# Would you work for Lewis Shaw?



## jeffsssmith (Mar 31, 2007)

The construction company that I work for is negotiating with Lewis Shaw to build a lodge on his property on the Taylor River. This is the property that has sought to restrict access to float the Taylor and sparked the dispute over statewide river access. Would you work for the company or look for another employer rather than work on that project?


----------



## feats of strength (Oct 23, 2009)

I would bring my boat and do laps during lunch!


----------



## flipover (Oct 13, 2003)

jeffsssmith
this is not the place to ask that question


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

It would be nice to take a principled stand.Jobs are hard to come by now don't screw yourself.I don't think you working indirectly for him temporarily makes you complicit in what he does.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

If you can avoid working on his job, I would encourage you to. However, we all need money.


----------



## robanna (Apr 20, 2004)

Keep you friends close and your enemies closer...Someone's going to build it if you don't and you might find some dirt while you're there.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

If you differ philosophically that much for your employer you shouldn't be involved in the project. 

You're a guy that lives in the mountains, boats whitewater, probably skis a lot, works construction; you're a real deal mountain man living the dream. Okay, I don't really know you so your life might suck, but I'm assuming most of what I suggest is true based on your posts and your name being identical to a cool guy I know.

Do you want to live simply in paradise and NOT stick to your ideals? Look, write up a one page outline about why you don't want to work for this particular project - this will help you sort out your ethic on the issue as well. Meet with your boss and talk about it. Try to talk him out of the project if you can, but tell him you'll be there for him on the next one no matter what he decides. He'll see that it means a lot to you. If he can't respect that then you should be looking for work in a resort community about this time of year anyway.

However, if you can make it through financially to the next job Karma is going to hook you the fuck up anyway. Maybe you'll find Shaw clinging to a branch on the Taylor at flood one day and you can laugh like River Rat Ray as he's washed away in front of you...

Of course you may have no option. Don't lose your home or starve over it man, they're going to find someone to do the job. I just think everyone here will agree you would be a genuine FUCKING HERO if you didn't take it. 

Good luck.


----------



## NathanH. (Mar 17, 2010)

Jobs are hard to come by, I think the first thing should be your personal situation and need for the job. If you need the job you shouldn't have a problem separating your personal life (boating) and your professional life.

Maybe you'll get a chance to talk to him on a more personal note because you're helping him build his place, and really get insight on his ideology. Even if you disagree with it. 

That might be a bad idea I don't know.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Like everyone else said so far, if you need the money to get by, don't jeopardize that. If you have the flexibility to make a stand whether it's having a few words with shaw, your boss or leaving the company I think all of us would support that as well.

If you don't have the flexibility, feel free to make a shitty building that costs him a lot of money in the long run.


----------



## MountainMedic (Apr 24, 2010)

multiple code violations can be quite problematic


----------



## catboatkeith (Jun 11, 2010)

Do the job, make the bucks, & invite him out on the water....


----------



## watermonkey (Aug 11, 2009)

...then dump him.


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

Love your enemies.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

The best way to change things is from within.


----------



## JCKeck1 (Oct 28, 2003)

So I'm living down in Texas now and I'm seeing the situation Shaw is coming from. Here there are ranchers that show up at legal putins and threaten kayakers with shotguns. Then they call the local hillbilly police who show up and write trespassing tickets to the kayakers. The DA never actually sees them into court, just lets them sit in limbo because he knows the charges wont stick. The shit going on with Shaw is only isolated in Colorado. In Texas it's the way business is done across the board. I originally came to this disagreement from the perspective that there can be some sort of civilized discourse and agreement. However, I'm now seeing that he's expecting to just take the Taylor like he could with any river down here. I say screw him any way possible.
Joe


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

^ thats why he pretty much has backed off the fight for now. he came to town and thought since he wrote the checks he made the rules, just like it is back home. but once he realized what a fight this truly is then he relented and decided to cool it.

and i dont know what everyone is saying, "continuing the threaten access", there is no muddy issue anymore. im sorry people like jeffsmith and outbackjack and slavetotheflyrod cant get it, but its pretty simple: float through, keep your comments to yourself, dont fish the waters, dont touch anything and there is no issue. its you boaters who are MAKING it an issue now by insisting on your petty need to fish one two mile stretch in a river that is over 45 miles long. just shut up and boat. end of problems.

that being said, whats more important to you: sticking to your morals? or having money for your next kayak trip? or even putting food on your plate for that matter? pretty simple to me. i have several friends that are employed by the ranch (more direct than you would be building houses as a contractor, were talkin direct employees here) and they are boaters and dont have a problem with this guy. like whats his name said, bring your boat and do lunch time laps. they havent "sold out to the man", they go to their job and do what their paid to do. which is what i suggest you do


----------



## freexbiker (Jul 18, 2005)

yetigonecrazy said:


> dont fish the waters


BullShit that is so fucking retarded. Does Shaw own the fish? Nope, end of story.


----------



## NathanH. (Mar 17, 2010)

About doing a terrible job as his place, just remember all you've got is your name. 

I think it's go and do an awesome job or don't go at all.


----------



## Larsen (Oct 20, 2003)

Smith,
Is Shaw really that different then who you work for now?


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

It's my knowledge that you'd likely never even see or talk to the guy unless you're high up in the construction ranks. You can take the really high road and donate half of what you're getting paid to fight against his interests. If you could interact with him it'd likely be short and nothing consequential. In reality, what information could you gather? It'd be great to hear him or have him tell you he put shit in the river in hopes that kayakers and boaters would get injured and then use it against him but that's a remote hope. You could break the law and sabotage things but in the long run, unless you are really clever, you'll go to jail, he'll use the incident to garner support for his cause, and we all lose. The ideal way is to tell your employer straight up that this douche is usurping democracy by buying politicians and stealing a Colorado river and you'd rather not work for him. But, chances are your employer will only see the money involved and he or she too will set aside logic and principle for money and look at you like an ideological idiot.


----------



## jeffsssmith (Mar 31, 2007)

While all of the replies with advice are appreciated and there is some good advice, that is not really what I was looking for. What would you do? That means I am wondering what you would do if put in this place. Some of the replies where probably based on that but I'm wondering if people would really walk the talk, would really walk away based on principles or just do the job because your principles aren't as strong as your need to have a good job.


----------



## outbackjack (Feb 10, 2010)

Yo Bro, those of us who make a living in this valley have at one time or another compromised our principles for a good job, it is the nature of the beast. We love where we live, but we dont come here independently wealthy. Working on shaws property could be a multi year job in an economy without many. I know you have done what needs to be done to survive here for many years, I would not be able to work on his project. I would also know that something better will come up, it always does for those of us dedicated to living in this valley. Good Luck buddy....


----------



## doublej (Sep 21, 2010)

I know this at the end of the day all a man has is his principles. Ive lost a few jobs over not bending over and standing up for what i believe and yes it has effected me finacially but my family knows I'll always stand up for what I believe, if that means I dont have as much as the next guy so be it. Everyone bending over and just putting up with beauracratic bs is the reason this country is in the shape it is. Men arent men anymore, people like us are the backbone of this country but we just stay quiet and let the man slowly take our country away from us..It is a sad sad day when a man cant fish a certain piece of water. come on seriously!!!! sorry for the rant.


----------



## Meng (Oct 25, 2003)

yetigonecrazy said:


> ^
> and i dont know what everyone is saying, "continuing the threaten access", there is no muddy issue anymore. im sorry people like jeffsmith and outbackjack and slavetotheflyrod cant get it...


*This is absolutely incorrect.* There is a very muddy issue that persists. There has been a temporary agreement reached between Shaw and the rafting companies that float the section, but each side continues to seek a definitive answer and rules to define whether or not landowners can close river access. Rest assured, Shaw will continue to push his agenda when the opportunity arises. As paddlers, we must remain diligent in advocating for our right to float the state's rivers, and contribute to groups like AW who are doing the on-the-ground policy and advocacy work to help ensure we never loose access. The issue is not isolated to the Taylor - it's a potentially precedent setting location, or in other words, a catalyst for looking at a statewide issue. And don't be fooled by the above statement - a temporary agreement means little for the long term. Still, yeah, if you just wanna float the middle, it seems clear for now...


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

I'd do the work and if given an opportunity I'd use it to represent the whitewater community in the best way possible. You have an opportunity to be the local face of the whitewater community to a group of folks who through no fault of their own are clueless. I'm a fly fishermand and a kayaker and before I was a kayaker I was oblivious to the floating community's interests or I frankly didn't care. 

We were out there this summer and saw some younger families who weren't fishing on the property. We waved and smiled and they did too. They seemed pretty interested in a friendly way about this kayaking thing they were watching. It would be pretty funny if you had a chance to teach some of these young people to kayak. Maybe by putting a face to who their elders have told them is the enemy you gain some advocates for the sport around their dinner table. Use it as an opportunity for good. 

Pretty bad deal that anybody would encourage you to sabotage this mans, or any mans, property.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

Meng said:


> *This is absolutely incorrect.* There is a very muddy issue that persists. There has been a temporary agreement reached between Shaw and the rafting companies that float the section, but each side continues to seek a definitive answer and rules to define whether or not landowners can close river access. Rest assured, Shaw will continue to push his agenda when the opportunity arises. As paddlers, we must remain diligent in advocating for our right to float the state's rivers, and contribute to groups like AW who are doing the on-the-ground policy and advocacy work to help ensure we never loose access. The issue is not isolated to the Taylor - it's a potentially precedent setting location, or in other words, a catalyst for looking at a statewide issue. And don't be fooled by the above statement - a temporary agreement means little for the long term. Still, yeah, if you just wanna float the middle, it seems clear for now...


Im running around in circles because you guys refuse to drop something thats been dropped.

If you cant resist fishing through that stretch, and cant resist getting out and making an issue out of it, then youre just further proving that is us boaters who are making it worse.

I really dont know what to say. I floated the middle a whole bunch of times this year after the mass float fell flat on its face and i was never once even looked at twice- and it was because i stayed in my boat and didnt try to fish. do the same, and you will find there is no problem with floating through

chris you can try to bring legal jargon into this and try to make it a microcosm of the bigger picture, but what it boils down to is shut your mouth and float. do this and there wont be problems . if you cant do it, then you have nobody to blame but yourself (and outback jack and slavetotheflyrod and freexbiker and so on) for further sanctions! if there was an easy way out like this on any of the other problems areas in the state people would be clamoring for just that. would you demand the right to fish in the Sportsmens Paradise, just because "they dont own the fish"? would you go in and run ohiopyle falls during non season, "just to prove a point"? ripping down the niagra gorge on 200,000 cfs to stand up to the idiocy of making boating illegal there is a place to make a stand. bitching over a 2 mile stretch of river in a river that is OVER FORTY FIVE MILES LONG is not a good battle to choose. but whatever, you guys [HCCA] did "stop the mine", so go get em champ.

give it up. go fish upstream. or downstream. but crying over spilled milk like you are doing is giving boaters the worst name possible and it makes me feel bad to be a boater in this valley.


----------



## outbackjack (Feb 10, 2010)

"it makes me feel bad to be a boater in this valley."

Then Move.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Take the money, join AW with some of it. You would be the rare person if your job runs exactly with your ideals.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Theophilus said:


> I'd do the work and if given an opportunity I'd use it to represent the whitewater community in the best way possible. You have an opportunity to be the local face of the whitewater community to a group of folks who through no fault of their own are clueless. I'm a fly fishermand and a kayaker and before I was a kayaker I was oblivious to the floating community's interests or I frankly didn't care.
> 
> We were out there this summer and saw some younger families who weren't fishing on the property. We waved and smiled and they did too. They seemed pretty interested in a friendly way about this kayaking thing they were watching. It would be pretty funny if you had a chance to teach some of these young people to kayak. Maybe by putting a face to who their elders have told them is the enemy you gain some advocates for the sport around their dinner table. Use it as an opportunity for good.
> 
> Pretty bad deal that anybody would encourage you to sabotage this mans, or any mans, property.


Well said Theophilus.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

TheoP has the right idea. Do your job. Do it well. Make friends and broaden relationships.

If you want any subterfuge. Bring your boat to work. Get some of the Texans into it. And then invite them to different rivers. They might like the community.

But, of course, it could work the other way. You become a big timer, take up flyfishing, and attempt to buy your own river.

Sarah


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

Yeti, I have not floated the middle. I have not protested the Shaw ranch and I defiantly have no intention of getting into an internets word war with you. But I am going to call out some of your BS. I have written to state and national politicians about this mess. What we have right now is a fragile temporary agreement. The politicians want nothing to do with a final outcome because they know that what ever is decide will piss the other side off. It is not about your 2 precious miles of river. It is a greater scheme that YOU will have to deal with if WE let this particular land owner get his way. You have given in to him. You might float, but you are afraid to fish. IF Shaw gets his way, boating the many rivers and creeks in CO will be a thing of the past. It is up to us to make sure that he and his ilk get the message loud and clear that we have a right to float and fish public waters in our state. I have never met you, and wish you all the best, but your statements are cowardly.

Jeff, about the job, make some dollars and change some minds. Boat at lunch, be friendly. Change come more easily from the inside than from the outside.


----------



## smauk2 (Jun 24, 2009)

yetigonecrazy said:


> . if you cant do it, then you have nobody to blame but yourself (and outback jack and slavetotheflyrod and freexbiker and so on) for further sanctions! .


Oh Shit Luke you just got called out! I'm not entirely to sure what he was trying to say but I think it went something like this

ah's right yer wrong, acco'din' t' th' code o' th' heells! ah will post on this hyar fo'um all day an' all night t'prove t'yo' thet ah's right. Jest remember thet yer wrong, acco'din' t' th' code o' th' heells! ah doesn't fish thar, ah boat thar. Yo' sh'd not fish thar, on account o' ah's right. Remember ah's right.


----------



## jeffsssmith (Mar 31, 2007)

smauk2 said:


> Oh Shit Luke you just got called out! I'm not entirely to sure what he was trying to say but I think it went something like this
> 
> ah's right yer wrong, acco'din' t' th' code o' th' heells! ah will post on this hyar fo'um all day an' all night t'prove t'yo' thet ah's right. Jest remember thet yer wrong, acco'din' t' th' code o' th' heells! ah doesn't fish thar, ah boat thar. Yo' sh'd not fish thar, on account o' ah's right. Remember ah's right.


Thanks for that. I didn't want to get into it and now I dont have to. I couldn't have said it better no matter how hard I tried, and with such satirical brilliance I might add.


----------



## jeffsssmith (Mar 31, 2007)

Theophilus said:


> I'd do the work and if given an opportunity I'd use it to represent the whitewater community in the best way possible. You have an opportunity to be the local face of the whitewater community to a group of folks who through no fault of their own are clueless. I'm a fly fishermand and a kayaker and before I was a kayaker I was oblivious to the floating community's interests or I frankly didn't care.
> 
> We were out there this summer and saw some younger families who weren't fishing on the property. We waved and smiled and they did too. They seemed pretty interested in a friendly way about this kayaking thing they were watching. It would be pretty funny if you had a chance to teach some of these young people to kayak. Maybe by putting a face to who their elders have told them is the enemy you gain some advocates for the sport around their dinner table. Use it as an opportunity for good.
> 
> Pretty bad deal that anybody would encourage you to sabotage this mans, or any mans, property.


Well said, thanks


----------



## C-dub (Oct 7, 2007)

hojo said:


> The ideal way is to tell your employer straight up that this douche is usurping democracy by buying politicians and stealing a Colorado river and you'd rather not work for him. But, chances are your employer will only see the money involved and he or she too will set aside logic and principle for money and look at you like an ideological idiot.


I have enjoyed this stretch as a reprise on longer trips through CO gnar, and am loath to lose it. i am an advocate for free access on all levels. The reason for this entire debate is the differences in views on what is moral and principled. Those that don't understand the love of rivers keep their own standards of importance.

It will be built regardless of ones moral stance. The wages accrued are earned and are taken out of the owners pocket. I would take the job. You don't work for the owner, but the contractor. Fighting with your supervisors, will only weaken your employers standing, and willingness to put you on another project or refer you to another.

That being said, if I had the financial means I would take the opportunity to quit, float it daily and heft the middle finger.

My own beliefs entail rivers and their access being open to all. The overall view and precedent on this is ominous for fisherman and paddlers alike.


----------



## freexbiker (Jul 18, 2005)

yetigonecrazy said:


> If you cant resist fishing through that stretch, and cant resist getting out and making an issue out of it, then youre just further proving that is us boaters who are making it worse.
> 
> because i stayed in my boat and didnt try to fish.


You're a dumbass Yeti. Getting out and touching the land is illegal. Fishing, on the other hand, not illegal. Nobody is talking about getting off the water to fish. We plan on LEGALLY floating through and catching as many Taylor river pellet hawgs as we want. Because its LEGAL. The dumbfuck Shaw is the one going against the Colorado State Law limiting public access through a navigable waterway, and denying the public the right to Colorado's natural resources.


> would you demand the right to fish in the Sportsmens Paradise


Damn right I would. if i could figure out a way to get a raft through there or once I master my kayak fishing. It would also be legal to fish through there (obviously as long as you don't touch the land. Which nobody is arguing over right now) because Sportsmens paradise doesn't own the fish in the South Platte.


You're not from Texas are you Yeti?


----------



## melted_ice (Feb 4, 2009)

Do the work and make a living! Shaw just wants to own the fish somehow and if your work has nothing to do with that don't worry! The issue is not about floating. It is about the right to fish and that is exactly why yeti is a jackass!


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

Yeti must be ultimate multi tasker - How many people do you know that can type drivel while blowing the Shah? 

Blow me while you're at it, Yeti, you seem to have a talent.


----------



## twitch (Oct 16, 2003)

*Yeti*

Yeti - you're an ass. It's little pantie dropping pansies like you that are so self absorbed and making selfish decisions that ultimate allow for people to Shaw to behave in the manner that they do - and get away with it. Take a moment to take your rose colored lenses off that only allow you to see the world as it benefits and concerns Yeti and you'll find that you're standing in a pool of deep mierda and that your lips are firmly locked around the Shaft of individuals like Shaw.

Please don't even contemplate a retort, for you've already proven that you are worthless and you would only be further wasting everyone's time. I'm certain that Chris would be willing to hop on his hippie bike, while babbling legal mumbo-jumbo, and ride Larsen down valley on his handlebars so that we could nail your flapping lips shut like they should have been long ago. It's no wonder the Gunnysack is considered the ass end of the valley with clowns like you representing.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

lol Slave 


JEFF,What will you not working there really change/affect ,mostly you.It's really up to how important the issue is to you.See if your boss can use you on another job.

So it's more of a fishing issue,is this stretch even worth boating?



Joe,I know it doesn't meet your mank standards but looks like there is some good 3-4 at high flows ,wasn't shit crankin' recently,you been gettin' any Crabapple,Blanco,Grape,Pedrenales ,etc.?


If you are not a fisherman,I can partially see Yeti's point[ why he had to be a dick about it I DON'T GET] just paddle through.If you challenge these a holes without legal representation you will lose.You wanna' pay for lawyers or let AW or CWA handle it[ donate]. I got busted on the friggin lwr.Blue[below normal takeout] ,another fishing stretch not worth kayaking owned by some Texas billionaire.We got out and f'ed around in a real dumb spot.They pressed charges ,cop at take out,I went to court without lawyer,they didn't even hear my side of story.DA made take it or leave it plea bargain,fines one year probation,I think it can be expunged.If you have other shit on your record it might be worth fighting=$.


----------



## freexbiker (Jul 18, 2005)

cayo 2 said:


> lol Slave
> 
> 
> JEFF,What will you not working there really change/affect ,mostly you.It's really up to how important the issue is to you.See if your boss can use you on another job.
> ...



I don't think anyone is saying this stretch isn't worth floating(hell I've never floated it, But its one I have always wanted to do) we are just pointing out yeti is bringing up other problems not related to the topic.


----------



## Paul (Oct 11, 2003)

Back to the original post topic, I agree with a few other points made (by gh, Sarah and others):

Few of us can truly say our jobs entirely align with our values. I went out of my way to have a career that would align with my values, but in the end, there are plenty of compromises that I've had to make. Only you can decide if this compromise is simply too much for you. To me, this depends on how much you think your work on his project facilitates his attempt to suppress paddling and fishing, and how much effect you'll have by not working on it. I don't simply mean that to say that if someone else would do the job, then you might as well do it. This logic alone could lead to some severe abuses. Think of a Wall Street trader..."Gee, if I don't sell this subprime mortgage backed security, someone else will." Clearly some things are wrong, and are recognized as wrong by 99% of people. But to me, the Shaw situation is different: it is truly a difference of opinion. One's opinion obviously varies with whether one is a landowner, paddler, or fisherman.

But, if you do the work, it would be a great idea to bring your boat to work, and talk to as many people as possible about how important having access to our public waterways is.

Good luck with your decision.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Freexbiker,

I don't even know where exactly it is[which run ] ,I was asking.I've done the intermediate run in the book a couple times,I thought it was some other section.I know Yeti does some higher sections not in the book that not as many people do.I should know but don't,where is it?


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I can't say what I'd do, because it would take a bit more thought than just replying to a post. While it is important to make a living, you can only do what you can do. What you can do is lend your labor, and then spend your dollar. I think it comes down to how strongly you feel about the topic at hand (I'm not 100% up on it). These may not be comparable, but perhaps only in hindsight is that obvious: I sure am glad I didn't work on the Glen Canyon Dam nor anything to do with nuclear weaponry. Those mean a lot to me, and I'd hope I'd have the fortitude to make my stand with my feet. 

I don't recommend you take a stand if you quit, or even position yourself as if you considered it. Just move on, or do the work. As others say, be an ambassador. The last thing you need is to develop a work-reputation as picky, a troublemaker, etc. An employer isn't going to want someone who took a stand, especially if they have 10 people to choose from.

Quiet your mind and listen to your gut.


----------



## matt cook (Dec 15, 2009)

I would do the job, all the while looking for anything illegal or out of code, etc. and report it. If shaw want to be a bitch and call the law because you are "trespassing" then you should be able to call him out on any issues. You may not find or see anything, but in my experience, people who try to manipulate the laws for their gain tend to think that most laws laws don't apply to them. Maybe carve a little grafitti around the ranch concerning the issue. If you ever have a face to face with him and cant stand it anymore, tell him he is a stupid arrogant piece of shit that can go fuck himself and tell him why. Does he have a daughter? Or a wife? You could really fuck with him there. If you feel guilty about working for him, maybe work for him as long as you can stand and donate a small percentage of your wages to AW. Personally I would do a combo of all of the above, depending on circumstances. Another possibility is the scene in fight club where they get the guy in bathroom and threaten to cut off his balls.

Oh and Yeti- FUCK YOU! what does it matter if there are many more miles of the river to float? If everyone took your advice Shaw and douches like him would continue to buy land up and down the river and try to keep you off those stretches too! Do you really think this guy will respond to you being "respectfull"? He doesn't own the fish just like he doesn't own the water. Additionally Yeti, why do you think he has constructedd such low bridges and strung wires across the river in fast water? That isn't to prevent you from fishing it is there to dissuade you from floating the section at all, and to cause you to have to trespass at high water. You act like a broken slave or medievil peasant, happy to cower to your master and thankfully scoop up whatever rotten bone is thrown to you while they laugh at your weakness and pathetic lack of balls. You probably work for the guy.


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

matt cook said:


> Additionally Yeti, why do you think he has constructedd such low bridges and strung wires across the river in fast water?


The low bridge was there before he bought the place and there's not any barbed wire across the river. I also don't remember any thing "fast" about the water through his place either. Just keeping it truthful.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

It's true, that the bridges were there before the Shah bought the place, and to my knowledge, they've never strung barbed wire across the channel. It is a bit technical through there in rafts due to the numerous fish habitat "improvements", low head dams etc. in both Harmel's and Wilder It was probably a pretty easy piece of water before those were built, but some of these structures take a bit of skill to negotiate. 

The bridge in question, on Wilder was the subject of some disagreemnet between the Corps of Engineers and the fine folks at Wilder this previous spring due to the fact that 2 of the 3 of the channels between the bridge pilings were completely blocked with wood and the folks at Wilder had no intention of removing it or allowing it's removal. I'm not quite sure what was agreed upon, but suffice it to say the Corps was made aware of it, as was the Forest Service and a short time later the wood was gone. 

That brings me to a question that I think needs to be addressed as part of this larger right to float issue - How to deal with man made hazards or obstructions in the channel, weather the hazard itself be manmade, or something that occurs as a direct result of a manmade structure in the channel. I'm of the opinion that the way to deal with this is to legalize a limited right to portage around hazards, especially manmade ones.


----------



## matt cook (Dec 15, 2009)

I'm sorry, I thought I had read that these things were newer, although I swear someone was talking about barbed wire on bridges or across the river. 

Oh, and to Yeti, I recant and apologize for the FUCK YOU, but nothing else I said. Respect is earned not demanded, and those who demand it will never give it back in return.


----------



## outbackjack (Feb 10, 2010)

There has never been a problem on the Middle Taylor with fences, the bridge has been there for years, we had no problem getting under it until the river was damned up below the bridge and backed up the water. Even then, we were allowed to portage around the bridge at high water and keep it clear of debri. The new feature on the bridge is the angle iron put in as cross braces that stick down below the logs that support the bridge. I really dont know why these were put in other than to discourage boating. I guess shaw would call them structural supports, however the bridge has been the same for the 22 years I have floated down this section. We have made a video about this situation and I posted it under The Right to Float on the buzz. The angle iron is visible in the video. Other than that, no obvious obstructions are on the Middle Taylor. shaw has a permit to replace the bridge from Gunnison County, but it will have to be at least a foot higher than the highest rail on the exsisting bridge. This will allow even the highest fishing rigs plenty of room to pass. I doubt that he will allow this, he will make sure that we are not allowed to float through his property before he builds the new bridge. If we dont rally together and force the issue soon, we will loose!! Thanks JS for starting the discussion again, and I ask everyone to step up and support AW, with national support we can win, check out the vid and let us know what you think, Thanks


----------



## jeffsssmith (Mar 31, 2007)

It looks like the construction may be delayed until a later date, dont know why, but it seems like I won't be making any decisions on whether I will go with my values or my wallet on this issue for now. Thanks for all the replies, there were some that made me think about this issue a little differently and I appreciate the efforts.


----------



## poudreman (Aug 28, 2008)

There's a middle road that you might explore. Get to know why he has been an obstacle from his own point of view. Then judge whether he's open to discussion as part of the work. Discussions over the issues might open up practical solutions to some of the conflict that has occurred, could create a shift in his attititudes by virtue of the relationship you develop with him, etc. Then you can assess on-going your comfort from an integrity perspective, your comfort in the day to day working environment, etc. Just don't get locked into the positions he and boater's he's clashed with have jumped into. If you feel too strongly that he's impossible, unreasonable, or whatever, then quit.


----------

