# Heads up, Upper Taylor fencing



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

Phil U. said:


> Paddled the section of the Taylor above the reservoir this past Sunday, 6/1/14, at 750ish cfs. We paddled all the way to the reservoir. Very beautiful class 2/3 run especially with that much water. We encountered 3 barbed wire fences in the last couple miles. Good eddies above the first one. Walked it. The other 2 were more difficult. The last one had only one strand left on rio left and I felt it would claim a boater at slightly lower levels while not effectively restraining live stock. Acted out my Edward Abbey fantasies and liberated the rio from that one. Also would observe that at least one of the bridges will become a clearance issue with just a couple more inches of water. Its a worthy run but be alert...


Hoping to get on this, this weekend.

How high did you put in? Or, put another way, with ~500cfs on the gauge, how high up do you recommend putting in?

Any beta appreciated.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

Put in at the bridge on Cty Rd 748 Rocky Brook/Trail Creek Road, the road that goes between Taylor Park and Spring Creek Reservoir. It's a handful of miles north of Dinner Station C.G. Theres about 15 minutes of super mellow, easy flat water (no scraping) before the "rapids".

580 is enough to still be fun. I run it down to 350 cfs. I scraped down at 275 one time and it was not good.

Also, Phil, we call this the "Taylor Park Run" to avoid confusion with the Upper Taylor commercial run lower in the canyon.....


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks Yeti. I think the gauge is called that as well.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

yetigonecrazy said:


> Put in at the bridge on Cty Rd 748 Rocky Brook/Trail Creek Road, the road that goes between Taylor Park and Spring Creek Reservoir. It's a handful of miles north of Dinner Station C.G. Theres about 15 minutes of super mellow, easy flat water (no scraping) before the "rapids".
> 
> 580 is enough to still be fun. I run it down to 350 cfs. I scraped down at 275 one time and it was not good.
> 
> Also, Phil, we call this the "Taylor Park Run" to avoid confusion with the Upper Taylor commercial run lower in the canyon.....


Gracias.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

If you don't want to mess with the fences you can take out at the first one immediately above Pie Plant Cow Camp. Excellent access to a beautiful meadow/eddy....basically cuts the run in half though.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

lmyers said:


> If you don't want to mess with the fences you can take out at the first one immediately above Pie Plant Cow Camp. Excellent access to a beautiful meadow/eddy....basically cuts the run in half though.


Good idea--may do that depending on daylight and/or ambitions for the rest of the day.

In the OP, Phil made it sound like being heads-up was enough to see/eddy out/avoid the remaining fences. Also sounded like maybe there were only two left, and the first one has a great eddy so not much of a concern?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

First one has a great eddy. Phil cut out the left side of the second one, but the right side of the island still had a single neck high strand that was tough to see. After the first fence is a low bridge, very soon after that is the second fence. The third one is down a mile or two. It was in the water in the center of the channel at 700 cfs, at 500 it might be a real issue, although it shouldn't be super tough to portage if necessary.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

lmyers said:


> First one has a great eddy. Phil cut out the left side of the second one, but the right side of the island still had a single neck high strand that was tough to see. After the first fence is a low bridge, very soon after that is the second fence. The third one is down a mile or two. It was in the water in the center of the channel at 700 cfs, at 500 it might be a real issue, although it shouldn't be super tough to portage if necessary.


4 fences total. First two were pretty easy to see, and were close enough together to just do one longish portage.

Third one, the neck high strand you mentioned, I didn't see until it was @ 20 feet in front of me. Moving fast right there--too late to do anything but try to limbo it while pushing it over my head. Ended up flipping, too shallow to roll up, bumpy swim.

In hindsight, I'd tell anyone doing this run to just keep walking from the first fence until they pass that third one.

Last one was ~1/4 mile up from the lake, 4-5 strands of rusty barbed wire right at water level. 

Feels so fooked that they can string wire across a river, then leave it untended and unmarked (more or less) in perpetuity.

Beautiful scenery and the upper bouldery stuff was fun, but the fences removed the overall enjoyment of that stretch for me.

Redemption came with a sunset blast down the Upper. So fun at this level.

Thanks to all, for all the beta.

MC


----------



## bigscottone (Jan 4, 2011)




----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

1. Read CO statute below.
2. Take fence pics, preferably with landmarks and/or GPS
3. Ideally, also, id owner/location thru county assessor map.
3. Call county sheriff.
4. Describe situation, statute and pic/map availability.
5. Request assistance.

*18-9-107. Obstructing highway or other passageway.*

(1) An individual or corporation commits an offense if without legal privilege such individual or corporation intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(a) Obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, *waterway*, building entrance, elevator, aisle, stairway, or hallway to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances, whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others; or
(b) Disobeys a reasonable request or order to move issued by a person the individual or corporation knows to be a peace officer, a firefighter, or a person with authority to control the use of the premises, to prevent obstruction of a highway or passageway or to maintain public safety by dispersing those gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire, riot, or other hazard.
(2) For purposes of this section, "obstruct" means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous.
(3) An offense under this section is a class 3 misdemeanor; except that knowingly obstructing the entrance into, or exit from, a funeral or funeral site, or knowingly obstructing a highway or other passageway where a funeral procession is taking place is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 468, 1. C.R.S. 1963: 40-9-107. L. 97: IP(1) and (1)(b) amended, p. 1012, 17, effective August 6. L. 2006: (3) amended, p. 1198, 4, effective May 26.
Cross references: (1) For obstructing highways, see 43-5-301.
(2) In 2006, subsection (3) was amended by the "Right to Rest in Peace Act". For the title and legislative declaration, see section 1 of chapter 262, Session Laws of Colorado 2006.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Ole Rivers said:


> 1. Read CO statute below.
> 2. Take fence pics, preferably with landmarks and/or GPS
> 3. Ideally, also, id owner/location thru county assessor map.
> 3. Call county sheriff.
> ...


I'm just a paddler, not an attorney, but I don't think this applies, or at least has not been established as applying to all barbed wire fences across rios. I have been in email contact with AW's Nathan Fey about the fences on this rio and spoke with him about it at FIBArk. He is on it. Photos and GPS coordinates are needed. I don't want to quote him but I understood him to say that fences are legal. One option is to get the owner(s) to change the fences to suspended PVC tubes that paddlers can pass through safely.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

To be perfectly honest I think it's not worth fighting. The fences are there because of some private parcels that are undeveloped and likely to remain that way. 

It's a more obscure run that is not really local to anything else, and it runs for a few weeks (at best) a year. 

Save the energy and fight for a different run. Maybe we just need to wade into the river at ELF flows and put some rubber flagging along the fence. that's certainly about all the work that needs to go into this stretch.

It is one of my favorite backyard runs (when I'm home) and I love it a whole lot but really, this isnt worth contacting AW about, IMHO.....


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

yetigonecrazy said:


> To be perfectly honest I think it's not worth fighting. The fences are there because of some private parcels that are undeveloped and likely to remain that way.
> 
> It's a more obscure run that is not really local to anything else, and it runs for a few weeks (at best) a year.
> 
> ...


I hear you Yeti but don't really agree. If the owners aren't on board then the flagging could be removed. We had way too close a call in there... Anyway... The deed is done. The process is started. Direct and reasonable communication with the owners is what is anticipated as the first, and most likely to succeed, step. Lets catch that run together when you get back.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

Phil U. said:


> I hear you Yeti but don't really agree. If the owners aren't on board then the flagging could be removed. We had way too close a call in there... Anyway... The deed is done. The process is started. Direct and reasonable communication with the owners is what is anticipated as the first, and most likely to succeed, step. Lets catch that run together when you get back.


I'm sorry that you had a scary encounter. Fences can be terrifying and I don't want anyone to be a victim to them.

With that being said, I still think it's allocating precious time, resources, and energy for a fight that just isn't worth it. If the stretch was closer to established trails, or if it ran a bit longer every year, then I would feel differently. But it's just too obscure and short-running to be eating up time of the professional whitewater experts, who could be better left to working on more pressing and wider reaching access situation. It's like a kid on a playground complaining to a teacher that someone called me "stupid" when there is a fist fight happening a few yards away. Send the resources to where they are needed most.

If I remember correctly, the first fences delineate a parcel that surrounds an old cattle camp. In my twenty five plus years of going to Taylor Park I have never seen anyone like an owner there, as well as zero indications of a desire to develop or do anything besides just leave it right how it is. I would be very surprised if they would be bothered with some flagging tied to the fences. I will ask around some contacts back home and see if I can dig up the property owner, maybe a simple bit of communication could help us know if that was ok? Or even ask them if the fences could be removed? I doubt they will allow that, but I really have to believe some flagging wouldn't be an issue.

Again, just my thoughts. I just don't want to see anyone putting valuable time and energy into something that really only affects a very small group of people. 

I'll be visiting for a month from July 12th to August 12th, and while I don't think the Park run will still have water by then, I would be very keen to get out and boat something with you. I enjoy boating people who are so connected to the river like you are! I will be in touch with Logan and I'm sure we can work something out!


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

I read somewhere that the Pie Plant Cow Camp is a historic, working ranch associated with the old Pie Plant town site. From what I remember it as one of those deals where they agreed to donate the land to the state or county or something as long as they were able to continue to operate. I have seen someone there once. The first fence you come to was in really bad shape. When fishing last fall I cut it out from the center and rolled it up on the bank. There was a brand new fence up this year.

I don't think its necessarily worth a long drawn out fight, but I do think its worth a little effort to try and clean them up. Ideally it would be nice to get the fences out of the lower stretch of Texas Creek too...


----------



## gunnerman (Jun 6, 2013)

Once again the great Yeti is correct with this spot-on opinion. The law is so unclear on this issue in Colorado that if you asked 3 different sherrifs from 3 different counties what the actual waterway rights are your going to get alot of "not sure" answers. Most ranchers due have the right to fence creeks and small rivers to retain livestock, that is a given. I would probably just tag the fence and leave it at that. Let's all encourage American Whitewater to get some resolution on this matter in a court of law, so we don't have to deal with this forever. As much as I dislike politicians and lawyers, they are much needed in our arena for real change. If we had one or two powerful politicians who loved kayaking we could probably get some water below Mcphee dam and into the Dolores, instead of killing a great river. Now that's something worth fighting for.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

I think it's worth pursuing if only to set legal precedent. Gotta start somewhere.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

I respect all the opinions expressed here but I'm still gonna do what I feel is best. I consider this a "backyard run" for me too. I watched a friend come within a couple inches of a potential barbed wire entrapment. That's enough for me. I am going to do a lot of the leg work. I'll leave it up to Nathan to determine his level of engagement but IMO AW is an appropriate voice for us paddlers when engaging the owners.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Agreed, and you have my full support and assistance.


----------



## AW-Evan (May 27, 2014)

AW is certainly an appropriate resource here. Working directly with landowners/managers is almost always the easiest/best response. Sometimes having an organization like AW approach them may make the conversation easier. BUT - PHIL U if you're going to entrust AW with this... you should probably renew your membership!!! (disregard this message if you already renewed). 

Become an AW member


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Uh oh, a kick in the shins from a sandbagger.  Right on, Evan. Thanks for all your efforts on behalf of all of us.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

lmyers said:


> I don't think its necessarily worth a long drawn out fight, but I do think its worth a little effort to try and clean them up. Ideally it would be nice to get the fences out of the lower stretch of Texas Creek too...


That's why we should just contact the owners and see if they are cool with some flagging on the fences. That is really the easiest, safest, and most ideal situation. No need to bring litigators and laws and precedents and stewards and representatives and etc etc into this. Let's just ask if it's ok to put some flags up, do it, and then it's done.

Logan, have you taken a good look at lower Texas? That bottom canyon is a bit of a tease.....it starts off nice and looks good for a little while.....but down towards the bottom there is one long left hand corner that looks like a bit too much rock and gradient, and not quite enough flow. What are your thoughts?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

I haven't really looked it over good. Definitely looked like you would want to hit it at peak flow for the padding, I know it would be a short run, but possibly worth combining with something else, or even just a pitstop for those traveling between CB and BV...


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

Yeah.....I'm still not sure that it is possible. I've walked the stretch from top to bottom, and Kevin Brooks and I one time dropped in when the [email protected] was 850, and we ran the first quarter of a mile or so, but we had to walk away because there was too much rock and not enough flow. It was so bouldery that there wasn't much enough of a channel, and it got to a point about halfway through where it was dropping too fast for the flow and creek size. We put back on at the main road bridge and paddled down to the reservoir, but that was manky as hell. I guess if someone has a mank mission in mind they might be able to bang their way down it, but I have my doubts.....Still...someone wants to fire it up, it's there!

You can access it one of two ways. One is to hike up from the bottom and do it and the other is to drive up Texas Creek Rd a mile. Its a shitty rough road so I think it would be easier to just hike up and walk back to the car.


----------



## pinemnky13 (Jun 4, 2007)

bigscottone said:


>


No right to compromise legal flosting rights in this state. Cut it down just don't step on the riverbed.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

pinemnky13 said:


> No right to compromise legal flosting rights in this state. Cut it down just don't step on the riverbed.


Yeah, we got it when bigscottone posted it the first time.....thanks for being original.

And maybe you didn't read LMyers' post? He removed one fence last year and they replaced it. Continuously cutting down the fence year after year will likely begin to anger the landowner and only turn a non-issue into an issue. Being an arrogant douchebag boater isn't going to help here. 

Regardless of the difference in opinion between the posters in the thread, I think they would all agree the actions you are suggesting are unhelpful in any sort of way.....


----------

