# Frog Rock Thread



## Missouri Boater

Cadster, glad to see you're also an open-boater. I've been using the single blade in Colorado since 1989. And I've probably ran The Fractions at least 20 times.

Well, I guess it does boil down to percentages. However, I'm sorry, but I really can't see the automobile traffic comparison. First of all, I'm talking about swimmers only...not paddlers that stay in their boat. You know, what is the percentage that you will swim through the sieve and live to tell about it vs. swimming through a rapid like Zoom Flume. I give ZF about 99.9% to maybe 80% for the sieve at Frog Rock. Of course, these are merely guesses, but you see what I'm driving at. I've actually not heard of anyone drowning at ZF, but I know that a lot more people swim there than at Frog. So, I'm guessing that one swimmer in five that go into the sieve doesn't go home. What would be your guess? Just curious.

The bottom line: If an inexperienced family member or good friend of yours tells you they are going to run The Fractions with privates or commercials, how would you advise them? 

a. Great! Go for it!
b. Make sure your guide portages Frog Rock.
c. I'm loading my boat and am going, too, to make sure you are safe.
d. Don't do it! Run Brown's instead!

Think about it.:wink:

Prater


----------



## GPP33

e. Ask your guide where Frog Rock rapid is. When you get there paddle like your life depends on it and whatever you do, don't swim. Oh, and have fun.

And only looking at how many swimmers through the seive survive is twisting the facts. Are you a politican?


----------



## Missouri Boater

GPP33, Another poster had brought up the death rate idea. I was just following up on that. Guess we are all politicians in one form or another.:roll:

AVR, I really don't see any armchair quarterbacking here. This is discourse, which is what the internet and message boards are all about. Change always starts with discourse. I know that neither you nor I will ever have any problem with this rapid, because we know how to stay safe. I just really do not want anyone else to die here. That's the bottom line for me. And BTW, everywhere we look, there are things in our life that other people have come up with to make us safer (PFDs for one). Some are good, and some aren't so good. I believe a modification at Frog Rock would be good. 

Prater


----------



## jconnsurf

GPP33, I would like to say that your comment "So yes, the feature does add to the rapid, it adds excitment to an otherwise simple straight forward rapid" really makes me wonder if you think twice about the life lost at Frog Rock. Kim was a friend of mine, and a colleague. We are extremely lucky that this tragedy did not involve more of the participants that were in the raft that evening. Think about what you say, before you open your mouth. It would be appreciated. Thank you.


----------



## SummitAP

GPP33 you do realize this raft was full of guides. Kim was a guide.

As for twisting the facts, everyone I've talked to says that 6 people have died at this feature, but we have a few of the folks who are so opposed to altering the feature they have to minimize the tragedy by saying that only four have died in order to defend their point.

As if a 33% decrease (and trying to erase those people's deaths from memory) makes it somehow alright if it wasn't before.

But humans are very bad at risk calculations. What percentage is an OK death risk?

We tend to think of mountaineering on K2 as about as risky as you can get in outdoor pursuits... 27% risk of fatality per attempt...

Whitewater recreation is supposed to be pretty safe. 0.008-0.011% fatality risk per user day on average (using AWA #s) with kayaking being a bit more at about 0.03%, but still slightly safer than driving a car!

Using Missouri Boater's guesstimate of 20% risk of fatality per swim at frog rock, *that swim is roughly 200,000% more dangerous than the average whitewater day.* That's a bit much for class III, don't you think? If we don't alter the feature, maybe we should rerate Fractions as Class V+ based on consequences. Or I guess we could put up those risk numbers on a sign... I bet that would reaaaaaaaaaally help :roll:


----------



## SummitAP

As to the naturalness of the river feature, how about the river being unnaturally held at dangerous flow levels longer than it naturally would due to human flow control for agricultural water needs downstream? That's as natural as the roads and rails on the river bank.


----------



## chiefton

I thought I'd start this thread for a discussion about the sieve at Frog Rock for discussion about past and future incidents, and possible solutions. I sort of thought we'd leave the other thread for pertinent thoughts and feelings in regards to the current situation, considering the already considerable hijacking.

Craig


----------



## GPP33

Apparently what I'm saying is being interpreted incorrectly. 

jconnsurf, every time someone looses a life on the river I think about, a lot. Whether or not it's someone I know it hits home, very hard. I have 2 kids and a wife that depend on me, I would never take my or anyone else’s life for granted. Once more, when someone looses his or her life on a stretch that I have or later do run it affects me even more. 

One of the big draws for river running is the risk, it's an extreme sport, it's a sport that is more committing than most. Trying to make it "safe" by altering one rapid is crazy. Recognizing that does not in any way take away from the lives that have been lost there. Pouring concrete or blasting dynamite won't bring them back. I'm sorry you lost a friend, I feel for you. Just don't loose sight of make this a great sport and a great community. 

SummitAP, you mention that it was a raft of guides but offer not further explanation of what relevance that holds. Care to expand on this? And yes I was aware, it holds no bearing on my opinions. As for your statistics, no point in arguing it but you are way off base and your numbers are intentionally misleading. If you want to compare it to survival on K2 try looking at all of the people who run it, not just the ones who fall out of their boat, you'll see it's a pretty safe section of river. Either that or compare it only to the climbers who fall, or the drivers who crash. Like I said, kind of a pointless argument though.


----------



## GPP33

Smart move. If anyone wants to further debate the statistics that have been presented in the other thread I’ll bite over here, I’m done on the other thread though. 

Pete


----------



## Missouri Boater

I've stated my case. I really have nothing else. Of course, I'm sure we will go through all this again within the next couple of years if no modifications are made.

You all take care.

Terry


----------



## lmyers

With all the responses, I still haven't heard a reasonable idea for how to modify the rapid, without a distinct possibility of making it worse...
The best thing I have heard so far is filling it with concrete, but that's not permanent. Think about the forces that carved out that undercut...it will eventually erode away the concrete, leaving us back where we started (just look at how often they have to re-grout/ re-pour concrete in the playparks). 
I am open minded to making this hazard safer...just haven't heard anyone come up with a good way to do it yet.


----------



## basil

It's really not up to us to decide whether to change the rapid, whether it's possible, or how to do it. Our discussion here is academic. 

It would be nice to get some good pictures of the rapid at very low flow, say November.


----------



## BoilermakerU

I disagree. I don't think it's academic for us to discuss it. While me may not have the authority or resources to do anything about it, we may end up providing some good debate andthe idea generation that could lead to a solution. That might be enough for those with the authority and resources to do something about it to make a change (if a change ends up being the solution). Anything is possible... 

I guess one question I would have is what measure of success would people use if a change was made? For example, let's say the thing gets blasted. Is success just not having an undercut? Does it matter if what's left over is a pile of sharp rocks that could do a lot of damage to rafts in particular (let me guess what the lkayakers think LOL)? Does it matter if there's any sort of a rapid left over, or would it be OK if the river ended up being relatively flat afterwards? Does it need to be a permanent change, or would something that requires maintenance be OK? Reduced risk of fatality would seem to be obvious...

For me, I'd like to see a solution that would alter the river in as minimal way as possible and be more or less permanent (as much as nature allows). I wouldn't want to see something that requires re-grouting every couple of years, and I would like to see there still be some sort of river feature left in it's place (ie, I still want there to be a Frog Rock rapid of some sort). Now, how would my requirements be met? I need to think about that. But until the requirements of the solution are more or less agreed upon, how could an agreed upon solution be met?


----------



## okieboater

*I am 100 percent for blocking of the sieve entrance*

not sure exactly how this would be done, but there should be lots of experience in the Salida - BV area to do it right.

my guess is bring in a few major size boulders from the area to block off the entrances to the sieve to the point a body would not go thru but water would.

Then fill in with other rocks.

If a big flood moves the rocks, just add a few more as needed. Do not attempt to fill in everything, just the sieve entrances.

Seems to me this could be done with little effect to the existing drop or rapid except it might make a bit more water go to the left.

this should be able to be done with not much money or work except for access issues for the trucks and track hoe work.

Correcto, all we are doing is giving opinions which may or may not affect the decision makers. My hope is the decision makers do read all these opinions and take them into the decision making process.

All sorts of good reasons to leave river features alone. However, my opinion, how many of us have to die at this spot before reasonable actions are taken to protect both experienced boaters, newbie boaters and general public who just happen to make this run.


----------



## UserName

okieboater said:


> my guess is bring in a few major size boulders from the area to block off the entrances to the sieve to the point a body would not go thru but water would.



Not to be rude (no rudeness on M-Buzz please...) but find it interesting that you propose a new sieve in front of the old one as a solution. That is actually the definition of a sieve. I get your point, but want to point out the fallacy of the thought. It may even seem that one sieve would prevent the other one as being the active sieve, but in actuality would make a huge quagmire of a sieve a bigger quagmire.


----------



## okieboater

Good point UserName!

I also wrote:
"not sure exactly how this would be done, but there should be lots of experience in the Salida - BV area to do it right."

I stand by my concept, hoping that those with more expertise than me fine tune it.

Dave


----------



## Missouri Boater

Good point Dave...we are not the engineers. At least, I'm not.

I would like to see more of a memorial type thing. I believe rebar could be driven into the bedrock in front of the sieve and then a wall could be poured and faced with granite stone. It should angle from river right to left to funnel the flow towards the drop. The cavity between the wall and the sieve could be filled in and capped. I realize that this would not have a natural appearance, but it would serve as a memorial for those who have lost their lives there. A plaque with their names should be imbedded in the wall. Whether it would hold up against the powerful spring run-off is my main concern. 

Just an idea.:idea:

Terry


----------



## Phil U.

I have never been in favor of making a river "safe". This spot and this tragedy has made me rethink the whole issue. 

However, regardless of what any of us may think or suggest, I doubt that any agency that might have the authority to do anything would be willing to alter the rapid to make it less dangerous due to liability issues. I intend to paddle the rapid at ELF flows, as I have in the past, and look at it with fresh eyes but I'm doubtful that a difference could be made with manual labor. Blasting seems a horrible "solution" since we'd probably be just making a blast rock sieve out of a natural one. Some one suggested cleaning up the rio left channel so a raft could get through there at summer flows and that seems the most doable and least invasive process but it would take heavy equipment and permitting... not likely to happen.

I have heard 9 deaths including a couple in a tandem canoe...

I'd be interested in how Mike Harvey (Ark playpark designer) thinks about this.

With respect for Kim and her people,

Phil


----------



## Theophilus

Since the river bed belongs to the property owner does anyone know whose land it is on?


----------



## BoilermakerU

UserName said:


> Not to be rude (no rudeness on M-Buzz please...) but find it interesting that you propose a new sieve in front of the old one as a solution. That is actually the definition of a sieve. I get your point, but want to point out the fallacy of the thought. It may even seem that one sieve would prevent the other one as being the active sieve, but in actuality would make a huge quagmire of a sieve a bigger quagmire.


Good point. Question though, would the new sieve be more or less forgiving than the current sieve, in theory anyway? Seems like it would be better than the current situation though, because right now there's a sieve AND an undercut. this proposal would be "just" a sieve.


----------



## lmyers

Theophilus said:


> Since the river bed belongs to the property owner does anyone know whose land it is on?


Pretty sure it's BLM. They are the one's who manage the camping/climbing area, and the other side of the river is not posted as private.


----------



## Theophilus

lmyers said:


> Pretty sure it's BLM. They are the one's who manage the camping/climbing area, and the other side of the river is not posted as private.


I was wondering about the rock side. So was it AHRA that put up the sign on river left? BLM? Seems an agency out there finds it worthy of warning the public. Maybe they would be willing to put up a really attention getting sign.

I see somebody has put some road cones on the existing sign to draw attention to it.


----------



## lmyers

Theophilus said:


> So was it AHRA that put up the sign on river left? BLM? Seems an agency out there finds it worthy of warning the public.


Yep, AHRA...and I doubt anyone would argue they need to put up a bigger sign, and put better signage at the State Parks access sites upstream (Numbers launch, Railroad Bridge).


----------



## lmyers

Interesting "letter to the editor" in the Salida Mountain Mail today that I thought I would share:

*Possible to clear Frog Rock sieve?*
Dear Editor:

In regards to the tragedy of Ms. Appelson, I recall some years ago entering the sieve under Frog Rock in a duckie.

It was October, and the river was around 100 cfs. I recall being in a little cave with a jumble of rocks on the downstream side, my bow bumping against them.

No big deal, because the water was low. Certain and hidden death when water is high.

One wonders if it might be possible to clear the sieve enough to allow a swimmer to flush through. I do not know, but perhaps it is worth looking into.

I think four people have been killed there since the day I was in it. It's a treacherous spot, with the entrance to the sieve hidden at moderate to high flow.

Jeff Auxier,

Salida


----------



## lmyers

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be easier to clear the rock from the sieve and dig out the back side of the rock so swimmers will flush through?...just another idea...


----------



## GPP33

Placing the right boulders either at the enterance or some distance above the enterance could easily prevent people from entering. No need to pour concrete, build walls or blow shit up. A couple of rocks is all it would take. Make em big and they won't move.


----------



## Blade&Shaft

GPP33 said:


> Placing the right boulders either at the enterance or some distance above the enterance could easily prevent people from entering. No need to pour concrete, build walls or blow shit up. A couple of rocks is all it would take. Make em big and they won't move.


 
Yep. Keep it simple if anything is to be done.

But all this going back and forth is hurts my brain. I keep changing my own mind as the options/ideas/methods are overwhelming. My gut says nothing is going to change, as I can't see any agencies involved actually doing anything. But the dissertation is good and healthy, just complex and frustrating/upsetting. Shocking to think that in 4ft water at significantly reduced flows a recovery was still not possible...


----------



## RiverMamma

I must confess that I have allot of very intense & somewhat mixed emotions around this whole thing... deaths on the river, altering rivers, and simply rock sieve's in general... 

I was very upset when Quartsite falls on the Salt River was blown up in (1995?) Granted, that was a recirculating hole as opposed to a rock sieve, and designated wilderness... but despite all of our grief for the loss of Quartsite falls in all of it's natural class V glory, years later it is still a beautiful class IV rapid with much character that changes from year to year... my anger has passed, I Love that rapid. 

I have been a boater my whole life, I have been a guide my entire adult life, I still fear & respect Rivers... I always will. A small nagging in my gut fears that someday a River will take me... hopefully not until I am old & decrepit & ready to go... but Kim, at 23, is a gut wrenching tragedy. 
Places like frog rock scare me. Places like the north west passage (another sieve,) of the rock garden in the Taos Box scare me... and yes, someone said it right earlier, frog rock is a hungry monster! I know of few sieves that have claimed as many lives... some say 4, some say 9... I say too many.

I don't like the idea of altering rivers, heck, I don't even like the idea of play parks! I couldn't imagine trying to alter the north west passage on the Rio Grande... (and it scares me!) but frog rock... I feel that something needs to change... I don't know what kind of physical alteration would fix the problem, or even if it can be fixed, but I think it just might be worth a shot! 
I think also though, that the Ark has an un-healthy amount of ego... I don't know how many guides have to die before humility is found. We are not gods, we are guides. We are at the mercy of mother nature & have been given the opportunity to dance with her. I for one, do not take that privilege lightly... I have boated well over 12,000 River miles in my life, and I can only hope that humility coupled with clear thinking will keep me alive for another 30,000 miles and more...
I'm not saying that there is an answer in humility or in concrete... death is, after all a part of life. I though, as a mother, want to stay alive for the sake of my daughter, and also cannot imagine the grief that Kim's mother must be going through... or the mother of the 7 year old boy who died in frog rock in the early 2000's... these thoughts strike me very close to home. 
I don't really know what my point is here, other than that this is a very emotionally charged subject & that many of us feel many things here, often conflicting, yet all strong. Lets please try to keep our wits about us here. I hope that they find Kim sooner or later if for nothing more than her families peace of mind. I also hope that AHRA makes the right decisions in any action to be taken regarding frog rock.


----------



## Jonathan Cook

Make a left line, I do have to say as beautiful as the ark is not to much of it is natural with the road next to it and the tracks. One side is natural and the other blast rock, so if they were going to alter frog rock rapid make a left line and the rocks that were removed from the left side block the way to the sieve not necessarily block it but make it nearly impossible to get there when the sieve is exposed at 700 cfs or higher.


----------



## RCinAL

Save lives. Do whatever it takes to make Frog Rock Rapid safer. That section of the Ark is a training ground and family playground, not a scenic, natural treasure. No one wants to mess with Mother Nature, but it isn't like this is the Upper Animas either. Most people who choose this section do not believe they are risking death and do not understand the danger the sieve at Frog Rock exposes them to. The people against this (probably a majority are advanced paddlers with the experience and skills to go anywhere they want) will still be against it after 9 more deaths have occured there. 

The next life to be spared because of human intervention will be worth any alteration to this rapid IMO, and I would NEVER say this about 90% of the rivers out there. I say the inexperienced and adventurous families with children deserve to have a few places - this section of the Ark included - to get introduced to our sport and be as safe as possible. Experienced boaters who don't mind the danger at Frog Rock usually go elsewhere anyway.

The Nantahala River in the SE is a classic example of a fun, mostly class II stream that has, for better or worse, become a heavily used playground for inexperienced families in rented rafts and duckies. I was on that river the day a 17-year-old boy got trapped and was drowned at the final and largest rapid - a class III with a sticky hole and a severely undercut rock. Several heroic, diving rescues were attempted to no avail. This was the latest in a string of unpleasent incidents there. A passionate debate whether to fill the undercuts ensued. 

At the time I was totally against it. Then I spent an entire Saturday afternoon watching people run it one after another. I watched their expressions; saw the joy, excitement, and sometimes fear in their eyes. I noticed all the beautiful, innocent children and the naive mothers who held onto them. Many swam and came within inches of their worst nightmare. A high percentage got thoroughly thrashed in the hole. I cringed every time one got close to the trap, which is only 30 feet from a recovery pool. They had no clue about the dangers that lurked just under the surface. There were warning signs posted upstream. I'm sure they had all signed waivers and been told, but it doesn't sink in in today's tort-driven society. They had probably been forced to hear a speach and sign waivers to ride the school bus. I thought of the dead boy and his family. I thought of my own kids. And I decided there are more important things than some rocks in a river. I was an experienced paddler who could go somewhere else if I chose, but these fun-loving folks had few choices and still deserved a safe, independent, class II thrill. Today I am told the undercut has been filled, but I havn't tried to notice. It is still just Lesser Wesser Falls to me.

Alter Frog Rock. Doze it, dig it, blast it, concrete it, re-route it - whatever it takes. 10 years from now, when this stretch of river is being enjoyed safely by thousands of budding, hardcore river rats, no one will remember what Frog Rock used to look like anyway. Heck, I doubt if there is 100' of this section that hasn't been altered by man to some degree. This sieve might have been caused by man 100 years ago for all we know.

God of the River, please bless those already taken from us, and provide peace and safety to those who will follow in their wake at Frog Rock Rapid.


----------



## chiefton

Something inside me is opposed to altering frog rock. I've floated past many times and can honestly say that I was acutely aware of the sieve every time. I think that the sieve's very presence changes the nature of the fractions. My feeling is that the notion of the fractions are a learning ground is at least as deadly as the sieve itself. The fractions is a great section (especially at high water) there just happens to be a heinous sieve in it. My first few runs I walked around it because I knew it could kill me, and I was not yet 100% confident in my ability. I'm inclined to think that ego, a lack of reverence, and even laziness are also at work in the Frog Rock dilemma. The good news is that the notoriety of the sieve at Frog Rock has received a major boost as of lately. The sieve is deadly, but to neglect the human element in it's history is foolhearty. I'm never opposed to a play-feature.

Craig


----------



## Randaddy

My first SWR class was at Frog Rock and we heard all about the young couple and others who went under that strainer. I've always had a strong respect for that easy rapid. 

I've never heard a serious discussion about filling in a strainer until now.
I don't mean any disrespect to anyone who has been affected by this particular rapid -or recent tragedy- but I think we need to leave the river alone. Sure, pull wood out - it's a little less permanent, but blasting and filling rock with concrete? If it's too dangerous then go find another stretch of river. What's next, lowering Mount Everest to keep people out of the death zone? (maybe an extreme comparison - insert your own here) If we're going to pull out the dynamite let's do it to redesign the diversion dams that kill people every year and remove something manmade at the same time.

As an advocate of Leave No Trace outdoor principles I don't feel good justifying the action because the area is already impacted. I spent more than one summer camped at Frog Rock and it's really pretty. It doesn't need fixed by man, even if it is already impacted. 

I'm sure this will inflame or insult some of you, but please take it with a grain of salt. I'm just expressing my opinion. I'm also leaving for a river trip soon and won't be able to defend myself if anyone wants to call me a whiny bitch or an idiot or a stupid duckier. 

The deaths are sad, as they are on Miller's Folley or the Thumbnail in West Virginia, or any of the other undercuts that make floating a little more dangerous in this world. But who wants to turn white water boating into the American ski business, where all hazards are well marked and mitigated to guarantee safety? 

Thanks to anyone still reading this rant. I'm aware that there is a slippery slope whichever way you slide here. I did email community leaders recently asking for a whitewater park in my community. I'm certain that this makes me a hypocrite at some level, as does my skiing slopes hammered by Howitzer cannons to prevent in-bounds avalanches. But filling in an undercut? It seems different...


----------



## Jahve

It seems a lot or well most of you dont know the problem rock has already been blasted once... Yep.. 

Looks to me like it fell into that spot maybe 100 years ago when they were blasting while lookin for gold... There are old school hand driven drill as well as blast marks all over the rocks in that area....

Also this is the exact spot where Colorado Springs still wants to put a dam and drown the entire section under 60+ feet of water... Hmmm I wonder if they will blast or use concrete??? Oh yea and if the SDS hits a snag frog rock is Co Springs 2nd choice to get the water they need for co springs suburb's endless blue grass fields ......

So fair to say frog rock has already been altered by man (with dynamite) and there are plans already in place to alter it a lot more in the future... For me the dont alter the river argument just does not hold water... Also it is very very possible and my opinion that the frog rock sieve is not natural but rather a man made hazard..... 

I have been running that rapid both private and commercial for the past 30 years and I would have to disagree with the opinion that it "adds" anything to that run... If it stays the same and the trend continues we will see another 10+ or so die at this spot in my next 30 years...


----------



## Theophilus

There is a safe quiet alternative to blasting.

Use DEXPAN

Demolition Agent Dexpan, Dexpan Non Explosive Demolition Agent, Dexpan Silent Demolition, Dexpan Controlled Demolition Agent for Non Explosive Demolition

It's also safe for underwater use and could be used during the winter off season. If you want the left channel deeper just start a rumor amongst all the gold dredgers telling them there was significant gold found in that stretch. :mrgreen: Those guys are up there changing the river everyday. It's just a matter of degrees.


----------



## hawkiirock

That makes great sense and I guess is obvious when thought about. Lots of good advice in the thread and those pics were really good as well. Thanks


gh said:


> Pillow is a pile of water usually upstream of an obstruction. No pillow indicates that water is flowing through or under the obstruction instead of around or back from it. No pillow is usually a bad sign.


----------



## loot87

SummitAP said:


> =
> Using Missouri Boater's guesstimate of 20% risk of fatality per swim at frog rock, *that swim is roughly 200,000% more dangerous than the average whitewater day.* That's a bit much for class III, don't you think? If we don't alter the feature, maybe we should rerate Fractions as Class V+ based on consequences. Or I guess we could put up those risk numbers on a sign... I bet that would reaaaaaaaaaally help :roll:


I think he was guessing a swim through the sieve, not the rapid in general.
I'm sure more than 6/0.2 = 30 people have swam this rapid.

I still think we should alter the sieve. There's nothing natural about the Ark.


----------



## junkshowriverchick

As only a third year boater (and having taken this past season off guiding) and having been personally affected by more than one river tragedy already, I have to say that I really appreciate the input of all my experienced river brothers and sisters. 

This discussion has been invigorating to read, and while I cannot add much to it, I just wanted to thank all of you for your opinions and your grace in dealing with such an emotional issue. Hopefully we as a community can affect positive change in this world: both opening access to new boaters and preserving the enlightening lifestyle we so love.

Let our friends who have passed before us lay at peace.

-Kate


----------



## Missouri Boater

RDNEK, thank you for your info on the previous blasting. I always suspected that these boulders which form the sieve were not "naturally" placed there. Their edges are just too sharp and jagged. If they had been there for eons like the boulders just up river (see photo), the edges would have been worn smooth and more rounded. Would be nice if someone could find a "before blasting" photo of the area. I'm curious to know what it looked like. Mother Nature did not design this rapid!


----------



## basil

I'll pledge $500 to a reasonably unabstrusive solution that either fills the sieve, places a natural boulder to divert the water from the sieve, or dredges the left channel.


----------



## Randaddy

*******, it's obvious now looking at the picture that you and the gentleman from Missouri are correct. This looks like it's more likely to be manmade than I remembered, though it may have just broken off of the above rock in recent geologic time. 

So it's a class 2 rapid with the kind of hazard our friends the class 5 creek boaters deal with in the gnar. I've got to say I don't know where I stand now. It's mentioned in any guidebook or boater's discussion of the fractions section, so it's fair to say informed and responsible floaters (who are my only concern, generally) should know about it and decide whether to run the stretch. 

I guess if the undercut can be plugged with something that I can't see when I'm fishing there or floating by, I'd support it. If it looks like a bridge base covered in concrete I wouldn't. Memorials and plaques, when tasteful and legal, seem entirely appropriate and are usually respected. The one that many of us know about on the Poudre is classy and not seen by most river users. 

Maybe they can helicopter those rocks out of there and put them in Seidel's and make it a class 4 rapid.


----------



## RiverMamma

good observation MissouriBoater! Yeah, if we can find peace over a non-notorious killer, natural treasure, in designated wilderness being blasted (referring to quartzite falls on the Salt again...) Then there should be no qualms with altering frog rock! Seriously, the arguments of non alteration here are pretty weak, & I hate the thought of altering rivers...


----------



## glenn

Whitewater of the Southern Rockies doesn't say anything about the hazard, and to my recollection neither does CRCII. They both feature other runs of similar difficulty with attention to similar hazards.


----------



## TimberTroll

*My low-impact two cents*

It's now pretty obvious that this thing is man-made. So....Wait for low water, throw a couple of these under it and fill the sieve or shift the whole damn rock. 

low & medium pressure lifting bags; recovery bags


----------



## UserName

Went and looked at the rapid a few days ago. It is pretty clear that the rocks fell from the cliffs right there, next to the rapid. There are 3-4 'RV' size boulders showing above the surface. It is not clear weather or not they were blasted or fell naturally, which is of little consequence either way. Having never peered under there as the rescue teams have done this past week, it still appears to me that it isnt a single 'undercut rock' per se... as much as a pile of debris from the cliffs above creating a sieve ( Rock fall is a common reason rapids are formed in the first place ). Another thing that seems apparent to me is the the cliffs on either side there are not particularly stable. Not to say any of these rocks are ready to fall at any second, but any decade or century now, or other disturbance such as earthquake or significant concussive event (blasting) may be more to the point. A lot of debris seems somewhat precariously perched.


----------



## UserName

As for the comments on Quartzite falls... it was a criminal event, prosecuted, fines and jail time given out. 
Remeber Quartzite Falls?

 *In 1995, six of the helpers were instructed by a federal court to perform community service and pay restitution to the Tonto National Forest Service. Another also served a 12 month jail term. Stoner fled before sentencing.
*

 *Stoner was apprehended in Australia in April of 1996 and extradited to Arizona, where he was sentenced in late 1997 to 42 months in prison for fraud charges and his involvement with Quartzite's demolition.*


----------



## RiverMamma

UserName said:


> As for the comments on Quartzite falls... it was a criminal event, prosecuted, fines and jail time given out.


well aware... that doesn't make it any less emotional. My point here is that years later most of us have found peace with what happened to Quartzite, so why get all huffy about frog rock? Quatrzite was a tragedy, & should have not been altered... frog rock is not wilderness, is a notorious killer, and has good argument for being altered... legally.


----------



## TimEubanks

.
For perspective: I ran the Fractions in a raft with my wife and two kids (private trip) for the first time, two days after the incident involving Kim. We saw the sign (it needs to be much more prominent!) and knew about the hazard before hand. Our group pulled off on river left well above the rapid and took a look. I decided quickly that we would line/walk the raft. At 800 or so cfs, the left side was passable to a point in a raft, but not without problems.
My daughter was visibly troubled by seeing the rescue efforts underway and would not have run that stretch again for all the corn in Iowa. 
Don't know how she would vote, but my son just voted for eliminating the sieve in some way.
I have no problem with walking something I don't want to run. I guess the issue here is more for folks who are in a group, maybe at the mercy of a "guide". they may or may not be given the choice of walking the rapid. If not, then the guide should be stripped of privaleges. 
Never should "non-paddlers" be completely at the mercy of a cocky guide, whether private or commercial. I learned long ago that the river gods do not like cocky. We are all between swims whether it be one week or one decade since the last one. 
Missouriboater's assessment that the sieve is manmade makes this a non-issue for me. While beautiful, this section is not exactly untouched. Given the huge amount of commercial traffic this river gets, what is the harm in getting rid of a known death trap? Hell, you take out at a man-made feature. 
I will be back next summer. I and my family will walk/line down to the safer part of the rapid.


----------



## SimpleMan

What would George Washington Hayduke do?


----------



## OleMissBoater

lmyers said:


> With all the responses, I still haven't heard a reasonable idea for how to modify the rapid, without a distinct possibility of making it worse...


with all of the proposals of blasting/filling in/more rocks... I say leave the seive. 

The solution is to remove the boulders on the river left side. There are about ten boulders blocking the left channel below ~700 cfs. Remove them. Dredge the left side and make a runnable line.

If more get washed down(unlikely, but could happen), remove them again. Just make an alternative line than the right (only) line at 650... Which happens to be the level that all the deaths occur.


----------



## mr. compassionate

SimpleMan said:


> What would George Washington Hayduke do?


That's in excellent question...off the top of my head I believe he'd say leave it be. What would Jon Gualt say?


----------



## SummitAP

It is true that the rock in question is jagged and has a bunch of bore holes in it from previous blasting.


----------



## MountainMedic

i think the real issue is that it is considered a "learning" run.

1st time i ran it i had read about the seive. didn't "see" the problem, so there was no real problem in my mind.

2nd time i ran it, well, my stupidity was only re-enforced.

3rd time..... 4th time....

took a couple of years to finally understand just what was possible in there.

i am torn, like many, about not only the possiblity of making it worse and the slippery slope of grooming the rivers.

as a guy that tells far too many mothers/wives/husbands/children that their loved one is dead the answer is clear.

as a guy who loves the wild places, needs the adventure, and only truly feels awake when faced with risk/benefit type questions, the answer is also obvious.

i just don't know.

i think that a really big, really scary sign at thr RR bridge put in would make a bit of a difference.

i just honestly didn't get it for a couple of years, and i had been told all the stories, had read all the horrible reports.

i have to believe that i'm not the only one that thought they had a lot of respect for the river, yet failed to respect this particular run........


----------



## Ken Vanatta

*NO LIFE GUARD ON DUTY - SWIM AT YOR OWN RISK*

What if, through signage and education, no more deaths ever occurred at this rapid? What if the meager and inadequate efforts thus far were improved to accomplish a massive education and warning objective?

Substantial signage at Frog Rock, before, and at all upstream put-ins. Substantial education by guide books, magazines, outfitters, chambers, lodgers, websites, chat rooms, FIBArk, etc. You are not at Disney Land. That is not Mickey Mouse waiving at you. This is the outdoors. Do you belong there? Are you aware of the dangers? You might die! Know the danger and be safe.

D'oh, actually, as I look out my office window at traffic whizzing by, I would be more likely to die as I leave work and drive in my car.

Trust me, I have daughters that are kayaking and, of course, I don't want them to die. Education is the key. We used to own the land just to the north of Elephant Rock Campground. We used the pool below Frog Rock as our swimming pool for years when they were younger. They learned not to swim Frog Rock Rapid and I have had them portage it with their kayaks while I would enjoy the challenging side of it. We've enjoyed Frog Rock for many years. 

Throw rocks in there if everyone wants, but I don't think we should be blowing up every stretch of rivers that someone is scared of. Heck, that is most everywhere. These dangers really do exist all over rivers. 

Let's educate and post signage. The Commercial Rafting companies have a major role in this. The boating community has a role in this. The schools have a role in this. The lodging and retailers have a role in this. Etc. 

Get the word out where this rapid is located and that it is dangerous. Most importantly, mark it well. Just like marking a cliff area at the ski areas.

Tragic deaths are emotionally disturbing to us all. They happen all over, in all kinds of ways, during almost every second of the day. And yet, the Arkansas has had many decades of enjoyment by river enthusiasts. Despite some that might suggest that it is not pristine, many consider it a wonderfully fun and scenic waterway. We should just know about it if we going to endulge in it. 

Be safe. I have to go and drive home now. 

Peace!
Ken


----------



## BoilermakerU

I don't think education is the answer, mistakes can happen, even to the educated. Guides are certainly educatyed as to the dangers of Frog Rock, are they not? Yet one group og guides made a mistake, someone swam, and that person died as a result. Education can certainly help, but it's not the answer (it's one of many though).

I like the idea of moving boulders from the left to the right, if that were really possible. I wonder if it's possible to get heavy enough equipment in there to do that? Even then, that too is only a partial answer, just as the education is. Again, just because there is a left line there doesn't mean someone isn't going to fall out for some rason above the "new and improved line" and swim into the hazard. However, I like that it would probably reduce the likelihood significantly.

The only real way to "eliminate" the hazard is to deal with the rock itself. Blast it, move it or something along those lines. Even then, you may be traing one hazard for another. But if it's a lesser hazard or the hazard shifts from one of loos of life to one of loss of equipment (jagged rocks ripping a boat), then maybe it's worth it.

The more this debate continues, the more I am in favor of doing something. I'd like to see true experts weigh in though, not just river rats. Any heavy equipment operators out there? Any geologists out there? I sense a lot of speculation here being presented as fact. It would be interesting to see what facts those with the approriate expertisae would bring to light...


----------



## Mike Hartley

I think the "slippery slope" argument is pretty far fetched if for no other reason than money. State agencies are not going to be throwing themselves at every rapid that someone dies in or every rock that's a potential foot entrapment. Ain't gonna happen. Forget that one. They'd close the river/section before they went that route. 

Personally I think having the amount of signage necessary to actually do anything constructive would be god-awful ugly. Far better to move the rock (sounds so easy but of course it's not) than plaster the area with a billboard(s).

Do we actually get to "vote" on this or is this thread just a little mental masturbation? I don't see the State Parks having a public input meeting around this one. I'm betting they'll consult with their lawyer and budget but not Jimmy Kayaker. I could be wrong but I'd bet our opinion doesn't matter on this one.


----------



## Phil U.

Some ramblings... and Mike Hartley. I suspect yer right about our capacity to have any impact.

I hope if anything ends up getting done (I still think doubtful because of liability issues) the "experts" consulted will be river rats and folks of the river community. The people who know best are on this board. The people who designed and built the parks downstream know and love the Ark and would be best positioned to engage the bureaucracies that would have to be on board. Mike Harvey, are you back in town yet? R'neck, is there any precedent for the rafting industry getting involved with something like this? I know you guys cut out strainers, thank you.

I have enough experience to have a well informed opinion about some aspects of what is possible. I believe there is adequate access to get heavy equipment there. Access granted may be a different story. I think the main rocks/ledge that make up Frog Rock are too big to be moved by a large excavator. *Maybe* the downstream rocks that sieve the exit could be moved. Next time I am there I'll look at it with that in mind. Having not looked at the left channel with moving the bigger rocks in mind, I can't recall if any are too big to move but my guess is that none are too big to at least roll to the side to open a low water channel.

Even if, as my man R'nek says, Frog Rock is the result of blasting it still looks to me like a large piece of relatively intact granite that has fallen in the rio. My own aesthetic sense is that blasting would be crude and the results unpredictable. A dam like formation of blasted rubble would still be a hazard. Besides, at this point I'm still talking myself into the need for something to be done. I like the move in that rapid above the sieve and often paddle it while some of my buds go left. I'm just tired of families grieving cuz of one small slot in there. At this point I like the idea of blocking the entrance to the sieve with boulders from the left channel. 

RIP Kim...

Phil


----------



## gh

Still against messing with the river. A tourist dies almost every year scrambling on rocks in Garden of the Gods, should we level it to avoid this in the future?


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

> Personally I think having the amount of signage necessary to actually do anything constructive would be god-awful ugly. Far better to move the rock (sounds so easy but of course it's not) than plaster the area with a billboard(s).


I've been following this discussion for weeks; in the meantime, I went up and ran several sections of the Ark and bypassed the Fractions out of respect for the rescue crews. I came into it thinking, "yeah, fix it" and I think I'm coming out of it, "leave it alone and educate the people." Here's why: we created the hazard. People go to the "wilderness" to experience the "wilderness." There is something beautiful in the fact that danger lurks just out of sight. (This is with all respect and empathy to those who are suffering a loss.)

I have to think about the signage on the Dolores above Snaggletooth. For those who haven't seen it-It is primitive- several broken wooden signs with white paint (reminiscent of burma-shave road signs) that remind the unsuspecting boater that danger lies ahead. Think skulls and crossbones. It creates trepidation in a way that doesn't detract from the scenery. 

I'm not sure that's the answer, but it wouldn't have to be a billboard... sometimes less is more.


----------



## Ken Vanatta

I disagree about the cost and unsightliness of better signage. I think it is at least an immediate and low cost initiative. Many posting locations already exist. They just need fresh and better details. Signage might only cost a couple of thousand dollars. Certainly the warning sign just above Frog Rock Rapid is weathered, small, and often not noticed. I'm sure we can handle there being something much more substantial there. Awareness of the spot is what is demanded. Even at inflated government expenditures, I really don't think it would cost a lot to do this effort. 

As Phil alluded to, access for heavy equipment to the rapid is probably unavailable and the costs very obstructive. I wonder if a heavy cable pull could be accomplished from the east side of the tracks. It's quite a distance, though. Perhaps Fred Lowry, TCR, or contacts at Climax could assist in evaluating.

Nonetheless, I think awareness education is the low cost initiative for something that we can control. 

It has been interesting to hear how many people have expressed their unawareness. That they've generally viewed it as a benign looking rapid. Now that people are beginning to realize things, I then start to wonder what they would do if the ever really viewed the Upper Taos Box or the Pueblo. Whew! We would have to dredge the entire basins. 

By the way, I made it home driving okay. I didn't have to take the risk. I could have holed up in my office and avoided the danger. Instead I chose to do something dangerous. I felt knowledgeable and prepared enough to risk it. Nonetheless, a risk it is. Animals, drunks, stoners, illegals, rocks, winds, mechanical malfunctions, heart attacks, sleep deprivation, debris falling of passing vehicles, etc., etc. In the blink of an eye it could be over. A couple of mornings ago, just as I was about to pass a tractor rig moving an old mobile home, an entire wheel shot off the mobile's axel. It projectiled up through the trailer's side exploding wood, metal, and fiberglass all over right in front of me and the wheel went speeding across four lanes and into parked cars and guys standing in front of their house. I don't know about everyone’s' near-miss experiences, but my life's list of them is long. There are dangers everywhere. Rightfully, we should try to exercise risk management. Most all the time protections can be implemented. And yet, rivers probably won't be entirely safe. 

Things that make you go, hmmm.


----------



## cadster

The AW database has three previous fatalities from the sieve:
American Whitewater - -SecurityGadget-explain
American Whitewater - -SecurityGadget-explain

Three other deaths on the Fractions/Frog Rock stretch were at high water:
American Whitewater - -SecurityGadget-explain
American Whitewater - -SecurityGadget-explain
American Whitewater - -SecurityGadget-explain

The earliest reported accident for the Arkansas in their database is from 1982.




Phil U. said:


> I have heard 9 deaths including a couple in a tandem canoe...


----------



## Phil U.

Thanks Bruce,
I believe I got the number from some members of the BV Yacht Club, some of whom were the earliest paddlers on the Ark (think fiberglass boats). I remember them describing using a 20' piece of rebar as a hook to retrieve a lost paddle in there. I'll ask for more info next time I see one of them. If you are suggesting an inflated number could alter the conversation I would agree. But I'm sure you would agree that even "only" 3 deaths in one known danger spot is too many.
Regards,
Phil



cadster said:


> The AW database has three previous fatalities from the sieve:
> American Whitewater - -SecurityGadget-explain
> American Whitewater - -SecurityGadget-explain
> 
> Three other deaths on the Fractions/Frog Rock stretch were at high water:
> American Whitewater - -SecurityGadget-explain
> American Whitewater - -SecurityGadget-explain
> American Whitewater - -SecurityGadget-explain
> 
> The earliest reported accident for the Arkansas in their database is from 1982.


----------



## Randaddy

Ken Vanatta said:


> Things that make you go, hmmm.


Did you just quote C&C Music Factory? Jesus Christ...


----------



## Ken Vanatta

LOL. Unintentionally. My bad. 

Make a great.

Cheers!

Ken


----------



## Tannhauser

A couple of things for your consideration:

Frog rock is not a sieve, at least not in the conventional sense people are thinking. It isn't something throwing a few rocks in will change. The entire large rock is hugely, (horrifyingly) undercut, think underwater cave. You could fit an entire 14 foot raft under there and never see it.The "slot" really is not a sieve as much as the water entering it takes an abrupt 90 left turn at the end of it and goes down and under the large rock. The right wall of the "slot" is also undercut with a "cave" big enough to fit an entire person in.

I suspect that it is entirely possible that the large rock in the river is resting on a few rocks below it. There are channels that go completely under it. 

I have heard rumors of how the accident occurred, and while this is based on rumors, keep in mind that I heard this from an extremely reliable source. I challenge anyone to provide proof of a "private" boater death occurring here. The "guides are dying here" argument is invalid. The version of the incident that I believe to be true* was that it was a boat of first year guides in which the accident occurred. I believe there were other boats on the trip however the trip became spread out and the boat in which the incident occurred either did not know about the dangers or did not realize they were in fact at the dangerous spot. This incident occurred in July, (i.e.they were out of training). Why would "guides" not know that the right side of frog rock should be avoided? Did they know and simply have a callous disrespect for the river? did they underestimate the consequences and danger of this spot? And if so, why?

Why have there been other commercial rafting fatalities here? It comes down to a lack of education or a lack of instilling respect for the river in regards to training new guides. It is not hard to run the Left side, It is not hard to explain to your guests that we need to portage down the left side on this one rapid to avoid a known killer sieve. If you can't make the "stay on the left side of the river move at 700 cfs" then you have no business guiding. If you can't explain to your guests that you are bumping down a rocky shore to avoid putting them in an extremely dangerous position, then you simply can't be a guide, as you fail to realize that people are paying not only for your skills, but for your judgment as well.

Before people start a 'the sky is falling" campaign about how this deadly hazard needs to be removed look at the facts. *No private boaters have died here*. The issue lies in the commercial boating community and clearly shows that there is a disconnect occurring. Senior guides / head guides / trainers are failing to instill the fear and respect for this spot that needs to exist. A company policy needs to be in place stating you do not run right, ever.

*From a reliable source and if I have misconstrued any of the details I apologize.


----------



## Theophilus

Reading Whitewater of the Southern Rockies page 72, where the Fractions run is described, I noticed that there is no mention of the danger of Frog Rock. The top of the page is titled "BV Park and Beginner Runs"

If I were an out of state boater coming out for a Colorado vacation and bought this guide book I might find myself and my family in a jam. Of course no authors can cover every aspect of a run and it is our responsibility to seek out the information.


----------



## glenn

How is a group of 1st year guides on the river away from the trip, and with no guests in the boat any different than private boaters?


----------



## BoilermakerU

People have died. What difference does it make if they are private boaters, guides or paying customers? Any and all can make mistakes, no matter how good they think they are.


----------



## Mike Hartley

To give a little more detail on my sign statement, I think the sign at Frog could be improved. I haven't paddled there in 2 years but I thought, at that time, it was alright but I knew the rapid was coming up so I was looking. But it could be more visible. But humans tend to read environmental cues and if the signage doesn't match their perceived reality then they often ignore the sign. Think of a 45 mph zone on a 4 lane, interstate like highway (i.e. entering Castle Rock on I-25 from the south). 90% of us ignore the speed limit because our brains tell us it's no different than where we were just driving 80 mph. Both the ignorant and the expert still run dams with huge warning signs hanging on a cable above them. 

Frog Rock doesn't stand out visually as a dangerous spot which makes it harder to take seriously. More education at the put-ins above the run warning people of the hazard could be helpful. But we like "cheating death". It feels good to make the cut above a big hole knowing you'll get pummeled if you don't make it. Phil U's a great guy and a knowledgeable, competent boater. But he admits to intentionally choosing to make the move above the undercut in Frog. We all do that kind of stuff because it's hard to stop what feels good. So I think some additional education at the put-in's is warranted but I think it would be easy to go overboard on a sign at the actual rapid that might have little effect on behavior.


----------



## NathanH.

I boated through there twice, although I wasn't paying an immense amount of attention to the river banks and scenery, I never noticed this warning sign.


----------



## Phil U.

Mike, not only is the sign inadequate, its on the left bank. You can barely see it and you certainly can't read it from the right side of the rio. It would seem a sign on the right bank well above telling boaters to get left would be much more effective and something that could actually get done.

Regards,
Phil



Mike Hartley said:


> To give a little more detail on my sign statement, I think the sign at Frog could be improved. I haven't paddled there in 2 years but I thought, at that time, it was alright but I knew the rapid was coming up so I was looking. But it could be more visible. But humans tend to read environmental cues and if the signage doesn't match their perceived reality then they often ignore the sign. Think of a 45 mph zone on a 4 lane, interstate like highway (i.e. entering Castle Rock on I-25 from the south). 90% of us ignore the speed limit because our brains tell us it's no different than where we were just driving 80 mph. Both the ignorant and the expert still run dams with huge warning signs hanging on a cable above them.
> 
> Frog Rock doesn't stand out visually as a dangerous spot which makes it harder to take seriously. More education at the put-ins above the run warning people of the hazard could be helpful. But we like "cheating death". It feels good to make the cut above a big hole knowing you'll get pummeled if you don't make it. Phil U's a great guy and a knowledgeable, competent boater. But he admits to intentionally choosing to make the move above the undercut in Frog. We all do that kind of stuff because it's hard to stop what feels good. So I think some additional education at the put-in's is warranted but I think it would be easy to go overboard on a sign at the actual rapid that might have little effect on behavior.


----------



## Mike Hartley

Phil U. said:


> Mike, not only is the sign inadequate, its on the left bank. You can barely see it and you certainly can't read it from the right side of the rio. It would seem a sign on the right bank well above telling boaters to get left would be much more effective and something that could actually get done.
> 
> Regards,
> Phil


I agree Phil. The sign probably only worked for me because I was with my wife (beginner-intermediate) and we were hugging the left bank anyhow.


----------



## Tannhauser

glenn said:


> How is a group of 1st year guides on the river away from the trip, and with no guests in the boat any different than private boaters?


Because every guide in the valley SHOULD know better than to be on the right side. By that I mean that they should be trained and educated about the lethality of the rapid, anything less than that is irresponsible of the trainers, senior guides and the company owners. No one needs to die at frog rock from a commercial trip, and no one should ever die at frog rock on a commercial trip. 

The fact that no one else has keyed in to the issue of "what were they doing there?" and instead people are choosing to blow up the rapid is bothersome to me. In alipinism when there is an accident the causes are discussed, not because of some macabre desire, rather to learn from the mistakes so that in spite of a terrible tragedy occurring people can learn and hopefully not make the same mistake. Every guide I have ever trained on that section is trained to never run the right side and they know why.


----------



## Phil U.

You know, I have had off board private conversations about some of this but while the young woman's remains are still unrecovered it seems just a might off key to head down that path.
P.



Tannhauser said:


> Because every guide in the valley SHOULD know better than to be on the right side. By that I mean that they should be trained and educated about the lethality of the rapid, anything less than that is irresponsible of the trainers, senior guides and the company owners. No one needs to die at frog rock from a commercial trip, and no one should ever die at frog rock on a commercial trip.
> 
> The fact that no one else has keyed in to the issue of "what were they doing there?" and instead people are choosing to blow up the rapid is bothersome to me. In alipinism when there is an accident the causes are discussed, not because of some macabre desire, rather to learn from the mistakes so that in spite of a terrible tragedy occurring people can learn and hopefully not make the same mistake. Every guide I have ever trained on that section is trained to never run the right side and they know why.


----------



## Missouri Boater

From AW about the Knorrs' drownings in 2001:

"The _Rocky Mountain News_ reported that their guide veered to the right to avoid a raft ahead of them that got stuck on a rock." 

I'm gathering from this that the guide was indeed trained about the rapid, but got off-line due to river traffic. Who has not done this? Education and signs are wonderful, but sometimes things happen (and happen fast) on the river. 

Terry


----------



## scagrotto

glenn said:


> How is a group of 1st year guides on the river away from the trip, and with no guests in the boat any different than private boaters?


Because they're professional raft guides whether they're on the clock or not. That *should* say something about their training and knowledge of that section of the river, even if their paddling skills are still limited. In terms of looking at whether these incidents happen to private boaters or commercial boaters, such a group clearly belongs to the latter.



BoilermakerU said:


> People have died. What difference does it make if they are private boaters, guides or paying customers?


Are you proposing that a suitable solution can be found without knowing why the deaths happened? It's not simply because there's a dangerous sieve there, because that's apparently a very well known fact and there are multiple options for avoiding it. If that section of the river is used heavily by beginners and other private paddlers, but all of the deaths have been from the commercial trips it would seem that either this particular sieve isn't much of a danger to the private boaters or it's much more dangerous to commercial paddlers. 



BoilermakerU said:


> Any and all can make mistakes, no matter how good they think they are.


So why have all those mistakes happened to only one user group? Is it simple probability (is 3 or 4 deaths enough to have statistical meaning?), or is it some difference between the two groups? Is it more difficult to avoid that spot in a raft? Are private boaters less likely to end up swimming in the wrong area? Do the two groups have different levels of knowledge or respect for the possible danger?

Sure, if you simply eliminate the hazard completely then it won't be hazard to anyone, but suppose it's not much of a hazard to most people as is? If that's the case then education is probably a far better solution because it won't have the unintended consequences that can result from modifying the river.


----------



## Tannhauser

Missouri Boater said:


> From AW about the Knorrs' drownings in 2001:
> 
> "The _Rocky Mountain News_ reported that their guide veered to the right to avoid a raft ahead of them that got stuck on a rock."
> 
> I'm gathering from this that the guide was indeed trained about the rapid, but got off-line due to river traffic. Who has not done this? Education and signs are wonderful, but sometimes things happen (and happen fast) on the river.
> 
> Terry


Nope, it is still not ok. If you enter a rapid, with an enormous pool above it with a known killer slot/sieve/undercut and have poor spacing, such that you have no where to go except to the death slot then really, that is poor form. It comes down to understanding the river and knowing how to minimize risk. 

Phil, I agree that it is a sensitive subject, but it has been 8 weeks. If it soon enough to talk about changing the river because a specific rapid killed people then it is soon enough to discuss how exactly it kills people, why it kills people and how best to stop it from happening again, (like this thread- because that is the root of this thread, *how to stop others from dying there*)...especially since it is not likely that the river is going to be "adjusted" any time soon. So if the river can't be changed, what fac tors can we change? What can we learn from this tragedy? And how can we use it to prevent further loss of life.


----------



## Phil U.

Scag...

I'm quite sure that the AW data base is incomplete and that private boaters have died at Frog Rock. As I said earlier, I occasionally paddle with some guys that basically pioneered the river and was told by them of private boater deaths there. I'll ask and post next time I see one of them.

And I would say that a beginner private boater has a *much* higher risk of dying there than anywhere else on that run or elsewhere on the Ark. I respect the logic you are attempting to apply to the sitch but I think you are dealing with bad data.

P.


----------



## BoilermakerU

My point was, a dead person is tragic, regardless of whether they are a guide or a private boater. Each of those lives are equally valuable, so it does not matter to me that they were guides or private boaters.

I do get the point that guides should be educated as to the nature of and location of the rapid, and I can't imagine any commercial company on the Arkansas is not doing that, but maybe I am wrong, maybe they just turn them loose and let them figure it out on their own....

On the flip side of that though, guides also typically have many more chances to make a mistake than most private boaters I would imagine. They run it daily, twice a day even, all summer long. so even while educated (my assumption of course), they have more exposure to the risk, and more likelihood of having an incident. Combine that with guests that may have never set foot in a raft before, they have even greater risk and likelihood of an incident. If one of you PHD statisticians wants to calculate the probability of a commercial versus private boater (rafts only) to prove me wrong, I am open to that possibility, but it seems the numbers are heavy on the commercial side for the likelihood of an incident, ony any stretch of the Arkansas really.

And IMO, yes, it is harder to avoid in a raft. Does that general assumption not hold true pretty much anywhere? Kayaks would seem to be more manueverable, smaller, ride higher, etc that afford them more possibilities and abilities to avoid the trouble spot. Again, I am not a kayaker, so go ahead and prove me wrong there too, I am willing to listen.

I think a big piece of what ismissing here is a detailed, factual account of what really happened in each of these cases. As Missouri Boater pointed out, one case seems to involve an educated person having to get off line due to another boater. Is education going to change that? No, it was an accident. Shit happens. Hell, it could have been a jammed log that sets someone off the left line. Do we know for a fact that in each of the cases that the guide was NOT educated about the hazard at Frog Rock? Do we know that they did not inform their passengers either?


----------



## marko

I have to agree with Mike Hartley and Ken V.

My opinion: I am against removal. But, if somehow the removal became a reality (fairly unlikely), I would not oppose the removal. 

I keep hearing people say, "well, this is a beginner and intermediate run, so it should be removed." That just doesn't work to persuade me. Do you know how many beginner/intermediate skiers/boarders die each year in CO because they hit a tree while riding down green and blue trails? Should the ski resorts cut all of the trees down on these trails to 'save lives'? No, they warn people that riding down a mountain is an inherently risky sport. Death and injury could happen so please take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to keep yourself safe. The same applies to kayaking and rafting. It's really that simple for me - personal responsibilty. When I hear of a river death it simply humbles me and helps me to remember that I am partaking in a dangerous sport, and to seriously consider MY CHOICES before I partake in the dangerous sports I love. 

Now, to the more important point: The gov't agencies have not said one thing about removing this hazard. (that I am aware of). So, yes, this really is just mental masturbation.

So.... since nobody with the authority to make the changes to this rapid are discussing this subject... what does that mean? To me, it means that if you are for removing this hazard and firmly believe it is necessary then it will be up to you to make it happen. It is not on the radar of any gov't agency, so it will be up to YOU to get this hazard removal on their radar screens. You will probably need to form a coalition to help lobby gov't officials to make the changes. Talk to Mike Harvey (or anybody that has built park n play spots) to see what is required to alter the riverbeds. There are many things that need to be done before anybody can alter a river bed. Then when you send in your proposals to the state parks expect to wait a long time until the state parks waits to see if they can get the funding to make this happen. Then expect it to NOT HAPPEN. Why? In case you haven't noticed the state of CO is going broke. I doubt that a little hazard on the Ark is something that is of a top priority to them.

Could the frog rock hazard be removed from efforts of just private donations? Maybe so... but who is going to take the time to make this happen? 

BoilermakerU, you don't think education will work? Well, we're gonna have to make it work. Because this hazard ain't gonna be removed anytime soon. Like Ken V said, better signage and education are much cheaper and a more realistic solution.

One more thing to add to the mental masturbation thread:

If I were going to spend time and energy hoping to save future lives (like the people who are for fixing the hazard) then I would focus the majority of my time working to fix a much bigger problem on the Arkansas River. The billion gallons of toxic water up in Leadville that could burst into the entire water system. You think 6 lives lost over a period of 30 plus years is a horrible thing? Of course those lives lost are tragic... but just wait until thousands and thousands of people start getting poisoned and then have a greater chance of dying of slow cancerous deaths, and how ALL of the fish habitat in the ark will be decimated. The entire Ark Valley economy would be devastated, along with a massive amount of environmental destruction.

This billion gallons of toxic stew 'could' become a seriously disastrous problem if we get another big snow year. Just like another boater 'could' die in the frog rock hazard. If it cost $20,000 to remove the hazard (just guessing) I would prefer to see those state funds used to help clean up the toxic stew before the removal of a river hazard. Because, IMHO, this toxic stew 'could' kill on a much much bigger scale.

For now I am just going to continue educating people on how to be safer on the river, and where and how to avoid the frog rock hazard for those who don't know about it.


----------



## Phil U.

Dang it Mark, yer "mental masturbation" just gooed up my keyboard.


----------



## Ken Vanatta

Phil U. said:


> Dang it Mark, yer "mental masturbation" just gooed up my keyboard.


Ha! Ha! Better go wash off, Phil. Do you want to Shane and I at 5 1/2 after work (about 5:45)?

Ken


----------



## Phil U.

Love to Ken 'cept I'm in Maine till the end of the month. I'll contact you when I get back.
P.



Ken Vanatta said:


> Ha! Ha! Better go wash off, Phil. Do you want to Shane and I at 5 1/2 after work (about 5:45)?
> 
> Ken


----------



## Ken Vanatta

D'oh! 

Well, enjoy that before the snow flies there, Phil. We'll catch you back here for those Autumn falling leafs and mercury looking water before dusk runs soon. As you know, fall on the Ark is super enjoyable. Take it easy.

Cheers!

Ken


----------



## marko

Phil U. said:


> Dang it Mark, yer "mental masturbation" just gooed up my keyboard.


After a week of making up 3 months of lost time with the wife I'd have figured that you'd be shooting blanks by now.


----------



## SummitAP

To those asking "what were they doing?" My understanding is that they tried to make the move left, which is tricky at that flow, missed, highsided a rock, and flipped.

It's not as though they were trying to run right.


----------



## Phil U.

marko said:


> After a week of making up 3 months of lost time with the wife I'd have figured that you'd be shooting blanks by now.


Alright, settle down, settle down. I guess I started it but sheesh...


----------



## lmyers

SummitAP said:


> To those asking "what were they doing?" My understanding is that they tried to make the move left, which is tricky at that flow, missed, highsided a rock, and flipped.
> 
> It's not as though they were trying to run right.


They didn't flip. They highsided and dumped 2 passengers. One (the victim) was not wearing a helmet, and dissapeared once in the water (my educated guess would be she hit her head when falling out of the raft). I read in a newspaper interview the guides were quoted as saying they were "unaware" of the hazard...


----------



## BoilermakerU

The article I read said they didn't see the sign. I don't recall if they said they were unaware. There's a difference, at least there can be. They could be aware of the rapid (like I said, I doubt any commercial company on the Ark doesn't make their guides aware) but not see the sign, and thus not be aware they were there.

That's happened to me actually, I knew of a rapid I wanted to avoid, but came upon it so fast, I was unaware I was already there.


----------



## Theophilus

BoilermakerU said:


> That's happened to me actually, I knew of a rapid I wanted to avoid, but came upon it so fast, I was unaware I was already there.


I wonder who that hasn't ever happened to. :mrgreen:


----------



## hawkiirock

As an inexperienced rafter this is my contribution to the thread. I agree with this post. If I were to come out there and want a beginners run I would go by the ratings and raft guide. At the least it seems like the rating should be changed to reflect the danger


Theophilus said:


> Reading Whitewater of the Southern Rockies page 72, where the Fractions run is described, I noticed that there is no mention of the danger of Frog Rock. The top of the page is titled "BV Park and Beginner Runs"
> 
> If I were an out of state boater coming out for a Colorado vacation and bought this guide book I might find myself and my family in a jam. Of course no authors can cover every aspect of a run and it is our responsibility to seek out the information.


----------



## SilverBullet

> After a week of making up 3 months of lost time with the wife I'd have figured that you'd be shooting blanks by now. :wink:


Good Humor. I love it.


----------



## RiverMamma

Tannhauser said:


> Because every guide in the valley SHOULD know better than to be on the right side. By that I mean that they should be trained and educated about the lethality of the rapid, anything less than that is irresponsible of the trainers, senior guides and the company owners.


I must say that I was trained by a conservative company, as a result am a conservative boater, & train the same way myself... obviously not everyone is... but I don't know if you could hold trainers responsible. I can not imagine rookies not being informed about Frog Rock's notoriety and danger!

I have always felt that the Ark is a River with an ego problem... I know ego is always a scary presence on all Rivers, but the Ark seems to have more than others! To me, Humility is one of the most important aspects of boating, that healthy Respect & Fear of the River is Essential. 

I also heard rumor of the incident... I don't know how reliable my source was, but I heard that they intentionally splatted Frog Rock. Which for a boat load of first year Ark guides who haven't learned first hand the Fear & Respect for the River, that didn't sound too far fetched to me. 

And though I agree that better signs & heightened awareness are good, I know that they would have done nothing for Kim...


----------



## skipper

Were they trained about frog rock?


----------



## Ken Vanatta

In answer to lmyers question, "What are we going to do?", and in agreement with marco and my boating friend Shane, here is what I think should be pursued.

Once the recovery is accomplished and while the low water off-season is upon us, welcome the depositing of rocks from the surrounding area into the sieve area. Just keep dropping them in in quantity. Not all will stay, but an abundance can make a difference. But, do it tastefully as to not scour the surrounding landscape, dig, or leave bear the surrounding beaches. There is an abundance of rocks present and it is possible to pile them in to make a difference. This is possible.

Also possible is the signage improvement and education emphasis throughout all the entities I suggested in my earlier post. This is not only possible, it is the most achievable and essential need. 

That is what we can and will do regarding Frog Rock. However, know that hazards exist all over in Granite, Pine, Numbers, Fractions, Brown's, Parkdale, the Gorge, and in all rivers. I warn anyone boating the Numbers right now that at these very low levels (I don't know what it is exactly, but maybe 150-200cfs in there) a swim, or even being upside down, can easily cause an entrapment or submergence into numerous undercuts and sieves throughout the run. Particularly in 4 and 5. These risks are very identifiable with the low water now. Know that they are always there, even when the water is higher. Foot entrapment is especially high risk, but so it head injury or potential fatality in an abundance of locations at anytime. Please know this folks. Dangers prevail everywhere. And yet, many enthusiasts have enjoyed this recreation for many decades. Knowledge, respect, and preparedness are demanded in reducing the risks and enjoying the rewards.

That said, Marco is right. A risk that we truly need to give attention and money towards is the pending toxic water catastrophe present upstream on the Ark. This is a real and imminent threat to the ecology, lives, and livelihoods of the many. However, as Shane advised to me, our efforts and money need to be directed towards getting our politicians to take action towards the massive expense it will require to cure. 

As a boating community let's do this: 1) upon closure to Kim's tragedy, we endeavor to continuously drop rocks into that spot (Please don't blast me with continued argument as to whether this can produce any lasting benefit. It is something we can do and all contribute to at our leisure.); 2) motivate AHRA and BLM (even raise money for it if necessary) to improve signage; 3) motivate AHRA to also initiate an education program and contribute our resources to helping them to expand it to the schools, commerce operations, media, etc.; and 4) Get involved in bringing renewed attention to the pending catastrophic danger present in Leadville and pressuring our government to fund its removal. This latter issue being of major significance. 

I know that some will discredit the effectiveness and priority of these ideas, but I hope we can realize the reality, limitations, and what we can contribute. I will start by arranging a meeting with my contacts at AHRA to voice these ideas and I will post any feedback received.

Respectfully,

Ken Vanatta


----------



## Tannhauser

Ken,
It might be helpful for you to know that the "sieve" (which is more of a cave with a sieve / channel at the bottom) will, by my estimates require approx 1125 cubic feet (15 x 15 x5 feet deep) of material to fill it. This is roughly 40 tons of rock. 

Being a realist I understand that you don't need to fill the entire void to have an effect on the flow. I would bet that if you filled it only half way it would change the flow...so only 16 - 20 tons of rock need to be moved. And make sure to tell people not to take rocks from the river right side as that will only encourage more water to go to the right side. Make sure you encourage people to pick up a rock from the river left, there by creating a channel. You know, kill two birds with one stone. As this plan will require moving roughly 1000+/- 30lbs stones it should certainly open up that left side nicely.


----------



## Phil U.

Jeeze Tannhauser, I'm glad to see there's an edit due to math on yer post beins that you speak with such authority and accuracy about the Frog. But I'm confused. You establish what volume is needed to fill it. Cool, how did you measure it? I bin thinkin I'd bring my tape measure next time I'm there but I only carry a little wimpy ten footer and if its 15' in 2! dimensions, I'm scroooed. Anyway, 15x15x5 is indeed 1125 cubes which my handy little solar powered calculator tells me is is in fact 41.66666666etc. cubic yards. And figgering a ton per yard I could see how yew might round things around and get to 40 tons of rock. So I'm witchew till then. But then yew call for half that being adequate and come up with 16-20 tons. Half of a rounded down 40 is 20. Where's the 16 comin from? And then whut rilly confounded me was when yew went to the 1000+/- 30# stones (I think technically they would be called boulders at that weight). Now yer down to 15 tons. I mean, I know yer just tryin to be helpful and maybe gettin caught up in optimism and whut not but yew wouldn't want to mislead anyone, certainly not Ken right? Anyways, I wus jest wonderin where you were gettin yer numbers from. Maybe yer pullin em out of another similarly sized cave. 
Regards,
Phil


----------



## skipper

Please, it's black and white... Were these guides trained about Frog Rock Rapid?.... Anyone!!.. The rafting company?


----------



## Tannhauser

Phil U. said:


> Jeeze Tannhauser, I'm glad to see there's an edit due to math on yer post beins that you speak with such authority and accuracy about the Frog. But I'm confused. You establish what volume is needed to fill it. Cool, how did you measure it?
> Phil


gosh dern it Fil,
You got me on that there math. I did poorly on the math section of the SAT's but did reasonably well on the verbal. Now you know my secret shame.

Phil, how can I put this nicely? I mean no disrespect in what follows, I know you post frequently on the buzz and have a lot of experience to draw from. 

However...I'll just let my answer speak for itself, how about that. How 'bout dem apples phil?

First "yew" can roughly estimate 1.25 tons for a cubic yard of stone. That is going to change based on the size of the rock, that packing, and what the rock is composed of, sandstone, granite, etc.

Seeing as the cavern is an irregular shape it really is a...oh...I'm sorry...*let me back up a minute here Phil. *
I guess I forgot to mention that my estimates of the frog rock situation are only based on the 7 hours I spent up there probing under the rock and moving the video camera and being at eye level 6" in front of the undercut for hours during the recovery attempt, when I was tethered in a boat directly in front of the undercut.

Surely my experience there is no match for the speculative powers of those folks on the internet that may or may not have floated by it. I have floated past it 100 x times ( as I am sure many of us here have) and truly had no idea what we were really dealing with. In fact I am still a bit puzzled about some of the hydrology that is occurring there.

Yer dern right fil, I ain't so good at math.. I mean some times that dern 20 foot probe went all the way back under that there rock and didn't touch nuthin, and other times it only went in a little ways, other times it hit wood.

I guess when I probed every inch of that spot in an attempt to recover the body I forgot to mark down the exact soundings and plot it out in three dimensions. What I do know is that most of that rock is undercut, it is entirely likely that the rock is only sitting on some other rocks on the bottom. if anyone is having trouble visualizing this, imagine a giant top half of a clam shell, balanced on an irregular river bottom, with the top of the shell being visible above the water line. 

My point is that I don't want anyone else to die up there, I don't ever want to have to look for a parents child in the river, part of me hoping I can find them so I can give the parents some closure and part of me not wanting to find her after she has been in the water for the amount if time that has passed. I understand that no one wants anyone to die...anywhere on the river, but this knee jerk reaction...this, lets blow up the killer spot....lets fill it in....how about lets stop and really look at the causes of deaths, understand the dynamics that cause these horrible events there, and find the most practical, environmentally sound, ethical and legal way to prevent this tragedy from ever occurring again.


I hope that was an adequate answer Phil.


----------



## skipper

Again, anyone, were these guides educated by their training program at AVA by senior guides? Have not got a positive to this question. Didn't AVA have problems here a few yrs ago??? WTF??


----------



## Matt J

In order to be a guide trainer you have to have a certain amount of river miles

so, yes, depending on what you call "senior" the guide trainers had to have a certain amount of experience

knowing AVA I'm sure they had 6 or 8 times the minimum

they did have a "problem" here quite a few years ago

I'm sure someone pointed out the obstacle at Frog Rock in their training, perhaps these particular trainees weren't listening or didn't realize exactly where they were in the section

regardless, pointing fingers isn't going to bring anyone back, and personally I take responsibility for due prudence on any section when I put-in and feel it's part of our creed as paddlers


----------



## Matt J

BTW - I hadn't read this whole thread, and don't intend to

BUT, I always encourage buzzards to post with caution, especially when making definitive statements in writing on a public message board where friends and family members could be reading

ask yourself if you are qualified and willing to be an expert witness on raft guiding and training of raft guides before you call into question events you probably know very little about

and I am in no way associated with AVA


----------



## Phil U.

Tannhauser,

Ahhh, welcome to the internet. So dude, I certainly have a better appreciation of where you're coming from. And I'm certainly appreciative of your involvement with the recovery attempt. And I'd probably bring some attitude if I were in your shoes. I apologize for busting on you but I was busting blind so to speak. I'll also point out that you did not identify your source of info initially and you brought a pretty sarcastic tone to your post to my bud Ken who I thought made a good faith effort to move the thread/issue along with a couple proposals. 

IMO, this whole situation is too tragic and the topic too important to do anything but extend my hand in good will and move on.

Regards,
Phil


----------



## Tannhauser

Phil,
just keep my lack of math skills on the down-low, also some day I may call on you for a favor...like figuring out an 18% tip. :grin:

Whether Frog Rock rapid gets physically changed or not I think we owe it to all of the deceased to learn from their incidents. With that knowledge some good can be salvaged from a tragic situation, possibly preventing others from having a similar occurrence.

People make mistakes, surgeons, presidents, pilots, raft guides, and even myself from time to time make mistakes. In no way am I trying to play the "blame game" with anyone. I can look back and see many mistakes I have made that certainly could have had different outcomes. Learning how the accident(s) occurred and coming to fully understand this river feature and then disseminating that information, (if only there were like a series of tubes that connected everyone and people could share information on), will save lives.

In medicine there is a thing called a M and M. Unfortunately it is nothing like the delicious anthropomorphic candy.  The objectives of a well-run M&M conference are to learn from complications and errors, to modify behavior and judgment based on previous experiences, and to prevent repetition of errors leading to complications
This kind of judgment free analysis is what I am encouraging. I understand that it is a sensitive issue to people, but if you do this sport long enough there is a good chance you will be involved with a fatality in some regard. It may not be anything to do with you and your party.

We can't go around blowing everything up that we fear, especially without an understanding of it....otherwise I would have sharks blown up because, frankly, sharks scare the shit out of me and they kill people. Sharks, as long as they are around are going to kill people, and so are rivers. Seeing as a number of organizations frown on my *"NUKE THE SHARKS"* campaign, the best thing I can do is learn about how not to become a hor's d'oevure for a shark. For the record I don't support the 'nuke the river' campaign, but nuke the sharks....heck yes. 

If the river is really like Ken says it is, (not sure if I have noticed that many really bad undercuts up in the nummies) then short of re-doing the entire river bottom, or nuking it from orbit**, the best method of cutting down the number of fatalities is education and gaining an understanding of how these things occur and then widespread dissemination of that information. 



** the only way to be sure


----------



## smauk2

Throwing rocks in the sieve... probably just make it so nobody ever comes through.


----------



## Matt J

I agree wholeheartedly with learning from mistakes. I also buy your argument about "Accidents in Mountaineering," etc., but let's remember that editors from the American Alpine Institute decide what makes it into that book, not a few monday morning quarterbacks on the buzz.

These forums are living beasts and sometimes when wounds are still sore is not the time to publicly question decisions made.

I'm sure everyone involved in guide training this year at every company on the Arkansas (me included) did a lot of soul searching after hearing the news of this accident.

And any of us that have been around this place (or anywhere on the intertronz for that matter) know that anyone with any personal liability involved in this or any other incident is not going to make public comment.

So, calling them out, second guessing them, etc. all the while knowing they're not going to comment is similar to "piling on" or kicking someone while they're down.

I for one think throwing rocks in a sieve or even considering pouring concrete into the river is ridiculous. It speaks volumes for how much paddlers care about each other and grieve the loss of a member of our community, but is not a solution. The only solution I know of is to enjoy every moment and make precious the time you have with those you love.


----------



## RiverMamma

skipper said:


> Were they trained about frog rock?


I can't imagine that they wouldn't be. 
I don't work for AVA, so I can't say for sure... but really, I can't imagine that any new guide on the Ark wouldn't be informed about Frog Rock... If you were training someone on that stretch, would you not say anything about it? really.


----------



## caspermike

this is the most retarded thread period... okey people there are seives on damn near every strech that isnt flat water. seives you can go through, sieves you cant.

filling the Seive still leaves 99.99999999999999999999999999 percent of seives so what is it fix the people. or fix the seive? hmm which seems easier and more approachable... river saftey obviously.


----------



## whitewater golf

my condolences all around.

Here's an alternative to the 'fill or blast' discussion...

At low levels the left side becomes pretty boney, causing river right to appear the preferred route, certainly for rafts since there's more water there.

If the left channel were cleared everyone could avoid the hazard. I considered this a couple of years ago and clamored around the rapid in the middle of winter when it was frozen over. I wondered if - using some webbing or cable, a couple of come-alongs and a decent crew the channel could be made more usable at lower levels.

I thought there were "only" 6 or 7 that seemed candidates for being pulled closer to shore to clear out the left channel. 

Clear the fewer rocks just to the left of the second thumb rock and one can use the eddy behind the first thumb rock to transition right to left and still be left of the second thumb rock and safely avoid the hazard. Bit more of an advanced move then going straight down the left side.


----------



## Ken Vanatta

Good morning, Friends.

Tannhauser, no one is going to blow up the river. Lest they want to go to prison. Hopefully my several posts in this thread have been read and have not been misconstrued. I emphasize that awareness (signage) and education (preparedness) are the essential need here. If people feel compeled to do somenthing to improve Frog Rock they could consider contributing by filling the cave with rocks. Yes, it would take a lot of rocks, years worths of effort, and may not last. That is simpily a contribution available to people that feel that something has to be filled in there. Enough said.

Let's improve the awareness of where this place is and educate people on the dangers present there and literally existing in abundance on rivers everywhere. Wear helmets, PFDs, know the available discription of a river and it's difficulties, know how to read rivers, when to scout, when to portage, know how to maneuver your vessel, and know what to do if out of your vessel, etc. Know that their is suffecient risk to consider your participation and preparedeness.

As my posts have alluded to, we need not worry about changing the rivers. Instead, lets focus on our understandings and abilities.

More importantly, however, as Marco has so smartly reminded us in this thread, there is a matter of intense importance that we would be better to contribute our interests and energy towards ... and that is the pending toxic pollution catastrophe lurking upstream. If spilled, it will kill the river, the ecology of it, potentially human populations, and the economy. 

Let do the awareness and preparedness solution to Frog Rock. However, anyone hoping to invest time, energy, and finances to a needed cause, let's move on to this bigger threat upstream. Getting involved with that issue is something we need to do.

Peace to all.

Sincerely

Ken


----------



## Ken Vanatta

Tannhauser,

In the brevity of my note this morning before leaving the house, I forgot to thank you. I do thank you for your skill and bravery to assist in the search. Also, for your insightful contribution towards our awareness of the physical characteristics of this rock. On my drive this morning I thought of two questions to ask you.

One, I think you know and may not be at liberty to answer, but if you care to ... we all have been in suspense about a recovery. Perhaps I have just not yet heard. My prayers are truly for this family and her friends.

Secondly, your description of the rocks character almost makes it sound like it may have somewhat of a narrow edge and potential fulcrum point underneath it. Might it be possible, if anything could pry it, to ever consider teetering this rock to roll? Just curious on that point. Otherwise, I hope we can move on to accomplishing the previously mention goals that we can accomplish.

Your comments are appreciated. Thank you, again.

Sincerely,

Ken Vanatta


----------



## basil

I strongly question whether rocks small enough for us to pick up will stay in place during spring run off. It would be nice to have someone with more experience take a close look at this.


----------



## basil

In general, I feel very uncomfortable with people applying principle/theology to 100% of all situations without considering extreme circumstances in some situations.


----------



## okieboater

*wonder what the AHRA folks have to say*

about changes they will make due to this accident?

I know they monitor or at least use this message board to get information out.


a statement from them would go a long way towards helping all of us understand what we all can do to help them out in what ever way we can.


----------



## Tannhauser

Ken Vanatta said:


> Tannhauser,
> One, I think you know and may not be at liberty to answer, but if you care to ... we all have been in suspense about a recovery. Perhaps I have just not yet heard. My prayers are truly for this family and her friends.


I actually don't know what is the next step. 



Ken Vanatta said:


> Secondly, your description of the rocks character almost makes it sound like it may have somewhat of a narrow edge and potential fulcrum point underneath it. Might it be possible, if anything could pry it, to ever consider teetering this rock to roll? Just curious on that point.


I am doubtful that it could be rolled easily. It is 20ish feet long, 8-10ish feet thick on the downstream side, tapering to a knife edge on the upstream side that sits a couple of feet below the water line at 700cfs. The "knife edge" is sitting approx 2-6 feet above the bottom of the river, forming the roof of the 20ish foot cave. The right side of the rock forms the left edge of the slot. I could not asses how interlocked the rocks are on that side, but I believe you would have to move several other rocks as well, or that some of the rocks could simply fall over and create a new hazard on river right.

I am not 100% sure that the rock is merely resting on the river bottom but it seems likely based on the amount of talus / large boulders that are adjacent to it. Then again with a large enough lever you could move the world. Short of large heavy machinery or explosives, that rock is not going anywhere


----------



## Ole Rivers

What about designing inflatable bladders similar to those in Vail?

http://www.riverrestoration.org/projects/files/category-vail.html


----------



## caspermike

How about educate! Bladder? Stupidest thing i have ever heard. Is their anything river side marking location ? Why not fill it with foam than? Smart right. Concrete? Sweet or plain simple education!


----------



## Ken Vanatta

I found this picture in AHRA files from 2002, a low water year.










Their awareness was reason for the signage that is in place. However, it is arguably inadequate. I have a phone message left for Rob, requesting a meeting with him to discuss improved signage and other thoughts.

Ken


----------



## cadster

From postings so far, those not buying that safety awareness and technique can be a solution want to change the rapid to guarantee no one dies in the Frog Rock strainer again.

How and if that’s possible is very debatable which is also making this thread so long.




caspermike said:


> How about educate! Bladder? Stupidest thing i have ever heard. Is their anything river side marking location ? Why not fill it with foam than? Smart right. Concrete? Sweet or plain simple education!


----------



## caspermike

Shouldn't be a debate. Coffee is hot, seives are dangerous. common sense goes a long way! As does respect and knowledge for the river and all runs. Murphy law will always be a rule none of us shall forget and should know be prepared which follows through with education. What next blow up kiss me?


----------



## basil

That's a good picture of the rapid, but the water level is high, above the dam control rate of 700 cfs. The center line is clearly open. 

The picture shows how much water aims for the undercut rocks on the right side. When the water level is at the dam control rate of 700 cfs, the left line is gone, and the center line is incredibly boney. Nearly all the water heads for the undercut rocks. 

The undercut isn't obvious from the river, is hardly mentioned in the guide books. The small warning sign above the rapid just says "Danger" but doesn't say what the danger is or what to avoid.


----------



## Prezki

Looking at the photo above, I can see the sieve at the very top of the photo between the large rock (which I assume is frog rock) and the rock above it (against the bank). Is this the main danger spot or is water actually flowing under frog rock itself, or both? It also looks to me that there might be a seive just river left of the large rock, directly where the kayaker's right paddle is pointing, is that correct? I've never seen the rapid in person and would like a better understanding of what is going on there.


----------



## SummitAP

That sieve AND the entire center rock and the rock to the right of the sieve are all undercut with flow tunnels .


----------



## Buckrodgers

basil said:


> The undercut isn't obvious from the river, is hardly mentioned in the guide books. The small warning sign above the rapid just says "Danger" but doesn't say what the danger is or what to avoid.



It tells you what to do. The sign says "frog rock rapid--entrapment hazard. Run river left or portage river left when left channel is impassable." (give or take a word or two)

I agree that the sign could be bigger, but it does tell you what to do.


----------



## gh

SummitAP said:


> That sieve AND the entire center rock and the rock to the right of the sieve are all undercut with flow tunnels .


The river right is undercut with a tunnel as well? I had no clue it was that bad.


----------



## caspermike

Thanks bucky


----------



## Phil U.

Buckrodgers said:


> It tells you what to do. The sign says "frog rock rapid--entrapment hazard. Run river left or portage river left when left channel is impassable." (give or take a word or two)
> 
> I agree that the sign could be bigger, but it does tell you what to do.


Its on rio left and if you're in the center or rio right its very easy to miss and unreadable from the right side. So if you're on the danger side/right entering then you can't see the warning. Same sign, same language but larger, further upstream on the right could very easily make the difference of a life in the coming years. Not a bill board, say 3'x5'. Signage at the couple putins above could alert folks to the special circumstance/danger below. Easy, inexpensive, doable. Perhaps objectionable to folks on the "take full responsibility for yourself" end of the spectrum but a reasonable course of action for most of us voicing concern in this thread... yes? Ken, I fly back home? today, I'd like to contribute to making this happen. 

As someone else said; the length of this thread is an indicator of the level of concern we as community have for each other. This seems reasonable and doable.

Phil


----------



## Ken Vanatta

Thanks, Phil. I did not receive a return call yesterday. So, I'll check on Rob's whereabouts today and let you know when we can meet with them. Your assistance is much appreciated. Enjoy your day!

Ken


----------



## raymo

Buckrodgers said:


> It tells you what to do. The sign says "frog rock rapid--entrapment hazard. Run river left or portage river left when left channel is impassable." (give or take a word or two)
> 
> I agree that the sign could be bigger, but it does tell you what to do.


Easer said than than done. Anytime you hand someone a helmet, life jacket, paddle and try to turn a river into a Mcdonald's with happy meals you will have your hands full and things tend to go south in a blink of an eye. A warning sign means different things to different boaters depending on their skills, experience, knowledge and abilities. When I approach a challenging part of a river, sign or no sign it is time to get my head out of my ass and get with the program, keep in mind I'm just talking about myself and has Nothing to do with how to find a solution to frog rock except that every rapid you approach should be treated like it is a frog rock.


----------



## caspermike

not the most difficult class 3. not much gradient pic from below


----------



## Missouri Boater

Just in case someone out there has never seen this rapid at low or moderate flows or just wants to know what we're talking about, here is a link to a short video clip that I put together from two different runs. The first run is at about 700cfs and the second is at about 1000cfs.

FrogRockFlowComparison.mp4 video by PrairieTater - Photobucket 

Prater


----------



## Buckrodgers

raymo said:


> Easer said than than done. Anytime you hand someone a helmet, life jacket, paddle and try to turn a river into a Mcdonald's with happy meals you will have your hands full and things tend to go south in a blink of an eye. A warning sign means different things to different boaters depending on their skills, experience, knowledge and abilities. When I approach a challenging part of a river, sign or no sign it is time to get my head out of my ass and get with the program, keep in mind I'm just talking about myself and has Nothing to do with how to find a solution to frog rock except that every rapid you approach should be treated like it is a frog rock.


Absolutely.

I just remember when I trained as a river guide up there, my trainers made the severity of Frog Rock such a big deal that my eyes were combing that shore looking for that sign every time I came up on it in the future, especially since when you are first running that stretch it is hard to remember exactly where it is. I probably ran that rapid 100 times kayaking before I ever took a commercial raft crew down, but even at <700 cfs you can bounce down the left side in a raft, get stuck a bit, etc., and stay away from the sieve. In my mind, this is why this event is so tragic--because as someone who trained up there, I am still having a hard time getting my mind around why and how a boat of guides, rookies or not, was anywhere near that spot.

So, it seems like the real solution (because seriously folks, blowing up the the hazard just seems crazy to me, and the results would be completely unpredictable--you can't just "fill in the sieve," it's not that simple) is to increase signage at official put ins, put bigger signs on both sides of the river above the rapid, and guide book authors could have some more beta perhaps. There is no possible way that we as a society can account for every ability out there or every river runner's level of skill/intelligence/sobriety. And of course, sometimes tragic events take even a skilled boater and/or group of boaters from us. But we all know that every square inch of a river poses a "threat" of some sort, and it is our CHOICE how much risk we want to take. It is our CHOICE to decide how much beta we need before running a stretch, be it class III or V+. But, many boaters have died in class III rapids that could be considered less "lethal" than frog rock, and let's not forget that. Doesn't make this less tragic, but we can't and shouldn't go destroying every thing that takes a life.


----------



## Nathan

Simple solution: paint the backing of the sign yellow instead of brown so it catches your attention instead of blending in with the tree it's posted on. I think I only noticed that sign once or twice on all the trips I guided up there, but I knew where the rapid was without it. I can see how someone could easily miss that sign not knowing about the rapid. As it is it seems like the sign warning about it was more of an afterthought and not really appropriate warning for a rapid that had killed three, now four, people.

It is not practical to think that rapid will be changed as most people have discussed here, mostly because of the cost and legal battle it would take. It is practical for AHRA to improve the signage to educate people about the hazard involved with Frog Rock.


----------



## cadster

AHRA could put a Frog Rock warning on their safety page:
Colorado State Parks


----------



## Ken Vanatta

To All,

I don't feel at liberty to elaborate, but suffice it to say that the appropriate expert people are well along in addressing the recovery and potential rapid issues. Additionally, Phil and I will be involved with a meeting about the signage issue.

Thanks to everyone who has shared emotions, opinion, ideas, and prayers. I believe we can put this thread to rest and look forward to good news. Please be safe on the rivers and enjoy life. 

Sincerely,

Ken Vanatta


----------



## lmyers

Ken Vanatta said:


> To All,
> 
> I don't feel at liberty to elaborate, but suffice it to say that the appropriate expert people are well along in addressing the recovery and potential rapid issues. Additionally, Phil and I will be involved with a meeting about the signage issue.
> 
> Thanks to everyone who has shared emotions, opinion, ideas, and prayers. I believe we can put this thread to rest and look forward to good news. Please be safe on the rivers and enjoy life.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Ken Vanatta


Thanks Ken. If there is anything I can do to help contribute please contact me.

Logan


----------



## skipper

QUOTE "In my mind, this is why this event is so tragic--because as someone who trained up there, I am still having a hard time getting my mind around why and how a boat of guides, rookies or not, was anywhere near that spot."


Perfectly said...


----------



## raymo

skipper said:


> QUOTE "In my mind, this is why this event is so tragic--because as someone who trained up there, I am still having a hard time getting my mind around why and how a boat of guides, rookies or not, was anywhere near that spot."
> 
> 
> Perfectly said...


One of the most, scary situations I have ever seen on a river trip is three TL's ( trip leaders ) in the same boat running a two oar rig with one oar left on Cat. at 35000 in the rapids with their own idea on how best to deal with the situation at hand, on a pre-season warm up trip.


----------



## robanna

As a designer and marketing guy, can I give some advice if a sign is considered?
Rule number 1: People don't read!

That goes for anywhere but add to that trying to focus on a river. Picture a first run down a river. you get to the end and your friend asks you if you saw the 'whatever' on the shore. Hell no you didn't. You were watching your line. And if you did see it, you sure didn't have the focus to read it.

My point is, maybe this sign should be over the river and graphical (no words). Arrow left leads to Smiley Face. Arrow right to a Sad/Dead Face. Anothor reason for this would be the number of people that may be there who's first language is not English.

just my $.02 on a sign.

But, really, blow it up!


----------



## okieboater

*Now I am wondering this*

From his last post, Looks like Ken Vanatta somehow got to the decision makers. Which may be a good thing or maybe a way to get him from posting opinions like the rest of us.

and, has posted that the Mountain Buzz community should:

"I don't feel at liberty to elaborate, but suffice it to say that the appropriate expert people are well along in addressing the recovery and potential rapid issues. Additionally, Phil and I will be involved with a meeting about the signage issue.

Thanks to everyone who has shared emotions, opinion, ideas, and prayers. I believe we can put this thread to rest and look forward to good news."

Ken, you dropped a teaser line telling everyone to take it easy and put this thread to rest. What this teaser has done is just make me more concerned about information sharing. When will you or the decision makers share the fixes to the Mountain Buzz community? 

My opinion only, I do not think this thread should be put to rest until the decision makers at least tell us what the fix is going to be and when it will be implemented.


----------



## basil

If the state decides to do something, I expect they can come up with a solution less severe than blowing the whole thing up. A small adjustment may do it, and would probably be much less obtrusive than a large sign.


----------



## Phil U.

Cool, this morning we have a vote for; a sign hanging over the rio but no words, keeping the thread awake and concern that Ken is potentially being silenced?, and altering the rapid to avoid obtrusive signage... 

I can't speak for anyone but me, but speak I will, both at the meeting and here on the Buzz.

Carry on,

P.


----------



## caspermike

phil, im with you, i dont now how simply altering the feature would be less obtrusive than a sign.. hang it big and high. or just run the rapid on the left.. i got a great idea bard wire above the seive so nobody goes in...


----------



## Ken Vanatta

Okieboater,

Pardon me. I thought this thread's concern had already been well voiced towards. I can only offer everyone indication that I learned the situation is receiving substantial attention from the powers to be. Lest anyone thought nobody was doing anything. 

Other than Phil and I being welcomed to help them with input about signage (which, by the way, they have rejected offers of any outside funding contributions), I'm content with waiting for the appropriate people to make forthcoming announcements when they deem ready. Just know that they're having their meetings. 

Peace,

Ken


----------



## BoilermakerU

I didn't interpret Ken's comments to mean he's being silinced. I think he means we've gone round and round enough already, the same points keep being brought up over and over, there are no new solutions being offered, so we can put the thread to rest until there is new information.

Thanks Ken, for the teaser. Sounds like you are a bit in the know. Looking forward to hearing about anything the powers that be come up with.


----------



## Ken Vanatta

BoilermakerU said:


> I didn't interpret Ken's comments to mean he's being silinced. I think he means we've gone round and round enough already, the same points keep being brought up over and over, there are no new solutions being offered, so we can put the thread to rest until there is new information.
> 
> Thanks Ken, for the teaser. Sounds like you are a bit in the know. Looking forward to hearing about anything the powers that be come up with.


True that!

Enjoy some boating this weekend. 

Cheers!
Ken


----------



## Ken Vanatta

Here, finally, is some authorized press as to what was being discussed. 

http://www.themountainmail.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=20382

It seems they still have not had all the players at the meetings. The Army Corp was not present. Nonetheless, as the article reveals, they may begin work soon. A temporary coffer dam box could divert water away so they can get under the rock to, hopefully, make recovery of Kim. Upon recovery, the dammed water release might possibly be injected with rocks to force-feed material into the cave and successfully fill it. Other options are also being discussed. Including doing nothing to change the rapid. I think access is still going to be their challenge.

Other than the above news, our contribution about signage was somewhat limited. We were only allowed a phone interview and I forwarded a link of Phil's thread about the Gauley signage. Their considerations are to: 1) improve discription and awareness at all existing signage upstream, 2) add specific diagram signage at Railroad Bridge and Numbers put-ins, and 3) improve signage at and upstream of the rapid with larger signs on both sides of the rapid. The latter signage will also emphasize the portage route on the left. 

I was assured that the Commercial Outfitters (all but one anyway) have already been self-requiring their guests be let out above to portage around the rapid while the guides only are allowed to R-2 the rafts through the left side. And, that most of the comapnies have a policy of employment termination if ever witnessed running the right side. So, the major issue is warning the private boaters. Which, hopefully, better signage will accomplish.

I just want to add, that with low water now it is much more easy to see that these kinds of hazards are in rivers all over. On my recent Ark outtings I have seen numerous. I was also on the front-range this weekend and noticed some on Clear Creek. The reality is that with higher water most people don't realize what lurks below the surface. These dangers are why I've always felt safer in a kayak than a raft. At least in a kayak we are kept basically near the surface. Whereas, rafters often are tossed and dive in deeper. Fortunately, unless a person risks getting flushed deep, often the danger may turn out to be only a near miss. However, I think it is unfortunate how little most people are aware of what lurks below the surface. More education, awareness, and preparedness should be the responsibility of anyone considering approaching rivers. These are not rides at Eliches or Disneyland.

Oh, another sign issue that I was asked to check on was regarding a portage at Silver Bullet (the old brokendown damn below the Buena Vista ball fields. AHRA already installed a sign (small) on the right identifying the portage trail. However, when I soloed through there a week ago I'd say the sign, and possibly the trail, is likely in the water at highwater. There is only a small easement that AHRA have purchased. So, I will voice some more concern to them. 

All in all, ... lets hope Kim is recovered very soon, keep her family in our prayers, and expect that the unfortunate incident is creating some satisfactory improvements towards everyone's awareness and preparedness for this rapid and the sport in general. Each of us need to demonstrate responsibility for our activities.

Peace,

Ken


----------



## glenn

Good information. Regarding the silver bullet portage, at 3k the sign was out of the water and a portage trail directly next to a fence and ducking through trees was available. To portage a raft through this I think would require rope work a quite a bit of time.


----------



## barry

Ken,

thanks for the time you have put in on this and keeping us informed.


----------



## lmyers

Thanks for the update Ken.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*DP: Deadly rapids on Ark drive debate over removing hazards*

Today's Denver Post article on Frog Rock:

Deadly rapids on Arkansas River drive debate over removing hazards - The Denver Post


----------



## Blade&Shaft

Glad the discussion is finally involving those that can make (hopefully) the right decision for Frog Rock's fate. Sounds like they're moving in the right direction. Glad to see that the #1 priority on hand at the moment is in recovering Kim. Thanks for the update. I hope my first run on the Narrows next year has me running left easily with a boat full of happy and unknowing customers.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Colorado Public Radio segment on Frog Rock 10/12*

Colorado Matters, on Colorado Public Radio, is going to do a segment about the recovery efforts at Frog Rock this morning (10/12) sometime after 10 am.

You can listen online www.cpr.org; or the newscast should show up at the link below after it airs.

Colorado Public Radio - Listen to streaming In-Depth News and Classical Music


----------



## gyrogyrl

And here's the link to the CPR program:

Colorado Public Radio - Listen to streaming In-Depth News and Classical Music


----------



## cadster

I admire Ranger Pappenfort for taking a stand on principal against modifying the rapid when doing so appears popular.


----------



## BobN

With a post this long, I am surprised no one has mentioned Dimple Rapid on the Lower Yough, another dangerous undercut on a very popular river. The decision taken there was to not change the rapid but rather to post large, very visible signs above the rapid telling people to get out and scout and clearly pointing out the danger spot. Seems to have worked though there are still close calls.

From what Tannhauser described, filling the undercut/cave would be a massive effort since he actually underestimated the density of rocks, which is closer to 2 tons/cubic yard for large pieces of rock. In other up to 80 tons of rock could be needed to completely fill a 40 cubic yard void.

From the photos it appears that a possibly better and easier solution would be to block off the right channel near the top where there is boulder splitting the right and center lines. A few foot high stone ledge would prevent boaters from taking the right channel at low water and divert more flow into the center channel making it more runnable. Of course, what this would do the rapid at high water is unknown.

The biggest problem with any efforts to change the rapid is the law of unintended consequences - "fixing" one problem will like lead to new hazards. My vote would be for adequate signage and education. Have the BLM consult with the folks at Ohiopyle if they need to.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Water flow to be slowed for recovery*

Attempt to recover her body should be made Wednesday (10/27)

Water flow to be slowed for recovery of rafting guide's body - The Denver Post


----------



## SBlue

Best wishes for a successful recovery tomorrow. As an uninvolved observer I appreciate all the time and effort so many have put forward.


----------



## LineDawg

SBlue said:


> Best wishes for a successful recovery tomorrow.


I second the best wishes.

I turned down many opportunities on the run out of respect for the young lady. Couldn't see having fun or a smile on my face where such a tragedy goes unresolved.


----------



## basil

Yes, I hope this brings closure to this sad event. 

But, who are we kidding? We'll just go through all this again with another victim in ~5 years at this spot made from blasted rock from the railroad.


----------



## Randaddy

basil said:


> Yes, I hope this brings closure to this sad event.
> 
> But, who are we kidding? We'll just go through all this again with another victim in ~5 years at this spot made from blasted rock from the railroad.


This rapid is hundreds of yards from the railroad tracks. The right side of the rapid MAY have been influenced by people blasting for gold. It is not railroad blast and it is not certain that this is man made. It's probably important to act as though the rapid is a natural one unless we are certain otherwise. Also the impact could be over a hundred years old and part of the Arkansas Valley's history...


----------



## cmike1

Randaddy said:


> This rapid is hundreds of yards from the railroad tracks. The right side of the rapid MAY have been influenced by people blasting for gold. It is not railroad blast and it is not certain that this is man made. It's probably important to act as though the rapid is a natural one unless we are certain otherwise. Also the impact could be over a hundred years old and part of the Arkansas Valley's history...


 Yep, the railroad is a long way from Frog Rock.


----------



## UserName

Looking at it, it is absolutely clear all these rocks fell from the cliffs river right (ie, not the RR). However the point is that here in Colorado most of our 'undercut' issues are from rock debris piles, regardless of what caused the debris. 

Pics of Frog Rog


----------



## basil

Good pics. 

Sorry about the railroad goof, but it's still man made. See: http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f11/frog-rock-thread-32967-4.html#post199032


----------



## okieboater

*Thanks*

Thanks for taking the time to take and post these images.

This is the most complete series of images of this rapid I have seen. Tells the entire Frog Rock story very well.

Over the years, I have run this rapid a lot in a kayak and several times in a raft. If a person always runs hard river left the danger of the rapid might well be under rated, as on the left it is a easy move and typical of a lot of drops on the upper Ark. Never took the time to check it out in detail on river right as due to all the concerns about going river left I really concentrate hard on looking at the go left slot. (I believe 100 percent that you go where you look!)

From the photos, I can see that some one who did not know about the danger "could" head river right and not realize the bad choice till it was too late.

Thanks again for the images.


----------



## lmyers

basil said:


> Good pics.
> 
> Sorry about the railroad goof, but it's still man made. See: http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f11/frog-rock-thread-32967-4.html#post199032


I have seen the drill marks in it as well, but that doesn't mean that it was blasted off the wall. Perhaps at one point someone else considered blowing up the rock in it's current position (not that anyone is seriously thinking of blasting it again). The location of the visable holes leads me to believe they were drilled while it was already in the river.


----------



## stankboat

searchers found Kimberley today about 1 pm. Expected to reach and retrieve by 3pm.


----------



## SummitAP

Kimberly was found at 1PM today.

Body of missing Breckenridge rafter found in Arkansas River | SummitDaily.com


----------



## gh

Thanks to the hard work of all that were involved today. I for one am glad this is over and maybe some peace will come to the family and friends.


----------



## zipbak

"Well Done" to all the folks involved in this who wouldn't give up. The #7 shaped rock dam that allowed this recovery to happen will be dismantled and I'm sure an honest attempt will be made to restore the rocks to their original positions, but I wouldn't be surprised if the left run becomes much more viable at all levels. 
The CoSpgs dive team that actually made the recovery described in exquisite detail the underwater chambers on the right. Removing the hazard is virtually impossible.
So glad this is over --more peace for everyone--especially the Applesons.


----------



## C-dub

This is still horrible. I hope those involved can find peace.


----------



## Kendi

I am elated they finally found her. Hopefully this will help bring closure for her family.


----------



## BoilermakerU

Ditto on being glad she was found. Condolences again to family and friends.


zipbak said:


> ...The CoSpgs dive team that actually made the recovery described in exquisite detail the underwater chambers on the right. Removing the hazard is virtually impossible...


I'd be interested in that detailed description.


----------



## basil

From Body of missing Breckenridge rafter found in Arkansas River | SummitDaily.com



> The body was found toward the center of the river in a 10x10-foot underwater cavern created by piled boulders. Divers entered the cavern through a 4x8-foot opening approximately 6 feet under the water's surface and below a boulder in the center of the river.
> 
> It was the first time anyone had seen the extent of what's below the surface at Frog Rock, said Rob White, park manager for the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area.
> 
> “(The hazard) seems a little worse than any of us thought it was,” he said, adding that boaters should run far left of the feature or portage it.
> 
> White said divers described the cavern as having slots high on its walls where water could exit. A diver with one of the teams saw debris in a slot and, upon removing several armfuls of branches, leaves and other debris, spotted the body. They were working in 35-40-degree water.
> 
> The hypothesis is that Appelson was drawn into the sieve and then into the cavern through one of the slots before being pinned against a smaller slot through which water can flow.


----------



## PattyNYCO

I, for one, will never bitch about buying a CO State Parks Pass ever again. From the article: 

"Three agencies split the cost of the recovery because the effort was not budgeted. Chaffee County Search and Rescue gave $3,000, the Bureau of Land Management contributed $2,500 and Colorado State Parks put in $3,200."


----------



## lmyers

Wow. Thanks everyone for all the hard work. Hopefully closure can now be found by her family.


----------



## cmike1

basil said:


> From Body of missing Breckenridge rafter found in Arkansas River | SummitDaily.com


On one hand the dynamics of the whole thing are really interesting, but on the other hand it's scary as hell. Very few people (probably including me) would have the mindset and courage to crawl under that rock and root around trying to find a body. That has to be one nasty, unpleasant, dangerous job.

Thanks to all who helped. I'm glad this part of the whole tragedy has finally come to an end.


----------



## Don

*Thanks*

Thanks for not giving up. You may never know the true power of your good deeds. God bless you all.


----------



## Wack-Attack

Like all of you have said I am glad this part has come to an end. I would also like to say how amazing it is of the boating community that has come together through this event. Boaters have a special bond even if we have never met before. Like O'Hara states in the article about positive energy, may Kim's positive energy live on in the river.


----------



## BoilermakerU

PattyNYCO said:


> I, for one, will never bitch about buying a CO State Parks Pass ever again...


I generally don't anyway, but yeah, things like this are a good reminder as to why they are needed. Those rescuers sure earned it...




cmike1 said:


> On one hand the dynamics of the whole thing are really interesting, but on the other hand it's scary as hell. Very few people (probably including me) would have the mindset and courage to crawl under that rock and root around trying to find a body. That has to be one nasty, unpleasant, dangerous job...


Scary as hell indeed. It was scary enough not knowing what's down there and that this happened. Knowing what it's like makes it even scarier. Kudos to everyone that helped, stuck with it, and even those that have been keeping us informed.


----------



## raft3plus

*Un-friggin-believeable! What a cavern.*

Amazing beta, note to self. Posted on the other thread: As Gandhiji (term of endearment for Mahatma Gandhi) once said, and I believe he got it from Jmmanuel, a dear friend of his during his youth: "If you want to see a change in the world, be *the change*". Ergo, for the sake of Kim et al; next time you are at Frog Rock, prepare with the largest rock you can carry in your rig, make the appropriate move, pull out below, hike back up, meditate (think about it for as long as you feel proper) and toss one in for the sake of Kim, us and her like-minded compatriots The railroads and DOTs have been creating multiple fun opportunities and also death traps on the Colorado, Arkansas, Payettes, Wenatchee, Salmon... younameit. They blast, move earth with digging machines and whatever means they have, being humans just like us. Afterwards, we take our gear down those sections and try to have a good time while saying to one another: "If I should die, please remember that I did this having the greatest time of my life, being surrounded by my friends and creation. Leaving this earth any other way would be less fulfilling." So I also remind us but mostly myself (selfishly) of leaving this world, having the best time of our lives instead of some stupid traffic accident or some lame dis-ease, gunshot wound from robbers, etc. Kim, and all your loved ones, please worry not; We would rather go like you did, having the best time of our lives. This is truth, as makabre as it may seem. Love you Derk, may you Kayak the great hunting grounds forever! Next time you are preparing to meet Frog Rock, get yourself the biggest one you can get before the put-in and toss it where you see fit. The railroad and DOTs don't seem to care where and when they blast. You care, so place it accordingly, one rock at a time. Within a year, this should no longer be an issue, regardless of high-water flushes... which do move rocks. (While swimming/being flushed I have heard many rocks roll underwater, which is certainly a strange phenomenon to witness... listen closely next time you are there. It's eerie but really cool. Yes, swam 1/2 mile at CrossMtn at 11K because of equipment failure, flushed onto a rock, climbed on top, supermanned to river right for another less-great swim, lots of underwater time at screaming left turn, 12'standing waves, etc.. don't ask. Swam Gore, Westy... just stay in your boat, ok? Next time, grab a rock, toss it and be part of the solution, not the problem... be the change. No TNT required, just careful placement. SYOTR


----------



## Fallingup

Not to beat a dead horse...but this letter was printed in the "letters to the editor" in the Summit Daily News today.


John M. Kunst, Jr.,: Rafter's recovery slowed by bureaucracy | SummitDaily.com


----------



## lmyers

Fallingup said:


> Not to beat a dead horse...but this letter was printed in the "letters to the editor" in the Summit Daily News today.
> 
> 
> John M. Kunst, Jr.,: Rafter's recovery slowed by bureaucracy | SummitDaily.com


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't agree with the author of this article. I'm not sure it's necessary to argue it...but I would venture to say he is not a boater.


----------



## Phil U.

lmyers said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't agree with the author of this article. I'm not sure it's necessary to argue it...but I would venture to say he is not a boater.


And he's ill informed in several respects.


----------



## drhughjorgen

Well basil, you are going to have to give up your $500. They dredged the left channel. You now have a straight shot on the left, no hazards to look out for.


----------



## Blade&Shaft

drhughjorgen said:


> Well basil, you are going to have to give up your $500. They dredged the left channel. You now have a straight shot on the left, no hazards to look out for.


Really??


----------



## RiverMamma

lmyers said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't agree with the author of this article. I'm not sure it's necessary to argue it...but I would venture to say he is not a boater.


yeah, this article annoyed me as well...


----------



## zipbak

Did I miss something? What is the source of the information that they are going to use heavy equipment to take out the right side? They built a coffer -type dam on the left out of rocks from the river which they will put back as close to natural as they can. No one is touching the sieve. Does anyone know differently?
Kunst says," Now, three months later, the Colorado State Parks division will go ahead and use an excavator to remove the sieve following an agreement with both the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management that eliminates the need for an environmental impact statement provided the river, along with the sieve, is restored to its original state following the search. "
I don't think that's so.


----------



## Phil U.

zipbak said:


> Did I miss something? What is the source of the information that they are going to use heavy equipment to take out the right side? They built a coffer -type dam on the left out of rocks from the river which they will put back as close to natural as they can. No one is touching the sieve. Does anyone know differently?
> Kunst says," Now, three months later, the Colorado State Parks division will go ahead and use an excavator to remove the sieve following an agreement with both the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management that eliminates the need for an environmental impact statement provided the river, along with the sieve, is restored to its original state following the search. "
> I don't think that's so.


I don't think they touched Frog Rock with any equipment at all. He used it as an opportunity to launch a BS anti government rant not based in reality. But that's the norm these days isn't it?

P.


----------



## Randaddy

Ark. River restored after body recovered : News : ColoradoConnection.com


----------



## zipbak

Thanks Phil and Randaddy. I just went and looked at it. Exactly as I thought and the article says, only the cofferdam has been removed. Frog Rock Rapid is virtually the same as it ever was. Kunst is completely misinformed.


----------



## zipbak

*Government attacked at Frog Rock?*

The opinion expressed in the letter regarding rafter’s recovery really should be reconsidered in light of the facts. While beating up on “the government” is all the rage these days, with all due respect, in this case, the author doesn’t know what he is talking about. His immediate reaction to “get an excavator and bust open the sieve” may be a reasonable one but is not, by far, the only reasonable approach. Consider that regarding the Frog Rock sieve:
1. The right side sieve was not completely mapped or understood exactly until the recent efforts. (many people swam through that feature without drowning)
2. removal might not result in complete mitigation of the hazard 
3. removal would be a lot harder than you think
4. would create a liability for whoever changed the feature
The statement that agencies actually interfered with an efficient recovery process is completely without factual basis. The government agencies were the recovery process. There was no recovery process without the agencies.
The concerns of “environmental purists” and many others including the family were considered by the agencies involved. Consideration of public opinion and comment are part of an appropriate response by government agencies. Consideration of these points of view doesn’t mean that that was the sole basis of the decision. It was a lot more complicated than the letter makes it out to be. 
In the end, the decision to build the cofferdam and use the Colorado Springs dive team came after two sustained and monumental efforts by knowledgeable experts. Each of these experts worked for a particular government agency. Every worker involved in the recovery, even volunteers, had specific training and in some cases detailed knowledge of the feature in the river. Volunteers were all members of Search and Rescue organizations and worked for the Chaffee County Sheriff or the Summit County Sheriff and were covered by Workman’s Comp from that office. Not a single person at the scene was an unaffiliated volunteer. Everyone was a paid or unpaid government worker.
The letter is incorrect that the sieve was or will be removed. I just looked at it again today. Only the cofferdam is gone; the native materials used for its construction have been returned to their original locations. The frog Rock rapid is virtually the same as it ever was.
Referring to the use of heavy equipment and the altering of the river in this section, The aquatic biologist responsible for the fish habitat in the Arkansas River specifically told me, “I would never let preservation of fish habitat stand in the way of something like this”. The contention to the contrary in the letter is untrue and preposterous.
I will leave alone for the moment the question of whether it is ethical to remove natural hazards for adventurers. But the attack in this letter against the government is as inaccurate as it is ill conceived. Do you suppose private companies have the resources or take the initiative to perform body recoveries on the most heavily used whitewater river on the planet? Do you think a corporation, perhaps BP or Enron, or Halliburton would engage in this activity for free? Do you think they would listen to the public? In this case there was no alternative to government involvement. I, for one, would tell your friend next time he made the “government will screw it up” remark to remember this Frog Rock recovery effort as yet another example of government doing things right.


----------



## Snowhere

I went by Frog rock today after mountain biking and I have to say it is changed! Before everyone gets their panties into a bunch, let me say I am o.k. with the changes. Essentially, the rocks that block the left channel at low water have been repositioned more right of center. This just opens up the left channel to be the obvious route to take at low water. I like it as Frog rock itself is still there but you have to really want to go right to get there. Sorry, I did not have my camera with me today but next time I go I will take some pics. I do not know if I will share them as it still might get some people upset. I was a vocal 'do not change frog rock', and this has left frog rock alone. Just the low water line has been 'improved' and in a good way. We shall see if next years high water moves large rocks back into the left channel, but if we are lucky it will remain clear.


----------



## okieboater

Good Information!

Based on the above post, it looks like a reasonable solution has been reached.

Many thanks to all those who worked on the rescue and now the 
"improvements".

Looking forward to next spring time, running this rapid and paying my respects to Kim, the others who have passed on due to the sieve and thanks to all the rescue workers.


----------



## Phil U.

Thanks for taking the time to articulate that Bill (zipbak). I know some of the people involved and have followed this issue pretty closely. My take is that there have been really good people involved, both public and private, who have been thoroughly sensitive to the family and the complexities of the situation. To me, it *is* an example of the community, which includes government agencies, coming together and getting it done in the best possible way.
RIP Kim...


----------



## basil

drhughjorgen said:


> Well basil, you are going to have to give up your $500. They dredged the left channel. You now have a straight shot on the left, no hazards to look out for.


Good memory. I'll honor the pledge to the State Parks, if they will accept it. I love this run.


----------



## Ken Vanatta

I ran into Rob White yesterday. It is not my authority to speak on AHRA's behalf. Suffice it to say, there were suffecient experts involved in decisions up there. These were not politicians sitting up at the capital building making distant decisions. They were mostly river enthusiasts with hydraulics and heavy construction knowledge. People with with families, and with love and respect for others lives. They deserve our appriciation for their work. As it turns out, all decisions were complicated by Frog Rock's newly discovered secrets. The rescue mission provided them knowledge that should help them with diagraming and providing new signage and education. Hopefully, this knowledge will be the end of tragedies at this location. I only hope that people realize that there are many similiar dangers in most all rivers. Knowledge and preparedness are essential to success. That said, still the most dangers thing we all do daily is drive a car. Boating will remain fun and rewarding in my book. 
Best wishes,
Ken


----------



## drhughjorgen

zipbak. Well it is not exactly as it ever was. They dredged the left channel, putting up on the left bank every reason you once needed to skirt around to the right and still miss the sieve. In other words they took all the rocks out of the left channel. It is now a straight shot on the left with no hazards, rocks, or waves.


----------



## zipbak

I stand corrected. I meant to say the right side hazard has not been modified.
zipbak


----------



## climbermale

I have followed this thread from the start and respect everyone’s point of view. This year I found out a lot about myself and discovered that life is like a river in many ways. Spending almost every Monday on the Arkansas I met a lot of great friends and good hearted river people. I for one feel the people involved made a great decision by dredging the channel making this stretch of river safer. I would very much like to see some pictures of it. Something needed to be done in this area and I hope that the changes will prevent any future deaths. I am also glad to hear that there will be better signage and education. Although, I did not know Kim she looked like an amazing person (just look at her facebook page kim loved life) and I for one will always say a prayer for her family every time I pass this spot. Rest in peace and god bless you and your family.


----------



## Fallingup

climbermale said:


> I have followed this thread from the start and respect everyone’s point of view. This year I found out a lot about myself and discovered that life is like a river in many ways. Spending almost every Monday on the Arkansas I met a lot of reaI t friends and good hearted river people. I for one feel the people involved made a great decision by dredging the channel making this stretch of river safer. I would very much like to see some pictures of it. Something needed to be done in this area and I hope that the changes will prevent any future deaths. I am also glad to hear that there will be better signage and education. Although, I did not know Kim she looked like an amazing person (just look at her facebook page kim loved life) and I for one will always say a prayer for her family every time I pass this spot. Rest in peace and god bless you and your family.


What a great, positive response to this thread. I have not read through this entire thread, nor the other thread from the beginning. But I couldnt agree more with you!

I found this link a few months ago. If it has already been posted forgive me for re-posting it. But, it is inspiring to see a young woman of 23 who has seen more, and done more than most of us.
I am glad that the river remained mostly intact after this, and maybe we will all be a little bit safer with the mild changes that were made.

We will never know, what could have been or happened in the future. For all we know, Kim gave herself so this could safe lives in the future. We never really know what is to be our fate. 
RIP Kim, you must have been one cool chic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8g_QaQb6m0


----------



## zipbak

*Frog Rock pix*

This is what Frog Rock looks like today. You can see that the river right (left side of pic)features are exactly as they were. What has changed is that there is a clear shot on river left. The other thing that is different is that the main flow of the river goes left. It used to go right at many (especially low) levels. Can't wait to see what it looks like at higher water. Imagine three or four vertical feet. Peace.


----------



## okieboater

What an extraordinary special person Kim was as evidenced by all the friends and places shown in the video.
This young lady experienced a lot during her short life.
Like many who have watched this thread from the begining, I sure wish I could have run Browns Canyon with her as Raft Captain.
Thanks for sharing the photos.
Rest in Peace.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*11/7 Denver Post article: Deadly Arkansas River rapid to remain unchanged*

Deadly Arkansas River rapid to remain unchanged - The Denver Post


----------



## Missouri Boater

Unless they put every boulder back exactly the way it was, which there is no way they could have done, then this is no longer a "naturally formed" rapid. This is now a "modified by man" rapid. So in the future, the folks who say "Don't mess with the natural river!" really do not have a case supporting their arguement.


----------



## studytime

If i skip a rock into the river that I picked up from the shore is the river "modified by man?"


----------



## Ken Vanatta

*Support each other and be good mentors*

This hazard is described in the local media release today: http://www.themountainmail.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=20770

Which, the details are proving disturbing to some newer boaters. It is necessary for skilled veteran boaters to offer support and understanding to anyone that is openly scared by the revelation of risk that this feature has brought attention to. We will have damage control needed for the psyche of some of our aspiring boaters. For that matter, everyone should take notice of the reality. 

It is my contention that there are many such dangers of varying degrees on many sections of rivers and creeks. Let's please be good stewards of the sport and mentors to others. 

Knowledge and preparedness are essential to success and enjoyment of whitewater recreation. Trip leaders and crews need to communicate and be in the know. Never under estimate. Never be reckless with the knowledge, or lack of, that others have for the activity. Remember to teach dynamics and consequences, and what to do when experincing the consequeneces. Take gradual steps with aspiring and progressing boaters. Even solid Class V boaters need to check themselves and understand the risks we sometimes take. Sometimes we may feel invensible, but we are not.

Be safe, my friends, and look after others.

Sincerely,

Ken


----------



## cmike1

Ken Vanatta said:


> This hazard is described in the local media release today: http://www.themountainmail.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=20770
> 
> Which, the details are proving disturbing to some newer boaters. It is necessary for skilled veteran boaters to offer support and understanding to anyone that is openly scared by the revelation of risk that this feature has brought attention to. We will have damage control needed for the psyche of some of our aspiring boaters. For that matter, everyone should take notice of the reality.
> 
> It is my contention that there are many such dangers of varying degrees on many sections of rivers and creeks. Let's please be good stewards of the sport and mentors to others.
> 
> Knowledge and preparedness are essential to success and enjoyment of whitewater recreation. Trip leaders and crews need to communicate and be in the know. Never under estimate. Never be reckless with the knowledge, or lack of, that others have for the activity. Remember to teach dynamics and consequences, and what to do when experincing the consequeneces. Take gradual steps with aspiring and progressing boaters. Even solid Class V boaters need to check themselves and understand the risks we sometimes take. Sometimes we may feel invensible, but we are not.
> 
> Be safe, my friends, and look after others.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Ken


 
Wow, the article sure brings into the light the complexity of that feature. _22 feet deep_ on the downstream side? Yowza! I thinking it really shows just how complicated the idea of "filling or blocking in the sieve" and "making the feature safe" really is. It also makes me wonder what other features look like below the surface. I'll bet if we knew what really lurked beneath the surface of even a lot of the most innocuous appearing places a lot of us might be a bit more respectful than we already are.


----------



## Ken Vanatta

cmike1 said:


> I'll bet if we knew what really lurked beneath the surface of even a lot of the most innocuous appearing places a lot of us might be a bit more respectful than we already are.


True that! For that reason I am a proponent of ELF boating in the shoulder seasons. Also for hiking in to see some runs in their off season. You sometimes get to see the real nature of these runs. It is amazing to realize that we actually boat over insane features much of the time. The realization is also why I prefer to kayak than raft. Nonetheless, it can all be dangerous. And yet, river running has been done successfully and enjoyably for many decades. Water can be very cushioning. Just stay in the boat, upright, or on the surface as much as possible. 

I think we need to remind developing boaters that they have (hopefully) been progressing at a gradual pace and doing well. They need not get freaked out by the Frog Rock incident. However, we do need to show concern and care for their well being. Be good mentors to properly teach others and not just throw them into the frying pan. The rivers will always be there for us to challenge when we are appropriately ready. 

My advise to developing boaters is to receive proper teaching, ask questions, hone their skills on lower difficulty runs before advancing, begin boating early season, and boat often. It is also important to learn whitewater self-defense, safety, and rescue knowledge. This sport will teach a person many things and can be very rewarding. It can certainly provide some of the best life experiences we might ever be blessed to have. 

I pray we all have a great winter and a wonderful next boating season. 

Chears to adventures!

Ken


----------

