# Environmentalists destroy white water park development



## Gamer242 (May 16, 2018)

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/article_1e759896-6936-5703-a8c8-b282602aafaa.html Apparently someone doesn’t want a white water park being built because of some fish?


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Gamer242 said:


> https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/article_1e759896-6936-5703-a8c8-b282602aafaa.html Apparently someone doesn’t want a white water park being built because of some fish?


Looks like it's not just the environmentalists: 



> “It’s like putting a climbing wall or an elevator on the Grand Teton,” said Charlie Sands, longtime owner of Sands Whitewater. “I told the county, ‘If you’re going to allow that, I want a Ferris wheel up there.’”
> 
> Sands called the river park “ridiculous,” and he worried it would be a burden for scenic floaters and fishing boats to pass through. The county, he said, ought not to allow private businesses to “screw around” with a public good like the Snake.


The fish were there long before we were. There are already too many dams that impede fish passage and have wiped out the upstream fish populations all over the country. This park is being opposed by one of the whitewater industry folks in the area, maybe it's not really needed. It sounds like there's the added argument against the park that it could actually pose a hazard to an existing group of river users that aren't set up to run whitewater. 

The nation's premier whitewater advocacy organization lists conservation in their mission. Mission

-AH


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

Whitewater parks make good sense in areas where the natural river has already been polluted/altered/destroyed, and a wave feature can make some sense in the overall scheme of river rehabilitation and turning peoples' focus toward the river instead of away from what may have become a polluted cesspool. 

If you already have a natural river..then that's awesome on its own.


----------



## Gamer242 (May 16, 2018)

I heard there was gonna be a white water park in Kansas like the one in Oklahoma, well some school teacher freaked out and got some people from out of state to protest it because she thought it would keep the fish away and that she needed the space educational purposes only so the white water park in Kansas won’t happen


----------



## Gamer242 (May 16, 2018)

By the way why can’t they build rafting channels and river park features in water theme parks like Schlitterbahn it would be huge thing there since Schlitterbahn is river themed, I bet schlitterbahn building rafting a kayaking park in new braunfels would make Schlitterbahn known as the first water park to have kayaking and rafting instead of the park that decided to build a slide of death like verruckt


----------



## jgrebe (Jan 16, 2010)

White water parks are a complicated set of positive and negative impacts. I'd encourage everybody to get involved in the process before making up your mind. For example, Pitkin County built a park on the Roaring Fork in Basalt. Not that great of a park, limited usage window and had some problems with keeper holes the first year. Lots of negative feelings. What most people don't know is that the primary purpose of the park was to secure recreational water rights so that we could keep more water in the RF during low flow periods - thus benefiting the fish and the recreational community. Without that water right the RF was being virtually dried up below Aspen in late summer. Sometimes impacts are counter intuative


----------



## jaffy (Feb 4, 2004)

Impeding fish passage is a valid concern, but it seems like that should be easy to mitigate. 

The rest of the complaints seem to be from people that don't want to make the river less "natural" for a recreational activity they don't happen to participate in. I'm guessing those same people have no problems with all the roads that have been built to give people access to "nature", fish stocking programs, trail building, etc.

It's an even more ridiculous position to take since the proposed location appears to be right outside Jackson, with a bridge over the river right there. I'd have more sympathy if this was in an area that was relatively untouched (by today's standards) and scenic.


----------



## crispy (May 20, 2004)

*levees*

the snake is confined on one or both banks by artificial levees almost the whole way from moose down to hogback junction. same with the lowermost part of the grosventre. I'm not sure how old they are but recall seeing them for the first time in the late 90's, when mcmansions and golf courses were sprouting up on the floodplain

it is still pretty nice - definitely not trashed - but not entirely natural either


----------



## Bleugrass (Feb 5, 2018)

This article is from summer 2017. Why post now? What's happened between now and then?

That said, I'm not sure how someone could read this article and conclude that "environmentalists" are responsible for the delay of this project. People quoted in the piece span a pretty wide spectrum, from do-gooder residents to business owners to Fish & Wildlife officials (who, in my experience, don't tend to characterize themselves as "environmentalists.").


----------



## shannon s (Feb 20, 2015)

Bleugrass said:


> This article is from summer 2017. Why post now? What's happened between now and then?
> 
> Hence the reason I asked the poster's age in another one of the many threads.


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

A six pack says this is "James H." yanking the proverbial chain with a bunch of weird questions.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

This is also like the OP's 5th or 6th thread about whitewater parks. He starts a weird thread and then might follow up with one post before creating a new thread. Perhaps we need some more strict standards for forum etiquette....


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

shappattack said:


> A six pack says this is "James H." yanking the proverbial chain with a bunch of weird questions.


I don't think I'll take that bet.


----------



## yak1 (Jan 28, 2006)

I vote for the fish and free flowing rivers. If it wasn't for the environmentalist you'd probably wouldn't have any free flowing rivers. If you want a white water park go to some where where they have some. Last time I checked Kansas was still mathmaticly flatter than a pancake. Any park they thought of building there would be so inundated with insecticides, herbicides, fertilzer, and who knows how many other hazardous materials that if you boated in it your boat would probably disolve.


----------



## McGinty (Jul 14, 2014)

Misleading post headline. 

Yes native fish passage is a concern and should be. Paddlers need to demonstrate we are good stewards of the environment if we wish continued access and yes artificial structures and parks. Beyond that, according to the article, even portions of the whitewater community oppose the proposed park. 

These conflicts are very rarely based on a single issue. Usually rare species are used as a proxy because if present they have state and Federal laws protecting them.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Doesn't the Snake have a bunch of excellent natural playspots somewhere pretty close to there anyway?...must be a little out of town


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

From an engineering and design standpoint, it is relatively easy to include a fish passage in just about any WW play spot design. 

Most play spots I know of have a fish ladder.


----------



## paulster (May 27, 2011)

Looks to me like there are concerns about the proposal that need more investigation. Anyone see a problem with that? And if the proposed action does negatively impact the fish, do you really think adding a play spot is worth damaging a species? [sarcastic political comment deleted]


----------



## Conundrum (Aug 23, 2004)

cayo 2 said:


> Doesn't the Snake have a bunch of excellent natural playspots somewhere pretty close to there anyway?...must be a little out of town


Alpine Canyon stretch has a bunch of play spots depending on flow. For Victor/Driggs folks, 1-2 hrs, for Jackson folks, 20-45 minutes depending on where they live.

I'm all for fish habitat. If that or another true environmental problem is not the issue and it's a bunch of wealthy nimbys complaining, I propose a 200 yard setback from the river for all the richy riches for their $20m homes unless a park can go in. No grandfathering either. It's navigable water and I don't want MY experience floating it ruined by mansions in the view shed. Just like the affluent don't want the riff raff around.

I honestly don't know enough about the debate though. I've taken a "shower" at the proposed site after sleeping in my truck and logistically, it seems like an awesome spot for a wave but I'm not a scientist.


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

Well, not sure why they really want to do this... But, Lunch Counter is not all that far away and it is wayyyyyy better than any man-made stuff.


----------



## newpc (Aug 3, 2009)

Not every section of every river needs a play park.


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

Well, if the playboaters are that desperate, just drive down to Lunch Counter, it's always in


----------

