# water level for sneak at Velvet Falls



## svskyus (Jan 23, 2020)

Anyone remember how much water is necessary for the left sneak route on Velvet on the Middle Fork? Launching in a week, and always nice to have that option. The river should be in the 5'+ range when we get there. I understand that the log blocking the left side of Velvet has been removed, but not sure if that includes the sneak route. Thanks


----------



## Rockgizmo (May 21, 2009)

Lowest we’ve done it is 6.1, took some bumping to flush through.


----------



## svskyus (Jan 23, 2020)

Rockgizmo said:


> Lowest we’ve done it is 6.1, took some bumping to flush through.


Many thanks. We have 13' rafts, but it will probably be too low even for us. Just love catching that eddy behind the rock instead...


----------



## Inertiaman (Jun 4, 2021)

In case it matters, and if you are literally launching in a week (ie the 14th), the forecast is > 6 for the 14th. The probabilistic bar chart shows a 75% chance of exceeding ~ 6.3.


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

F✓@# that sneak!

SEND IT!!


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

svskyus said:


> Many thanks. We have 13' rafts, but it will probably be too low even for us. Just love catching that eddy behind the rock instead...


13 foot rafts…high water…Velvet..go BIG and run the hole😳. In all seriousness, get your momentum up so that you can also go over the wave from the big rock on the left. Then you can enjoy the view of the hole. Also, make sure that you avoid Murphys hole. A flip there would potentially make for a long swim.


----------



## the_dude (May 31, 2006)

Inertiaman said:


> In case it matters, and if you are literally launching in a week (ie the 14th), the forecast is > 6 for the 14th. The probabilistic bar chart shows a 75% chance of exceeding ~ 6.3.


Where did you find that forecast?


----------



## gnarsify (Oct 5, 2020)

the_dude said:


> Where did you find that forecast?








National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service


National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS)



water.weather.gov


----------



## SpudCat (Aug 24, 2020)

Today's SWE is eye-popping to say the least... There are a couple Snotel sites currently down in the Salmon drainage, which might be skewing the percentages a bit, but regardless. A week ago it was 300%+ of normal.


----------



## Inertiaman (Jun 4, 2021)

SpudCat said:


> Today's SWE is eye-popping to say the least... There are a couple Snotel sites currently down in the Salmon drainage, which might be skewing the percentages a bit, but regardless. A week ago it was 300%+ of normal.


As you approach the end of the snowpack, you need to take some of the % figures with a grain of salt. 900% could mean 2.25" of snow now versus 1/4" normal. That's really only 2" above normal in absolute terms, which isn't much in the context of the March or April or even May SWE levels.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting there isn't lots of melting snow still waiting to hit the river, just noting the sort of exaggerated perspective that the % SWE can create.


----------



## the_dude (May 31, 2006)

gnarsify said:


> National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service
> 
> 
> National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS)
> ...


Thanks


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

Inertiaman said:


> As you approach the end of the snowpack, you need to take some of the % figures with a grain of salt. 900% could mean 2.25" of snow now versus 1/4" normal. That's really only 2" above normal in absolute terms, which isn't much in the context of the March or April or even May SWE levels.
> 
> EDIT: I'm not suggesting there isn't lots of melting snow still waiting to hit the river, just noting the sort of exaggerated perspective that the % SWE can create.


Exactly. I checked Banner summit a few days ago and there was 10 inches up there when it is usually .8 of an inch. Still there is lots of water in those mountains and I am hoping for a nice mellow melt.


----------



## fastfish17 (Apr 16, 2008)

Here is different flow forecast. Shorter-term but a little more accuracy.





__





Northwest River Forecast Center






www.nwrfc.noaa.gov





BTW the sneak was in when we did it at 6.25'. I thought I read something that it comes in above 6.0'.


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

Currently, the water level might not be the issue. From the Boundary thread, it looks like there may currently be a huge log in the sneak.


----------



## Inertiaman (Jun 4, 2021)

craven_morhead said:


> Currently, the water level might not be the issue. From the Boundary thread, it looks like there may currently be a huge log in the sneak.


The post below claims that the log at Velvet was removed by an outfitter crew. Haven't seen further comments to confirm or deny that yet.

Middle Fork Salmon. June 1. Hazard tree 1 mile below put in


----------



## Rivernerd (May 8, 2014)

The hazard tree that has been removed was not at Velvet, it was at Teepee Hole. 

The sneak at Velvet is not available at 5 feet on the Middle Fork Lodge gauge. About 6.3' is the lowest that sneak is usually available.

That said, the safest Velvet line at flows above 4.5 feet, in my experience, is to punch the hole far right. So, even if the log at Velvet is still there at a 5-foot flow, it only serves to direct you to the safest high-flow line.

At higher flows, a lateral forms that runs from the rock to the hole. If you don't make it across that lateral and behind the rock, you can end up in the heart of the hole (the left side of it, which is river center). Don't ask me how I know.

Punch the hole where it is weakest, on the far right.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

There was a log in Velvet also sticking off of the big rock. It has since been removed. This is a screenshot from a guy I follow on Instagram before the log was removed.


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

Riverwild said:


> There was a log in Velvet also sticking off of the big rock. It has since been removed. This is a screenshot from a guy I follow on Instagram before the log was removed.
> View attachment 77920


Does anyone have photos after it was removed…my wife would be less than pleased to get dropped into that hole.


----------



## Count Me In (Jul 13, 2021)

svskyus said:


> Anyone remember how much water is necessary for the left sneak route on Velvet on the Middle Fork? Launching in a week, and always nice to have that option. The river should be in the 5'+ range when we get there. I understand that the log blocking the left side of Velvet has been removed, but not sure if that includes the sneak route. Thanks


Most recent forecast is for peaking just over 7'! Normal Temps returning this week to central idaho. (Increasing significantly from last week). Banner summit swe is at 3.2 and loosing 1" or more per day. With a new season peak possible, new wood is very, very likely. Godspeed!


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

BenSlaughter said:


> F✓@# that sneak!
> 
> SEND IT!!


Your dog just wants to finish the beer that he tasted in rubber 😂


----------



## FatmanZ (Sep 15, 2004)

svskyus said:


> Anyone remember how much water is necessary for the left sneak route on Velvet on the Middle Fork? Launching in a week, and always nice to have that option. The river should be in the 5'+ range when we get there. I understand that the log blocking the left side of Velvet has been removed, but not sure if that includes the sneak route. Thanks


Unless you're familiar with the run and landmarks at the higher flows, and/or really paying attention, chances are you'll be at Velvet before you know it and likely miss the sneak opportunity if present. First time I ran it at 6+ I had done several low water trips previous years but felt visually lost at high flows - nothing was as it once seemed. After one raft flipped at Murph (most of us didn't know that hole even existed), Velvet came up fast even though I had the Carvedog High Water MFS Cliff Notes memorized. The only sneak the few kayakers I was with had for a little narrow chute coming off the right side of the big rock river left at the left most edge of the gaping hell hole. 

Shortly after Velvet we pulled over to wait for the rafts and expected some carnage. Before long a 10' raft from our group (oar frame, no gear) came floating by upside down. The rower hit Velvet dead center, realized it wasn't coming out without flipping and wanted no part of that. So he tucked the oars and abandoned the raft on the downstream side of the hole and managed to keep his flip flops on during the swim to shore.


----------



## Rivernerd (May 8, 2014)

Riverwild said:


> There was a log in Velvet also sticking off of the big rock. It has since been removed.


The log that was removed by the outfitter crew was 1 mile downstream of Boundary Creek, at Teepee Hole. Velvet is 5 miles downstream of Boundary Creek. Can anyone verify that the log blocking the left side of Velvet has also been removed?


----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

Yes a crew removed the log in velvet. Another crew removed the log at Tepee hole. Both are clean as of a couple days ago.


----------



## UseTheSpinMove (Nov 16, 2016)

FatmanZ said:


> The rower hit Velvet dead center, realized it wasn't coming out without flipping and wanted no part of that. So he tucked the oars and abandoned the raft on the downstream side of the hole and managed to keep his flip flops on during the swim to shore.


Ha! This is one of the most metal things I've ever heard about on here.

Not to mention flip flops on the first section of a high water MFS! 

Nice moves. Love it.


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

UseTheSpinMove said:


> Ha! This is one of the most metal things I've ever heard about on here.
> 
> Not to mention flip flops on the first section of a high water MFS!
> 
> Nice moves. Love it.


You noticed the flip flops 😳…in a 10 foot boat at high water. These are the necessary things done for an EPIC and memorable trip.


----------



## the_dude (May 31, 2006)

Count Me In said:


> Most recent forecast is for peaking just over 7'! Normal Temps returning this week to central idaho. (Increasing significantly from last week). Banner summit swe is at 3.2 and loosing 1" or more per day. With a new season peak possible, new wood is very, very likely. Godspeed!


Does that 7' peak seem feasible to you? That would be higher than anything so far. With Banner nearly melted out, I'm wondering where the snow is coming from - all really high elevation stuff?


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

UseTheSpinMove said:


> Ha! This is one of the most metal things I've ever heard about on here.
> 
> Not to mention flip flops on the first section of a high water MFS!
> 
> Nice moves. Love it.





the_dude said:


> Does that 7' peak seem feasible to you? That would be higher than anything so far. With Banner nearly melted out, I'm wondering where the snow is coming from - all really high elevation stuff?


i am sure that there is plenty of snow in the shaded areas in the mountains. If you look at the forecast for Stanley it is supposed to get up in the mid 70’s. The river flow will rise and then taper off when cooler temperatures arrive.


----------



## Count Me In (Jul 13, 2021)

the_dude said:


> Does that 7' peak seem feasible to you? That would be higher than anything so far. With Banner nearly melted out, I'm wondering where the snow is coming from - all really high elevation stuff?


It does seem feasible. Lochsa, Selway, and main all forecast a peak coming around the 14th. In 2017 banner snotel went to 0 on June 16th. Mfs was at 5.87' that day and went on to peak at 6.71' on the 21. I don't think that is normal but it does happen. My amateur forecast is just at 7' on Monday or Tuesday.


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

Count Me In said:


> It does seem feasible. Lochsa, Selway, and main all forecast a peak coming around the 14th. In 2017 banner snotel went to 0 on June 16th. Mfs was at 5.87' that day and went on to peak at 6.71' on the 21. I don't think that is normal but it does happen. My amateur forecast is just at 7' on Monday or Tuesday.


Purely to feed my curiosity, do you have the snotel data for Banner towards the end of May '17? Before it peaked at ~9'??


----------



## cnalder (Jul 7, 2016)

There is plenty of snow up high still. Between 6/11-12 the forecast has 1.5” plus precip in the central Idaho mtns. If that occurs will likely see the peak early next week.


----------



## fastfish17 (Apr 16, 2008)

BenSlaughter said:


> Purely to feed my curiosity, do you have the snotel data for Banner towards the end of May '17? Before it peaked at ~9'??





Individual SNOTEL Site Products | NRCS Idaho


----------



## Count Me In (Jul 13, 2021)

BenSlaughter said:


> Purely to feed my curiosity, do you have the snotel data for Banner towards the end of May '17? Before it peaked at ~9'??


May 24, 2017 24 inches
June 3, 2017. 12 inches


----------



## the_dude (May 31, 2006)

Count Me In said:


> May 24, 2017 24 inches
> June 3, 2017. 12 inches


This is why I'm wondering/doubting that a peak next week at 7'+ is possible. In 17 there was so much more water left to come down compared to right now where there's less than 3" left to come down.


----------



## Inertiaman (Jun 4, 2021)

the_dude said:


> This is why I'm wondering/doubting that a peak next week at 7'+ is possible. In 17 there was so much more water left to come down compared to right now where there's less than 3" left to come down.


Yes but 2017 also peaked at ~ 8.75 not 7.01 (current forecast). In CFS terms, that's 16'000cfs versus 10,500cfs. A big difference. And 2017 had flows above 7 for ~ 21 days. The current forecast for next week has it blipping above 7 for one day.

I don't think any of us here have better data than the forecasters, and I'm skeptical that anyone's intuition is better than their models, which certainly incorporate the current SWE.

That's not saying their forecast will be accurate. Just that their guess is better than ours.


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

the_dude said:


> This is why I'm wondering/doubting that a peak next week at 7'+ is possible. In 17 there was so much more water left to come down compared to right now where there's less than 3" left to come down.


Take a look at the webcam at Stanley. There is still lots to water in those mountains. I am assuming that is true to a lesser degree around Banner summit. we should all chip in a buck and guess. Whoever guesses correctly gets the pot. I am going with 6.4 for my guess but what do I know?


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

6.9'


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

That is fine as long as it gets around 5 by the 20th. It is going to be BIG


----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

Looks like she's forecast to pop a bit higher now.


----------



## UseTheSpinMove (Nov 16, 2016)

One thing going on around here this year that I’m not sure is totally reflected by looking at SWE at Banner is that we had a lot of dramatic wet storms in this area this spring with a high snowline (ie snow above Banner but rain at Banner). I can’t say what the rough avg snowline was but let’s say 7500 feet or so. I have zero data to support my hunch, but my hunch is that a skewed amount of snow is currently sitting up high still. That’s how this spring has felt to me at least. It has been fascinating to watch the graphs on this runoff so far.


----------



## svskyus (Jan 23, 2020)

FatmanZ said:


> Unless you're familiar with the run and landmarks at the higher flows, and/or really paying attention, chances are you'll be at Velvet before you know it and likely miss the sneak opportunity if present. First time I ran it at 6+ I had done several low water trips previous years but felt visually lost at high flows - nothing was as it once seemed. After one raft flipped at Murph (most of us didn't know that hole even existed), Velvet came up fast even though I had the Carvedog High Water MFS Cliff Notes memorized. The only sneak the few kayakers I was with had for a little narrow chute coming off the right side of the big rock river left at the left most edge of the gaping hell hole.
> 
> Shortly after Velvet we pulled over to wait for the rafts and expected some carnage. Before long a 10' raft from our group (oar frame, no gear) came floating by upside down. The rower hit Velvet dead center, realized it wasn't coming out without flipping and wanted no part of that. So he tucked the oars and abandoned the raft on the downstream side of the hole and managed to keep his flip flops on during the swim to shore.


Our launch is actually the 21st, still hope that the river is below 5 at that point. Have run the MF at low and high, highest several decades ago at over 8 with trees floating down the river. Velvet still gets my attention. Not the easiest eddy to get into and even difficult to leave it in style.


----------



## Count Me In (Jul 13, 2021)

Riverwild said:


> Looks like she's forecast to pop a bit highe
> 
> 
> Yup. I just saw the weather forecast for Sunday in Mccall, 1" of rain min. Heavy thunderstorms that continue into central idaho.some could be locally heavy amounts. Be safe out there.


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

svskyus said:


> Our launch is actually the 21st, still hope that the river is below 5 at that point. Have run the MF at low and high, highest several decades ago at over 8 with trees floating down the river. Velvet still gets my attention. Not the easiest eddy to get into and even difficult to leave it in style.


At high water I consider it stylish to simply make it right side up🤣. We will soon see what the flow ends up being but I would love to have it under 5.


----------



## Heywood (Apr 12, 2019)

BenSlaughter said:


> 6.9'


----------



## harleymc (7 mo ago)

When we ran it at 5.5' a guy in a 14ft cat got stuck in the left sneak route as we were standing on the rock for our scout. Having plugged the hole, his wife (running an identical 14' cat), was forced to go right of the rock and went right into the hole. She pushed, but her cat got stood straight up and did an amazing tail stand. She rolled backward out of her chair into the water, and got washed downstream. We all scrambled down to drag his boat through that slot, then he sailed downstream chasing his wife and her boat. Very memorable. We all had full pucker going as we walked back to our boats for our turn, and all but one made it cleanly. So suggestions that it needs to be above 6 for the sneak match with my experience, depending on the width of your boat.


----------



## mountain boy (Aug 20, 2021)

svskyus said:


> Anyone remember how much water is necessary for the left sneak route on Velvet on the Middle Fork? Launching in a week, and always nice to have that option. The river should be in the 5'+ range when we get there. I understand that the log blocking the left side of Velvet has been removed, but not sure if that includes the sneak route. Thanks


Above 7.7 the sneak goes away, I don't know what you find at 5plus. over 7 , the sneak dissapears, there is a nasty wave coming off the big rock on the left, the wave sweeps you right into the giant hole. We sent 3 kayaker's to punch the wave to see if we could reach the far left sneak, nope, every kayak was meat for the hole, the water is incredibly fast. Run the hole, you don't have a choice, it is quite the ride!


----------



## mountain boy (Aug 20, 2021)

svskyus said:


> Anyone remember how much water is necessary for the left sneak route on Velvet on the Middle Fork? Launching in a week, and always nice to have that option. The river should be in the 5'+ range when we get there. I understand that the log blocking the left side of Velvet has been removed, but not sure if that includes the sneak route. Thanks


I forgot to add that make sure you have a patch kit, at Velvet, a buddy hit the rock wall and holed his boat, he sat for 3 plus hours below Velvet waiting for the patch to set up. RAIN gear, it rains constantly in June so bring your best gear. Cold rain and lots of it..


----------



## Pullharder (7 mo ago)

There have been several complaints regarding the removal of those logs. Its best practice to not mention specific outfitters who may have been involved. The usfs is being asked to open an investigation


----------



## Dangerfield (May 28, 2021)




----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

Pullharder said:


> There have been several complaints regarding the removal of those logs. Its best practice to not mention specific outfitters who may have been involved. The usfs is being asked to open an investigation


What exactly is their complaint? Seems ridiculous to me. I could see how the FS might have an issue with someone tying up the log. But even then that's pretty ridiculous to advocate that a known hazard be turned loose. There was no investigation when that lady died on the tree above Veil Falls a couple of years back and that tree was subsequently pulled to the shore by an outfitter after they petitioned the FS to do something about it but they failed to act.


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

Pullharder said:


> There have been several complaints regarding the removal of those logs. Its best practice to not mention specific outfitters who may have been involved. The usfs is being asked to open an investigation



And who's filed said complaint?


----------



## Pullharder (7 mo ago)

*³*


Riverwild said:


> What exactly is their complaint? Seems ridiculous to me. I could see how the FS might have an issue with someone tying up the log. But even then that's pretty ridiculous to advocate that a known hazard be turned loose. There was no investigation when that lady died on the tree above Veil Falls a couple of years back and that tree was subsequently pulled to the shore by an outfitter after they petitioned the FS to do something about it but they failed to act.


The usfs has recieved a formal complaint from a gentleman who does so very regularly and about a variety of issues. I wont mention his name. This is the goverment were talking about, bureaucratic entities function outside of rational logic sometimes. It is my understanding that the fs is not a fan of this complainer and at this time is trying to down play the issue. The problem at hand revolves around the logs being removed in a coordinated effort, not incidentally. These types of problems only arise because of people posting media content and naming names, even if done so in a thankful and non-malicious manner. Real players move in silence and request no thanks. Sometimes its best to leave well enough alone.

A reminder, entities like the usfs must justify its existance and follow certain protocol even when it "doesnt make sense." It is sometimes best to let private citizens do their part and not rely on government to play mommy and daddy. Now our tax dollers are being spent dealing with a complainer all because we gave him the ammunition to do so.


----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

To be fair the outfitters involved in these removals posted the information on social media and named themselves openly. That being said I've edited my posts, I would suggest you do the same in your quote @Pullharder. I would also argue that the "cooridnated effort" only appears coordinated after the fact. The folks that dealt with these logs did so on an incidental basis.


----------



## Count Me In (Jul 13, 2021)

mountain boy said:


> Above 7.7 the sneak goes away, I don't know what you find at 5plus. over 7 , the sneak dissapears, there is a nasty wave coming off the big rock on the left, the wave sweeps you right into the giant hole


So my understanding is that the sneak, or one of them, is entirely LEFT of the big rock on the left, and from reading the posts above only opens above 6' or just a bit more. I would think that sneak only gets better the higher it goes? Did I miss something? I do understand trying to cross the lateral / diagonal wave coming off the rock and pushing into hole center line. Been there and done that one more times than I care to mention! But I don't consider that a sneak line.


----------



## Rockgizmo (May 21, 2009)

Here’s a video of the sneak at 6.1’. Velvet Rapid sneak









Velvet Rapid (sneak 6.1cfs) Middle Fork Salmon







youtube.com


----------



## mountain boy (Aug 20, 2021)

Count Me In said:


> So my understanding is that the sneak, or one of them, is entirely LEFT of the big rock on the left, and from reading the posts above only opens above 6' or just a bit more. I would think that sneak only gets better the higher it goes? Did I miss something? I do understand trying to cross the lateral / diagonal wave coming off the rock and pushing into hole center line. Been there and done that one more times than I care to mention! But I don't consider that a sneak line.


I've done only one high water trip on the MFS so I'm not the guy to say what is gospel about the left run at Velvet at levels above 5ft, all I know is that when we got there for "our trip" the left run wasn't there. Believe me, after you have seen that hole at Velvet in high water you would be crazy not to do the left sneak. We launched at 7.7 and the water level was rising at a good clip, we got to Velvet, pulled over above to scout, the left run was gone, holes and obstructions made it a no go. The big rock on the left created this V wave that angled straight into the hole and it was a huge nasty hole. At that level you couldn't punch the wave, the water is so fast that there is no do-over, no breaking thru to get to the eddy behind the big rock to do the left sneak. I've done the MFS 15 times, done the sneak at Velvet and obviously had to run the hole. That hole always makes me laugh because once you've ran it at big water..you have a "OH Shit" smile that lasts the rest of your life.


----------



## UseTheSpinMove (Nov 16, 2016)

Count Me In said:


> I would think that sneak only gets better the higher it goes?


I think it just gets way messier over there when the water is super super high.


----------



## Raft Dad (Jan 20, 2017)

We launched on June 5 with 5.88' posted at Boundary Ck and i watched two commercial 16'ers run the left sneak. One clean as a whistle and one fucked it up a little but got through.


----------



## barry hatch (Mar 26, 2006)

Rivernerd said:


> The hazard tree that has been removed was not at Velvet, it was at Teepee Hole.
> 
> The sneak at Velvet is not available at 5 feet on the Middle Fork Lodge gauge. About 6.3' is the lowest that sneak is usually available.
> 
> ...


Ok advice for an 18' boat or c16 'cat. 13 ' rafts should look to stay left.


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

barry hatch said:


> Ok advice for an 18' boat or c16 'cat. 13 ' rafts should look to stay left.


I agree. Even the "tongue" is strong enough to stop a smaller\lighter boat. Especially without sufficient speed.


----------



## Pinchecharlie (Jul 27, 2017)

That looks easy! What am I missing?


----------



## Dangerfield (May 28, 2021)

Hopefully the big rock, remember.


----------



## Pinchecharlie (Jul 27, 2017)

Does the entrance try and push you into it?


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

This guy was trying for the sneak, missed it, hit the rock, lost his momentum, hit the hole goin slow.

Remember, the camera\screen flattens rapids significantly. Velvet is REAL impressive at high water.









Velvet Rapid, 6.1’ Middle Fork Salmon (going for sneak but missed the line)







youtube.com


----------



## Riverlife (11 mo ago)

Pinchecharlie said:


> That looks easy! What am I missing?


I’m having deja vu with those words. How many times have I heard those comments, and how rarely have they proven right! Lol

But to answer your question seriously, it IS easy (imo). It is also easier than you might think to screw it up.


----------



## Pinchecharlie (Jul 27, 2017)

Oh yes that video has a much better perspective. It huge! Lol. Moves are hard cause it's pushing you right huh? So full speed ahead can you punch it if you have a left to right kinda surf punch? Looks fun to me but what's below it? Boney big ass stuff or run out? Me no likey big and boney . Seriously looks fun though woot woot and those guys had saftey set so even more fun


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

A that water level the current pushes a bit to the right. If ya wanna get the sneak (left of the rock), ya gotta hug the left bank. If you just wanna catch the eddy behind the rock, and miss the hole, you hafta set up for a center to left ferry.

It's mostly just fast current below.


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

Has this already been posted here?

This is the legit sneak line.









Velvet Rapid (sneak 6.1cfs) Middle Fork Salmon







youtube.com


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

Pullharder said:


> *³*
> 
> The usfs has recieved a formal complaint from a gentleman who does so very regularly and about a variety of issues. I wont mention his name. This is the goverment were talking about, bureaucratic entities function outside of rational logic sometimes. It is my understanding that the fs is not a fan of this complainer and at this time is trying to down play the issue. The problem at hand revolves around the logs being removed in a coordinated effort, not incidentally. These types of problems only arise because of people posting media content and naming names, even if done so in a thankful and non-malicious manner. Real players move in silence and request no thanks. Sometimes its best to leave well enough alone.
> 
> i am thankful that the hazard was removed because I really wasn’t interested in running the hole at Velvet.


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

There's still time for new logs to find perches, Larry! 😁


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

BenSlaughter said:


> There's still time for new logs to find perches, Larry! 😁


I have been practicing my duck and spin move🤣. My raft is 16 feet long and if the left run is blocked we will run the hole…close my eyes and take a deep breath.


----------



## cnalder (Jul 7, 2016)

BenSlaughter said:


> This guy was trying for the sneak, missed it, hit the rock, lost his momentum, hit the hole goin slow.
> 
> Remember, the camera\screen flattens rapids significantly. Velvet is REAL impressive at high water.
> 
> ...


If you want to make the sneak, I'd make sure your butt is pointed to river left, especially if you are going to go right of the small hole just upstream. There is no way to push and get left of the big rock. If shit happens you need to take as many downstream strokes as possible before you hit the hole, then have your blades in the water for one last stroke as you hit the hole. In the video the captain took exactly one stroke before hitting the hole. Looks fun tho.


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

cnalder said:


> If you want to make the sneak, I'd make sure your butt is pointed to river left, especially if you are going to go right of the small hole just upstream. There is no way to push and get left of the big rock. If shit happens you need to take as many downstream strokes as possible before you hit the hole, then have your blades in the water for one last stroke as you hit the hole. In the video the captain took exactly one stroke before hitting the hole. Looks fun tho.


I plan to start in the middle of the river rowing towards the left bank and pull through the V wave and make the traditional run. I made that run when it was running at 6.3. The key is power…speed…and timing with the stern pointing towards the left bank. it is going to be fun.


----------



## BenSlaughter (Jun 16, 2017)

I'm not fuckin with that sneak!
Under 6' I'll run the hole.
Over 6' I'd still think about running the hole. But I'd probably wanna look at it first...but then, I hate scouting, soooo....


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

BenSlaughter said:


> I'm not fuckin with that sneak!
> Under 6' I'll run the hole.
> Over 6' I'd still think about running the hole. But I'd probably wanna look at it first...but then, I hate scouting, soooo....


Didn’t I tell you that my wife will be coming with. She would not forget if she ended up swimming And I don’t want to be reminded of the time that I had a short relationship with Miss Velvet. I have no intention of running to the left of that rock. I plan to simply make the pull.


----------



## Rafter Larry (Aug 10, 2021)

BenSlaughter said:


> There's still time for new logs to find perches, Larry! 😁


We just got back from the Middle Fork. Velvet was no big deal…the traditional run was just a little more difficult than usual and the hole was runnable at just under 5. There was some significantly more difficult water just before camp at Elkhorn. I ended up dropping into a massive hole that I didn’t see from the top. I was barely able to punch through. Fortunately the wood was not an issue blocking routes but there was plenty around. Rubber was a beast at 4. I nearly lost my passenger when we got hit by 2 massive waves. It doesn’t get much better than a sunny MF trip with good flows.


----------



## svskyus (Jan 23, 2020)

Rafter Larry said:


> We just got back from the Middle Fork. Velvet was no big deal…the traditional run was just a little more difficult than usual and the hole was runnable at just under 5. There was some significantly more difficult water just before camp at Elkhorn. I ended up dropping into a massive hole that I didn’t see from the top. I was barely able to punch through. Fortunately the wood was not an issue blocking routes but there was plenty around. Rubber was a beast at 4. I nearly lost my passenger when we got hit by 2 massive waves. It doesn’t get much better than a sunny MF trip with good flows.


We just got back as well. Launched on 6/21, got off 6/28. 4.55 at launch, 3.9 at takeout. Slightly different experience than RafterLarry, with Velvet being the only difficulty. Hard to get into that pesky eddy, really more of a boil. One raft got sent into the hole by the boil, surfed and almost pitch polled. One of the harder attempts at that eddy I have had. Other than that, I thought that the main rapids were pretty straight forward, easier than at say 3.5. Scores of keeper holes, but generally visible.
Pistol was big, but we took the right sneak route which was open. We had Pistol for camp that night, and it is embarrassing to swim past your camp. 
Lower Cliffside was impressive, but left side was ok. 
No problem at Rubber. 
Kramer was easy, right down the middle, not center right. Seems different than last year??
Only real problem on the trip was that the commercials blocked the entire launch eddy at boundary till mid afternoon. 4 private groups had to wait 7+ hours to go down the slide. We were ready to go at 8 am, but didn't get access to the eddy until 3:15. The commercial boats just sat there for hours, then did lengthy client instruction in the eddy that mostly could have been done in the parking lot. There was no effort to rearrange their boats so that even one eddy space could be available. Worst behavior I have ever seen on the MF in 5 decades. Share the river, guys.


----------

