up in Pine Creek.

It's been a rough year

Joe


----------



## GAtoCSU (Apr 18, 2005)

Jeez. Bad year for Colorado whitewater.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

According to the 9news article and what I've heard it was in Pine Creek. I think they recovered a body in the numbers though.


----------



## JCKeck1 (Oct 28, 2003)

Ugh, anyone ever gotten a raft through around 1900?
Joe


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

I'm sure it has been done, but from what I've heard of this incident they were probably not well prepared and over their heads. It sounds like they were not appropriately dressed, (shorts and silk shirt). I may be off base, but it sounds like a poor judgment to raft that section turned terribly tragic.


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Drowning victims in Arkansas River identified

This seems to be worded a little strangely...probably just my poor comprehension; 

_"Chaffee County Coroner Randy Amettis says he does not believe the two victims were not wearing helmets, but they were wearing life jackets."_

Very tragic. I pray for comfort for all involved.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

7 mile flush in that section is unusual. Facts will come out.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

Nathan said:


> According to the 9news article and what I've heard it was in Pine Creek. I think they recovered a body in the numbers though.


Wow. A bunch of amature rafters running Pine Creek at high water. They probably didn't have a clue this was Class V+ and any swimmers would probably drown. RIP


----------



## bluesky (Sep 11, 2005)

FrankC, you might have the wrong section in mind. The Pine Creek section of the Arkansas is "only" a V- around 2000 cfs. A swim in there is guaranteed to be fast-paced and frightening, but only rarely fatal. I would've worn a helmet though...


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

bluesky said:


> FrankC, you might have the wrong section in mind. The Pine Creek section of the Arkansas is "only" a V- around 2000 cfs. A swim in there is guaranteed to be fast-paced and frightening, but only rarely fatal.


Well I heard it is considered a Class V swim at least, which by definition would mean extremely life threatening.


----------



## danger (Oct 13, 2003)

i tried to raft pine creek at 2100 a number of years ago. we thought we had it but in retrospect we weren't even close. i remember hitting the hole and feeling the raft simply disappear. and then the chaos ensued. i might give pine creek a class V rating in the 2000's. on par with rigo, no?


----------



## bluesky (Sep 11, 2005)

A swim would be nasty indeed. I have to say I've always walked around the big meaty hole at those levels. An unanticipated surf in one of the triple drop holes downstream convinced me I've made the right decision so far, too.


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

New article posted on 9News, bolded emphasis mine (I'm refraining from commenting). Awful tragedy - my thoughts are with Nakama's and Spicknall's families.

BUENA VISTA - The two victims of Tuesday rafting accident on the Arkansas River have been identified and the Chaffee County sheriff says neither had rafting experience. Jimmy Nakama, 40, of Littleton, and Thomas Spicknall, 36, of Centennial, died in the rafting accident. 
The Chaffee County Sheriff's Office says the accident happened around noon in the Pine Creek Rapids, a class five rapid, near Buena Vista. Class five means experts only. 
Survivor David Buckely, 42, of Franktown, *has 25 years of rafting experience and was the captain of the raft.* He told the sheriff's department that he had rafted in that area *several* times. 
*"I told them, 'It's big,'" Buckley said* to Chaffee County Sheriff Tim Walker, referring to the river. 
Walker says *aside from Buckley, none of the other occupants had any rafting experience.* *While they were all wearing life jackets, their helmets were in their vehicle after they each declined to wear one.* 
The sheriff's office says the rafters put in near Highway 24 north of Buena Vista and Nakama and Spicknall were thrown out as they reached the first set of rapids just after entering the river. 

Buckley and the fourth rafter, Abbigal Dodson, 26, of Englewood, were still in the raft and were able to rescue one of the men from the river. 

"The two remaining occupants of the raft were able to grab one immediately," Walker said. 

The two tried CPR while they were in the raft. 

The second man was washed down the river for seven miles. He was found by river rescuers after a search and he was also unresponsive. 

One of the men was pronounced dead at the scene and the other was taken to Heart of the Rockies Medical Center in Salida where he was also pronounced dead. 

Chaffee County Coroner Randy Amettis confirmed that the two victims were wearing life jackets. 

The four people were not with a local company, but were operating a private raft. They were employees of EMSC, an emergency medical services corporation which owns Greenwood Village-based American Medical Response. They were all support staff, and not EMTs or paramedics. 

"The EMSC family suffered a tragic loss Tuesday," William A. Sanger, chairman and CEO, said. "We all are shocked and saddened at the deaths of our two colleagues. 
"Both were long-time employees of the company who were loved and respected by their coworkers. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and loved ones." 

Nakama's father-in-law, Jim Roth, says his son-in-law died on what he thought was a recreational rafting trip with an old friend whom he trusted. 

"Jimmy was a much loved husband, father, son and brother. He was the center of a small but close family, he was loved by the people he worked with, the people he went to school with, the athletic teams he coached and the neighborhood in which he lived. His death has left a terrible hole in the center of all our lives. 

Roth says Nakama had floated with Buckley twice before and considered him a competent rafter. *It was Nakama's third time rafting in his life. *

"He trusted that friend to be knowledgeable of the river and conditions, he trusted him with his life and now he's gone," Roth said. 

Roth says rafters should take proper precautions before attempting to float down any rivers. 

"Do not float the river without examining the river, the flow, the recommendations of the state and local agencies that manage the rivers, the experience level of the guide and the equipment used. Don't maximize excitement at the expense of safety. It's dangerous," Roth said. 

Nakama was born in Littleton, graduated from Littleton High School and the University of Colorado and Roth says his son-in-law is on the wall of fame at his high school. 

"Jimmy was a wonderful person," Roth said. 

Roth says Nakama coached soccer and baseball. He left behind two children, Emmitt, 12, and Eva, 9. He is also survived by his wife Gretchen, known as "Grae."

The sheriff's office says the river was at about medium flow at the time of the accident, flowing at 1,840 cubic feet per second. 

"This particular area, however, is pretty turbulent. My recommendation would be if you're going to raft that area, you do it with a commercial company," Walker said. "The river is running a little bit higher this year at this time of year as opposed to previous years because of the slow melt this year." 

Chaffee County Chief Deputy Coroner Jeff Graf says autopsies on the two victims will be performed by 10 a.m. Wednesday in El Paso County in Colorado Springs. By 1 or 2 in the afternoon, they should have the cause of death. 

According to Mary Lee Bensman with The Chaffee County Times, the river is very high and the area of the rapids they were in is a dangerous section to raft. 

"I can't stress enough - if you're not experienced, to go with an experienced rafter, a commercial rafting company. Always wear your helmets, life preservers. Don't enter an area you're not experienced in," Walker said. "[This] is a very volatile section of the river. Not a section of the river I'd want to go down. ​


----------



## Ture (Apr 12, 2004)

bluesky said:


> FrankC, you might have the wrong section in mind. The Pine Creek section of the Arkansas is "only" a V- around 2000 cfs. A swim in there is guaranteed to be fast-paced and frightening, but only rarely fatal. I would've worn a helmet though...


I'd call it class V around 2000 cfs. I swam out of Pine Creek hole at that level a while back and it was the WORST swim of my life. A man flush drowned in the same spot that same week I swam. It is a killer swim at 2000 cfs. 

I was in top physical condition and an experienced kayaker with plenty of nasty swims under my belt already... and I felt like I needed full concentration and physical effort to survive that swim. I was under water for extended periods of time and I got SMASHED a few times. I was severely bruised and completely exhausted by the time I made it to shore. I'll never be able to paddle that rapid when it is meaty again because I know that if you swim and you do not immediately get to shore you are in for the beating of your life.

In the old days a guy I was paddling with said one of his friends swam Pine Creek and died from a broken neck. I don't know who it was or when it was but I can say that Pine Creek is a class V rapid when it is meaty and be pretty confident about that.

I think it gets underestimated by a lot of people, including experienced paddlers. I think the race down it probably isn't the best idea in the world in terms of the impression it gives to people who don't really know what it would be like to fuck that rapid up.


----------



## Rhynocerous (May 19, 2009)

My condolences to the families. Definitely a rough year for CO whitewater.


----------



## littlebit (Feb 24, 2004)

Declined wearing helmets... wow. To me, this says they didn't have any idea of the possible consequences. How sad.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Wow, I will refrain from commenting other than wow. Condolences to the families.


----------



## the_skin_eater (May 26, 2009)

Heard about this on the radio this morning...Always sad to hear.

Hope everyone learns to put a helmet on after things like this happen.
Just dumb not to.


----------



## kerry edwards (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm not sure helmets would have altered the outcome. More than anything, the lack of helmets seems to indicate a significant lack of judgment about the difficulty of the rapids they were about to tackle. Same could be said about the lack of wetsuits and the fact that a single boat with 3 novices was running class V apparently with no additional safety plans.


----------



## the_skin_eater (May 26, 2009)

True that it may not have mattered, however, it is a very basic safety device.
If this simple thing is looked over, what else was?

The cold could very easily have sent them into shock, and it went down from there. But the helmet is still very important in my eyes, as much so as a PFD.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

littlebit said:


> Declined wearing helmets... wow. To me, this says they didn't have any idea of the possible consequences. How sad.


I heard on the local news that they had helmets but accidently left them in somebodys car. Probably wouldn't have made a bit of diference in this situation.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

FrankC said:


> I heard on the local news that they had helmets but accidently left them in somebodys car. Probably wouldn't have made a bit of diference in this situation.


In Elflaco's posting Chaffee County Sheriff Tim Walker was quoted as saying that the helmets were left in the vehicle intentionally, after they declined to wear them. That clearly shows they didn't understand what they were actually undertaking...too bad no one was there to question them, and maybe talk them out of it, or recommend a better stretch...

my condolences.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Compasion*

I hope if and when I make a mistake on the river a bunch of boaters who have been in the sport for five years or less can get on a forum and let my kids know how stupid I was.

He had been boating for 25 years. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt. He will live with the helmet choice and consequences of his decisions that day forever.


----------



## catfishjon (Jan 27, 2007)

benefit of the doubt? give me a fucking break.


----------



## Beardance42 (May 12, 2008)

Every river fatality is a tragedy, and I feel great sympathy for the families involved. 

Having said that, I was extremely disturbed to see this story on 9News - maybe not so much the story, which just repeats the known facts, but this weird notion that "debate rages about rafting" as a result of this and the other fatalities this year.

9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Debate over rafting rages in wake of accident

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir on this board, but seriously - Colorado is all about altitude, slope and runoff. All can can have lethal consequences if not appropriately respected. The suggestion that seems to waft through this piece is that private boaters are too irresponsible to enjoy these sports, and that everyone should be guided by commercials (as if fatalities don't happen on commercial trips). I have little doubt that the commercials just love to read headlines like this, since they can be prone to looking down their noses (or worse) at private boaters, and any restrictions placed on private boaters just expands their business and eases their access. (Note: I am NOT saying they cheer over private boater fatalities at all - I don't deny their humanity, I merely question sometimes their attitude about sharing the river with us privates...) 

Sorry if I sound conspiratorially hysterical here, but in my mind, as a near-twenty year rafter and someone who, to a fault, stays away from runs I don't feel comfortable doing, I get infuriated that some "debate" exists, or should exist, about private boaters running rivers. 

There is no debate. Mother Nature offers her gifts, she invites us to enjoy and appreciate them, but bitchslaps those who don't respect her dominance. End of story.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

This "raging debate" is nothing more than a fabrication of a news "reporter" trying to come up with a new "angle" on a tragic accident. As a recovering journalist, I know all too well the pressure from editors to come up with a "fresh take" on an existing news story. In this case, it's just amateurish, irresponsible "journalism." The "reporter" and the "editor" both failed miserably.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

I can see how that hit a nerve with you but, would you take three inexperienced people down a run at 160% of the flow that the commercial companies are cut off from running it? Then give them the option of if they want to wear a helmet or not? There is a reason that section isn't regularly rafted at those high of flows. From the quote I don't think the Sheriff (Walker) realized that it was shut down to commercial rafting. That's a sheriff who I'm sure doesn't like people dying on the river either and telling people to go with commercial companies is the smart thing to say for someone in his position.

To say that the commercials "love to read headlines like this" is ignorant. They lose business by people dying on the river, private or commercial, because now someone who was on the edge of going or not will think they are going to die if they go. Every time there is a fatality on any river in the state the phones stop ringing at the rafting companies.


BTW I didn't read the new article until after posting this because I just assumed is was the same one they keep posting as new since it happened. Even though I read that differently than you, it was saying that experience, preparedness, and knowledge are the most important factors not private vs. commercial.


----------



## MikeG (Mar 6, 2004)

Much of the same could be said about skiing. I don't trust my skills to evaluate avalanche danger so my risk tolerance is very low and won't go out unless conditions are bombproof. I prefer to pay a ski area to maintain an acceptable level of risk. I'm glad commercial rafting outfits are out there to provide such services to people who are not willing or able to dedicate the time and effort to become a competent rafter*. If the general public is nervous about independent rafting that could be a good thing. If someone really wants to learn the sport, they will and things like this could encourage rational assessment, education, and a slow progression. Its very easy in a situation like this (single raft, inexperienced paddlers, no helmets) to let little things add up to ugly consequences. 
*not an assessment of the guide involved here


----------



## dirtbagpinner (Apr 25, 2005)

Nathan said:


> would you take three inexperienced people down a run at 160% of the flow that the commercial companies are cut off from running it?


Pardon my ignorance... who/what agency prohibits commercial outfitters from running Pine Creek when it's running above a certain flow threshold? Is there a statute prohibiting this, an agreement, or ??? Thanks for any info.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

AHRA cuts it off at 1200 cfs on the Numbers gauge. They also cut the Numbers at 2400 and the Gorge at 3200.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

Did they flip ?


----------



## cooljerk (Jun 18, 2006)

dirtbagpinner said:


> Pardon my ignorance... who/what agency prohibits commercial outfitters from running Pine Creek when it's running above a certain flow threshold? Is there a statute prohibiting this, an agreement, or ??? Thanks for any info.


Commercial outfitters are regulated by the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area (AHRA). 

AHRA has recommended cut-off levels for the Numbers, Pine Creek and the Royal Gorge. 

They do not prohibit outfitters from running those sections above the recommended cut-off however they do prohibit single boat trips at high flows.

To my knowledge very few, if any, outfitters consistently run commercial trips above the recommended cut-offs


----------



## Beardance42 (May 12, 2008)

Nathan said:


> I can see how that hit a nerve with you but, would you take three inexperienced people down a run at 160% of the flow that the commercial companies are cut off from running it? Then give them the option of if they want to wear a helmet or not?


No, I wouldn't. I am not defending the judgment of the captain here, by any means. I do know that privates run Shoshone at a level past what the Glenwood outfitters are allowed to do it at - would I take newbs down Shoshone at 7k? No way. 



Nathan said:


> There is a reason that section isn't regularly rafted at those high of flows. From the quote I don't think the Sheriff (Walker) realized that it was shut down to commercial rafting. That's a sheriff who I'm sure doesn't like people dying on the river either and telling people to go with commercial companies is the smart thing to say for someone in his position.


See, I would argue that the smart, or maybe 'accurate', thing to say in his position is 'rafting is dangerous, and occasionally people pay dearly for lapses in judgment, and sometimes people pay dearly for the unexpected.' Distinguishing between private and commercial is inappropriate, in my view. I've witnessed some fairly lax commercial behavior at times, as well. 



Nathan said:


> To say that the commercials "love to read headlines like this" is ignorant. They lose business by people dying on the river, private or commercial, because now someone who was on the edge of going or not will think they are going to die if they go. Every time there is a fatality on any river in the state the phones stop ringing at the rafting companies.


Well, inartfully expressed maybe...I do think based on some experience that any debate over private boaters' access to rivers - at any level - isn't likely to place the private boater and the commercial outfit on the same side of the argument - that's all. 

I agree that accidents place a damper on business in the short term - restrictions placed on private boaters, though, if that's the upshot of said 'debate', may not be seen as bad news for some commercial operators, on some rivers 



Nathan said:


> BTW I didn't read the new article until after posting this because I just assumed is was the same one they keep posting as new since it happened. Even though I read that differently than you, it was saying that experience, preparedness, and knowledge are the most important factors not private vs. commercial.


Unless I read it wrong, those were the private boaters saying that. My complaint simply was that there is some debate worthy of having here. And yeah...maybe overacting to a stupid headline, written by some web-copy pup trying to make some layoff nervous editor happy.


----------



## Mike Hartley (May 1, 2006)

*Hypocracy call out*

Yes these unfortunate individuals appear to have made numerous poor choices (the helmet issue probably being one of the least important) which cost them dearly. But I would like to ask that only those posters who have led clinically safe and reasoned lives post about the stupidity of this group. That eliminates me. That probably eliminates all of my friends and boating buds. Unless you are a total bore that eliminates you. We all have survived incidents where luck, not good judgement, was all that saved us. Venting judgmental bile makes us feel superior until we honestly think about our own history.

We should try and learn from this and educate others about ways to get your ya-ya’s off without paying the ultimate price. But without knowing these folks I’ll bet they were just as good, just as smart, and just as “go for it” as the whitewater heros who get worshiped on this site. They just got caught where we lucked out. Death is painless for the dead but it sure hurts for those left behind and for them I offer my sympathy and understanding in dealing with their loss.


----------



## UserName (Sep 7, 2007)

There is an 'agreement' between the commercial outfitters and the sheriff I believe. AHRA is in there somewhere too. I understand the agreement was just that, that the sheriff relied on the outfitters input. It used to be 4 ft on the guage at scotts bridge, and now it has been ammended to cfs. I worked Pine Creek and the Numbers for many years, and always felt that the 'agreed levels' were good ones. 4ft on the numbers is pretty aggressive. Never had any desire to run trips any higher than that. I dont think there was a seperate restiction on Pine Creek at the time, but we used to portage it around 2 1/2 or 3 ft on the scotts bridge guage as I recall. 

There is a similar 'agreement' on the Royal Gorge. 

The Sheriff does have the right to shut down a stretch of river do to an emergency situation, and high water could be interpreted as such. This has come up all over the state at different times, and it is my impression that most of these situations have ended with a better relationship between Law Enforcment and the Boating community (though they may not have started off that way). I think most agencies have needed to rely on the commercial outfitters to help guide these type of restrictions, and the ones I am aware of seem to be pretty reasonable and well thought out.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

catfishjon said:


> benefit of the doubt? give me a fucking break.


Just the sort of thoughtful response I expected.

Facts are criticle to all of us. Commentary when someone has passed away and we don't know all the facts should be tempered.

Remember when Noah's aunt came here after the death of his dad and blasted some folks for what he was reading of his father?

To date what we know is that a seasoned boater took a trip with four through pine creek, and it went horribly bad. They were not wearing helmets. Three of the four had limited experience.


----------



## cooljerk (Jun 18, 2006)

Canada said:


> Just the sort of thoughtful response I expected.
> 
> Facts are criticle to all of us. Commentary when someone has passed away and we don't know all the facts should be tempered.
> 
> ...


The second victim had a pretty significant head laceration so it's hard to say what role a helmet would or would not have played in the outcome. Did he drown before or after recieving a significant blow to the head? 

I also found in interesting that they were in an oar boat. Food for thought.


----------



## heliodorus04 (May 31, 2005)

as a guy with no rafting experience, how does an oar boat change the equation? I would presume that the boat captain was thus totally responsible for navigating rather than typical commercial trips I see where novices with paddlesticks flail about and end up relying on luck?

Just curious, not criticizing anything or anyone. I agree with Mike Hartley: I've been lucky before...


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

Oar rigs are not as nimble, putting paddlers in the boat is like going from 2 wheel drive to 4 wheel drive.


----------



## rwhyman (May 23, 2005)

Jensjustduckie said:


> Oar rigs are not as nimble, putting paddlers in the boat is like going from 2 wheel drive to 4 wheel drive.



This, in my opinion is totally not true. Paddle boats just seem to go straight down the river. Not a lot of side to side or backwards ability. There is no way you can get the leverage that you have with oars in a few paddles.

Anytime I've been around paddle boats, they were always climbing up my a$$. So either they don't have much maneuverability or the guides just like to f#@k with private boaters. And I'm not the kind of boater that is always taking back strokes, I'm always charging ahead, especially in a crowd.

I'll be interested to hear what others have to say about this. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. I've been in a few paddle boats, but I've never guided one.

I didn't mean to hijack this thread, sorry.


----------



## pat (Aug 31, 2004)

in the end we are responsible for ourselves, you will live or die with your decisions that you make or fail to make. Use your brain and protect it, and remember assumption is the mother of all accidents, don't rely soley on others to keep you alive. the outdoors will never be "made safe" and shouldn't be. 

our sincere condolences to the victims.


----------



## pearen (Apr 28, 2007)

heliodorus04 said:


> as a guy with no rafting experience, how does an oar boat change the equation? I would presume that the boat captain was thus totally responsible for navigating rather than typical commercial trips I see where novices with paddlesticks flail about and end up relying on luck?
> 
> Just curious, not criticizing anything or anyone. I agree with Mike Hartley: I've been lucky before...


With either type of craft you have the possibility of hitting your head on a rock, but with an oar boat there is all this metal stuff attached to the raft itself that has the potential of causing serious head trauma.

I understand everyone has a different threshold for these things, but I would consider running Class IV (deeper and less rocky rapids) in a paddle boat without a helmet, but would definitely wear a brain bucket on an oar rig.


----------



## Chuch (May 23, 2008)

Jensjustduckie said:


> Oar rigs are not as nimble, putting paddlers in the boat is like going from 2 wheel drive to 4 wheel drive.


 
this is not really true... rwhyman is correct

...thoughts & prays with all affected by recent tragedies


----------



## JCKeck1 (Oct 28, 2003)

Pine Creek is solid V for a raft at 1900. Notice that no one responded to my post asking if anyone had made it through in a raft at this level. If you're arguing the pros/cons of oar rigs/paddle rafts, then you're way out of league discussing Pine Creek at 1900. I've had a fair number of friends swim from the hole at this level and all of them have described it as a life threatening experience - that's coming from solid V+ kayakers who have had some scary swims. 

Everybody watch out for each other out there and listen to your friends.

Joe


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Canada said:


> I hope if and when I make a mistake on the river a bunch of boaters who have been in the sport for five years or less can get on a forum and let my kids know how stupid I was.


Hopefully if and when you make a mistake on the river somebody will be there to help, it probably won't be me, but if it is you can bet I'm not going to blast you on a forum, I have needed my share of safety from others...

I may have only been boating for 4 years, but it is long enough to have developed SOME common sense...


----------



## David L (Feb 13, 2004)

rwhyman said:


> This, in my opinion is totally not true. Paddle boats just seem to go straight down the river. Not a lot of side to side or backwards ability. There is no way you can get the leverage that you have with oars in a few paddles.
> 
> Anytime I've been around paddle boats, they were always climbing up my a$$. So either they don't have much maneuverability or the guides just like to f#@k with private boaters. And I'm not the kind of boater that is always taking back strokes, I'm always charging ahead, especially in a crowd.
> 
> ...


 
I'm a rower now and I've guided paddle boats. Most times I'd say a good rower can put his boat where it needs to be better than most paddle crews can. However, a very good paddle crew can move a boat across the current and downriver faster and with more speed than I can.

I'll give my front passengers paddles when they want to paddle. I'll command them to stop & hold on when appropriate. When I'm in the big stuff I want them holding onto the boat, not a paddle.


----------



## tango (Feb 1, 2006)

JCKeck1 said:


> Pine Creek is solid V for a raft at 1900. Notice that no one responded to my post asking if anyone had made it through in a raft at this level. If you're arguing the pros/cons of oar rigs/paddle rafts, then you're way out of league discussing Pine Creek at 1900.


joe, two boys from TAC mobbed through there in a puma the morning of the fibark pine creek race. flow was around 1800.


----------



## Penglea (Jul 8, 2009)

I read that it was Pine Creek "rapid" and that it was running 1850 cfs. Anyone know truth re location and cfs? Tragic in any case. Another reminder that anything can happen. It ain't Disneyland for sure. Heart goes out to families.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Jensjustduckie said:


> Oar rigs are not as nimble, putting paddlers in the boat is like going from 2 wheel drive to 4 wheel drive.


I don't have years of rafting experience, but I've been in both oar rigs and paddle boats. I currently run an oar rig, because it's just me and my wife, and on tame waters, my kids, so I don't usually have enough folks to run a paddle boat.

I consider myself to have good common sense and to be fairly intelligent (although I've probably lost a few brain cells with age LOL), and it seems to me it all depends on the experience and common sense of ALL persons on the boat. An oar rig with a bunch of novices as passengers but an experienced oarsman could easily be more manueverable than a boat full of novice paddlers with an equivalent experienced guide. On the other hand, a boat full of experienced paddlers and an experienced guide could probably easilly be more manueverable than an oar boat, with or without an experienced oarsman, just because they have more paddles in the water providing force to move the boat where it needs to go. Sure, you have the leverage of the oars, but in a paddle boat, you have the speed of the paddles (ie, more strokes per unit of time).

Many have already said it, and I would agree - it all comes down to experience and common sense. When I get enough experience to run things like The Numbers, I hope I still have enough common sense not to when the conditions are not right, and to stay out of Pine Creek!


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

In my opinion oaring is harder, perhaps because I am a woman and have less upper body strength to pull hard.

We paddle boat with competent people, I can see how a bunch of never-evers or half-assed paddlers could make a paddle boat seem more cumbersome. With competent paddlers my power ratio is way higher than the leverage from oars.

For me even having 2 paddle assist's in the front of my oar rig makes it seem like have turbo on the raft.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

The key thing about Pine Creek ....it's a class V but the swim is Class V++. On the other hand there are about 5 Class V rapids on the Upper Gauley...but none of the swims on the Gauley have anywhere near the consequences of Pine Creek.




JCKeck1 said:


> Pine Creek is solid V for a raft at 1900. Notice that no one responded to my post asking if anyone had made it through in a raft at this level. If you're arguing the pros/cons of oar rigs/paddle rafts, then you're way out of league discussing Pine Creek at 1900. I've had a fair number of friends swim from the hole at this level and all of them have described it as a life threatening experience - that's coming from solid V+ kayakers who have had some scary swims.
> 
> Everybody watch out for each other out there and listen to your friends.
> 
> Joe


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

FrankC said:


> none of the swims on the Gauley have anywhere near the consequences of Pine Creek.


unless you don't like sieves.


----------



## jmalefyt (Apr 23, 2009)

Or undercuts...


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

Nothing makes me pucker more than the thought of a swim in Lost Paddle.


----------



## GoodTimes (Mar 9, 2006)

Just wanted to comment on that article and the perception of private rafters.

Ironically....at least in the circles I raft with.....private boaters have more experience than a lot of commercial guides out there (most with commercial experience of their own).

No need to flame me commercial guides......I know there are a bunch of you out there that have been doing it for 8, 12, 15 yrs. But I'd say most of them have < 5yrs. experience.

It's too easy to second guess the decisions regarding this tragedy. Poor judgement or not, the whitewater community as a whole has been affected.....as we are by every death on the rivers.

Tragic event, my condolences to all involved.


----------



## raftus (Jul 20, 2005)

Jensjustduckie said: 
Oar rigs are not as nimble, putting paddlers in the boat is like going from 2 wheel drive to 4 wheel drive.
_________

I'll chime in here as someone who has guided Class V both in oar rigs and paddle boats from The Upper Gauley in West Virgina to the Nenana in Alaska commercially and privately. Oar rigs can certainly be more nimble than paddle boats. However that is a simple statement that doesn't account for several variables like boat size and type, weight (gear, people and the boat/frame), and speed of the rivers currents. It also doesn't account for differences like hole punching ability vs ferrying ability vs turning speed and precision.

__________
FrankC said:
The key thing about Pine Creek ....it's a class V but the swim is Class V++. On the other hand there are about 5 Class V rapids on the Upper Gauley...but none of the swims on the Gauley have anywhere near the consequences of Pine Creek.
_________

The swim in Pine Creek isn't class V++, it's class V. Class V swims are serious and not to be taken lightly. Appropiate clothing for the water temp, a PFD and a helmet are vital. Even at higher flows there are a lot of rocks you can hit on Pine Creek besides the hard stuff in an oar rig.

Swimming on the Gauley, especially in Lost Paddle, is also quite serious due to it's length, undercuts, water volume and sieves. Other spots on the Upper and Lower Gauley offer easier rapids with potentially deadly swims due to undercuts and sieves - Conestoga, Shipwreck and the far right side of Pure Screaming Hell come to mind among others. It is my belief that some of the swims on the Gauley are more consequential than those found on Pine Creek.


----------



## liquidchaos (Jul 11, 2005)

wow; this thread has been hacked, heres my $.02. You do not want to row pine creek, the entrance is tight and and if you do get surfed highsiding is quite a bit harder with any type of fram in the boat. I have run pine creek at about 17-1800 and it is burly. Oar frames are more manuverable to make spin moves, but are a lot less effective in a rapid like that. There is no such thing as bad paddlers, just bad coaching! condolences to those involved and a shout out to the rescuers who left their work and family to volunteer their time to help those in need.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

raftus;151771Swimming on the Gauley said:


> Ok so obviously the Gauley has some serious swims but thousands of comercial trips run it every year but zero comercials will touch Pine Creek so that might be telling you something.


----------



## UserName (Sep 7, 2007)

commercials have been running Pine Creek for about 20 years now


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

FrankC said:


> Ok so obviously the Gauley has some serious swims but thousands of comercial trips run it every year but zero comercials will touch Pine Creek so that might be telling you something.


It tells you something about the raft guides in WV.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

UserName said:


> commercials have been running Pine Creek for about 20 years now


Yeah, but *thousands* of people raft the Upper G every year. I doubt Pine Creek sees a fraction of that; all the business goes downstream of there. 

Given a drysuit, I'd swim Pine Creek any day before I swam Lost Paddle (once got worked in a hole above Tumblehome and rolled up stuck in a squirt in the funny water, and looked over my shoulder to see a raft pinned across the Mail Slot as I was getting pushed toward it - scary) or Shipwreck (one place where you would have to be way over your head if you swam, but good luck getting around that rock if you do).


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

FrankC said:


> Ok so obviously the Gauley has some serious swims but thousands of comercial trips run it every year but zero comercials will touch Pine Creek so that might be telling you something.


Pine Creek is a narrow chute with an "unavoidable" very powerful hole for rafts. I can't think of anywhere on the Upper Gauley with a similarly powerful and unavoidable hole.
P.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

Jensjustduckie said:


> Oar rigs are not as nimble, putting paddlers in the boat is like going from 2 wheel drive to 4 wheel drive.


 +1 on this. And I haven't paddle boated in several years as I only get out once or twice a year with the family on multi day trips. 

I have approx 700+ days in a paddle boat and about 400 in an oar boat. FYI. And I love both positions in the boat. 



rwhyman said:


> This, in my opinion is totally not true. Paddle boats just seem to go straight down the river. Not a lot of side to side or backwards ability. There is no way you can get the leverage that you have with oars in a few paddles.
> 
> Anytime I've been around paddle boats, they were always climbing up my a$$. So either they don't have much maneuverability or the guides just like to f#@k with private boaters. And I'm not the kind of boater that is always taking back strokes, I'm always charging ahead, especially in a crowd.
> 
> ...


In a paddle boat you are only as good as your guide and the training he gives the crew. Working on the MF Salmon if you didn't keep your spacing and couldn't keep from climbing up someones ass, you simply would not be asked back to guide. Too many good ones trying to get on the Fork for that kind of horseshit. Your observations back up what someone else said about the relative inexperience of guides running paddle boats in your area. 



BoilermakerU said:


> I don't have years of rafting experience, but I've been in both oar rigs and paddle boats. I currently run an oar rig, because it's just me and my wife, and on tame waters, my kids, so I don't usually have enough folks to run a paddle boat.
> 
> I consider myself to have good common sense and to be fairly intelligent (although I've probably lost a few brain cells with age LOL), and it seems to me it all depends on the experience and common sense of ALL persons on the boat. An oar rig with a bunch of novices as passengers but an experienced oarsman could easily be more manueverable than a boat full of novice paddlers with an equivalent experienced guide. On the other hand, a boat full of experienced paddlers and an experienced guide could probably easilly be more manueverable than an oar boat, with or without an experienced oarsman, just because they have more paddles in the water providing force to move the boat where it needs to go. Sure, you have the leverage of the oars, but in a paddle boat, you have the speed of the paddles (ie, more strokes per unit of time).


Interesting but still not totally accurate. I have better luck with paddlers who listen well and follow my every command. A lot of times with experienced paddlers they think too much and volunteer strokes or modify their power based on what they think should be happening. Sometimes with guides even more so. 

I do agree that the inexperience level of the individuals involved in this might have contributed to the outcome in this case. 

My best paddle boat crew ever was five guys and a dad. The boys had just graduated college and were all on the wrestling team or something. They understood teamwork.
Once the learned about high sides and draw strokes and some other stuff and saw how well they worked together we went off. I surfed three different holes in one rapid alone because of the manueverability. 

No oar boat with any amount of power assist could have matched that show. 

That doesn't mean that a paddle boat is always the best for any given situation. 

What is truly mind boggling to me is that someone would decide to run a class V section at higher water with no support along.


----------



## heliodorus04 (May 31, 2005)

I think the tone of the conversation has been pretty cool, but for legal reasons (that are none of my business) I'd like to point out that the discussion of paddle rigs versus oar rigs has been about educating me, a non-rafter, how the two differ in functionality. I've not seen anyone criticize the crew that suffered the accident in this context, and I'm happy about that, and it's not our purpose to criticize in hindsight.


----------



## JCKeck1 (Oct 28, 2003)

Username, actually, commerical companies don't raft Pine Creek above 1250. The flow that day was 1880. 

To compare apples to apples, you'd need to talk about swimming the Upper G at around 6,000cfs. 

Joe


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

*don't forget triple drop is just downstream...*



Phil U. said:


> Pine Creek is a narrow chute with an "unavoidable" very powerful hole for rafts. I can't think of anywhere on the Upper Gauley with a similarly powerful and unavoidable hole.
> P.


not to mention the consequences of a swim there are upped because of triple drop immediately downstream, I can't even imagine the beating you would get swimming it...


----------

