# Low water Frog Rock Rapid video



## bvwp1 (Oct 27, 2003)

Many paddlers have been asking about Frog Rock rapid at low water and how it looks. Here is some footage we took the other day to show you. 

YouTube - Frog Rock Low Water


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

Thank you for taking time to film and post this video.


----------



## UserName (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow !!! MAJOR change since the recovery operation. The main channel was CLEARLY the right channel a few weeks ago... That is night and day. Not a proponant of changing rapids, but of choices this was clearly the best one. So a big "at'a boy" to the crew in there from me.


----------



## Missouri Boater (Dec 13, 2003)

Dang! Its not the same as it was. I'm really pi**ed!


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

I read on 9 news that no alteration was going to happen. If they did alter it, they did a good job because it looks totally natural, and hopefully will save lives.


----------



## gannon_w (Jun 27, 2006)

Did they alter it? It looks the same to me. I've never understood the danger in this rapid though I've only ran it below 1k cfs. I've heard people say it pushes you river right but the left channel is always open and strait thru?


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

gannon_w said:


> Did they alter it? It looks the same to me. I've never understood the danger in this rapid though I've only ran it below 1k cfs. I've heard people say it pushes you river right but the left channel is always open and strait thru?


@400 or so I ran it, and could have bonked my way down the left in a kayak, but I am confident a raft could not stay in the water without the passengers getting out. 

The left was obviously dredged and left a clean sluice which was non existent before. It looks like the same line that exists at 1K or higher.


----------



## UserName (Sep 7, 2007)

Compare this pic from september with the video... It looks like the highway department went in there..


----------



## stankboat (Mar 30, 2005)

definitely a change.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Changing the rio to make it "safe" would open an agency to liability. Read between the lines...


----------



## UserName (Sep 7, 2007)

lol.. they didn't do that... It just so happened to all fall that way during a recovery effort... no one dredged a superhighway in there to make it safe... just incidental that it occurred that way


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

Looks cleaner down the left and slightly more guarded on the right in just the right places. Thanks for posting the video and thanks to those who "didn't" do it.


----------



## Ken Vanatta (May 29, 2004)

Theophilus said:


> Looks cleaner down the left and slightly more guarded on the right in just the right places. Thanks for posting the video and thanks to those who "didn't" do it.


Yep. Actually, I'm suspecting the right side boulders might develop inviting waves and holes when the water gets high. Things that make me go Hmm!


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

I thought government agencies couldn't be held liable especially in instances like this. If they could wouldn't every death on any roadside blast rock section involve liability cases and closures.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

It looks to me like a dedicated search team went beyond their legal boundaries to change the river. Their job was to find Kimberly, NOT CHANGE THE RIVER WITHOUT PERMISSION. There are reasons that this sort of thing has to be approved by the right people, so those of differing views can be heard before the change. 

Somebody should notify the news media, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the local land management agency and report the tampering. It's Quartzite without dynamite, it's illegal, and it should have been properly discussed first. As is mentioned above, there might be a big wave train leading right into the hazard now, which could increase risk. The fact is, we don't know until high water. It should have been studied for a year. Now a famous rapid on the most rafted river in the world is different because a local Search and Rescue team feels they have the right to change the river now.

For the record, I would probably have voted "yes" to a change of this rapid, but it should have been done following a public input period and an proper impact statement from DOW so it could be done right. Maybe the sieve could have been blasted or changed. It might have been better to keep the river's general current path. 

And what about all the river guides camped at Frog Rock? What if they fall into the current when they're pissing at night? It's right next to the left bank now... it'll change those sweet little fishing holes along the rocks on the left. I probably won't be able to count on fresh trout next time I'm camping there.

If I'm not allowed to dump shopping carts full of rock into the Poudre to create a wave in town they aren't allowed to change the rapid without permission.


----------



## basil (Nov 20, 2005)

I think the appearances are magnified by the low water.


----------



## smauk2 (Jun 24, 2009)

Somebody should notify the Bureau of Reclamation... Do you like the stick in your ass Randaddy?


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

My bad. After a second look there is little to no change. Nothing to see here move along. No obvious double standard. The Idaho thing was completely different, because they of course had permits and public input. Those assholes.

...


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Randaddy said:


> Somebody should notify the news media, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the local land management agency and report the tampering.



In case you haven't been paying attention they all took part in the operation. It wasn't a secret.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

Lets move on to another topic


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

smauk2 said:


> Somebody should notify the Bureau of Reclamation... Do you like the stick in your ass Randaddy?


I have a stick in my ass because I think that a proper discussion should have been held before some rescue crew decides to just change the river? Give me a break. It's the same thing as Quartzite. How many of you think that should have been changed?


----------



## basil (Nov 20, 2005)

At normal water levels, you'll still be able to run right. The current low water level exagerates the changes from the rescue operation. Get a life.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

*Quartzite*

The same as Quartzite , what raft guides motivated by laziness and greed altered frog rock . What a joke comparing the use of explosives in a wilderness area to what has happened at frog rock.


----------



## Ken Vanatta (May 29, 2004)

basil said:


> At normal water levels, you'll still be able to run right. The current low water level exagerates the changes from the rescue operation. Get a life.


Agreed. The comparitive pictures confirm the right is the same. Also, Army Corps and other agencies were involved. The recovery was succesful and the attention given to the place adequate and productive. I agree it is time to drop the subject. Life is good. Let's get busy living.

Cheers!
Ken


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

basil said:


> At normal water levels, you'll still be able to run right. The current low water level exagerates the changes from the rescue operation. Get a life.


I have a life. It includes a wilderness ethic that doesn't let just anyone change rapids with heavy equipment because they're emotional. 

My life also includes a history where I became a Leave No Trace Trainer, boated for ten years, guided the Fractions stretch a lot - for the company that Kimberly worked for btw, spent around a hundred nights camped at Frog Rock, earned a Philosophy degree, and worked in public policy. I have every right to discuss the ethics of this rescue team breaking the law.

I'm sorry that you think human life is the only thing worth considering here, but changing rapids without permission probably shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

You're right Randaddy, how dare those fucking bureaucrats not ask for input from mountainbuzz, and another thing who gave them the right to go in there a recover a body. Where was the town hall meeting for public input for that. Oh right they did go through the proper channels, except for asking for your permission.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

*Joke*

Joke was the wrong word . Randaddy I admire your passion concerning your protective stance toward our rivers , I think all of us need the facts. IF , When , Why , and How


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Jeez, move on.


----------



## UserName (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't think anyone <any agency> acted in anything but good faith. 
I really don't think any one can be called to blame for anything here. 
They did a good job.

1. A job needed to be done, no questions <ie. the recovery>. 
2. They needed to divert flow <ie. water> in order to accomplish this.
3. Incidentally the left channel got dug out <such that it is runnable to the lowest possible boatable levels of this section>.
4. There was great effort taken to accomplish a difficult task with minimal impact.
5. There was great effort to involve other agencies and ideas.
6. Though there was no public forum regarding the actions taken, this forum in particular was certainly monitored and considered by at least the AHRA.
7. The various government agencies involved sought out input from professionals and experts in many different fields regarding each aspect of this situation. 
8. They considered their options, their actions, and the implications thereof, weighed pros and cons, and acted in the most appropriate way available, every step of the way.

To infer any of the actions taken were done 'impulsively' or 'irresponsibly' is an impulsive and irresponsible accusation.

A public forum regarding the actions taken would have been terribly inappropriate in my opinion. Just read over many of the impulsive and absurd 'suggestions' offered in the various Frog Rock threads. This forum was a lynch mob to burn the witch <metaphorically of coarse >. I see much of what I saw in these threads reactive rather than responsive, and inconsiderate of all the dynamics involved. I feel the actions taken were well measured, well executed, responsive, and certainly not carried out with any undue haste.

Yes it is hard to tell what the ramifications will be until we get some high water in and out of there, really until a few seasons have past. 

My bet is that the left becomes the obvious and main channel at all levels but peak levels < levels where 90% of the obstacles in the river are buried and the main channel is basically the width of the river >. That the channel will be easy for all levels of boaters at all levels, and that a nice wave train develops on the left there. I also bet a nice wave will form at the bottom where the current hits the pool below, with a nice big eddy behind frog rock. "Kims Wave".


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

A job needed to be done for sure. They completed a job that must have been harder and harder to do each time they went out. If I haven't said it publicly, thank you for your efforts to all involved with the rescue effort.

I draw issue from the statements made prior to the recovery about the approved work to be done. The crew was supposed to go in, build a coffer dam, and then make reasonable efforts to put the rapid back together. Instead, no efforts were made to put the rapid back together. 

The rapid was altered with clear intention. This wasn't a case of, mistaken rock placement. Without a doubt, the rapid was redesigned. Both in course and in character. I would hardly call it a good faith effort to create a new rapid with what you almost described as a calculated play spot. If they were going to design a new rapid why didn't they say so from the start.

In our little online community changes were widely disputed. I believe it was the head of the AHRA took a firm stand that the rapid would not be re-engineered. I assume others in the government agencies were divided as well on whether to change the rapid to reduce the hazards involved. It seems if both sides were being listened to, both sides would be done the justice of at least getting a straight answer.

I just don't get why we aren't supposed to talk about this, but people can be so agro concerning an almost identical situation in Idaho; S & R team, changing rapids, various levels of shiftiness, input or lack thereof, inappropriate issuance or usage of permit, heated debate from both sides, family of the victims. Both situations have it all.

Or, if someone wants to tell me what an asshole I'm being without letting the cat out of the bag, feel free to PM. I'm not going to run my mouth off about private issues.


----------



## Stiff N' Wett (Feb 18, 2010)

I think Randaddy is a soulless cat and I hope I never run into him on the river. Period!!!


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Ditto for what UserName just said!

Haters - so you are saying that after the recovery, extra money and time should have been spent to re-block the left channel and re-direct the current straight into the sieve again? You suppose the rescue workers enjoyed doing a corpse recovery and this would ensure that they get to do it again in the near future!? Were you there helping with the recovery so you could voice your opinion and help put everything back EXACTLY as it was? Then you could explain to the next victim's loved-ones why you spent extra money and time to ensure the rapid would stay just as deadly as before. I'm sure the philosophy degree will help them understand......


----------



## brokenpaddlejon (Sep 11, 2005)

Sometimes it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. The change has been made, whether people like it or not. I suppose those that are opposed could go into Frog Rock and move the boulders back and fill in the channel created. I'm not a proponent of altering the earth on a whim, but right now what was done is done and it doesn't seem to be malicious. It seems more like financial and social responsibility on the part of those who did the recovery. I will make sure the next time my kids want to throw a rock into the moving water I clear it with the Army Corp and the BLM and I'll post here to gauge the the conscience of the boating community before giving the ok. Who knows maybe the changes that were made will make the rapid more dangerous at some levels, we won't know the answer to that until this spring. It could fail like many of the changes put into whitewater parks nationwide. Maybe we should put it before congress and let them decide, we can waste more money than we did on baseball and cycling investigations over the past decade. We are all a bunch of whiners if we don't get things our way. Cheese anyone.


----------



## Wack-Attack (Oct 1, 2010)

I agree what is done is done and now we can all move forward. Oh wait we have all winter to continue to complain about this issue before we all get back out there! Lets look at this with the glass half full. Maybe now we wont have to portage our costumers and R-1 the boat down the left bank at lower levels. Though that is fun and all I get paid by the trip not by the hour so lets get back to the shop and not waste time walking costumers that have paid to go rafting. If the right side ends up having some great wave train, well I can sacrifice 1 min of fun for my life(and job) run the left and hit the next set of waves. At high water when all the trees come down the river and get lodged in main flows of the river we don't get upset when those are removed by man even though those trees were put there naturally? The river changes every year and this is just one more thing that will keep us ADD boaters entertained.

Thank you for posting the video of the changes. And thank you to all those involved in the rescue.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

You guys should go boating.


----------



## Datju (Nov 5, 2007)

When will ass clowns like Randaddy learn that debating public policy on the buzz is like screaming for help in outer space? Change happens in the real world...not in your sim-city, on line, idealistic, mamby pamby land. Get off your ass and take your philosophy degree to the real world where people hold meetings and discussions about these matters all the time - which as everyone knows is EXACTLY what they did down on the Arkansas River. Granted, you'd have to sign off the web, get dressed, and speak face to face with those you've openly accused of crimes - but I'm sure they wouldn't hold it against you.

Props to all involved in the tireless effort to bring Kimberly back to her loved ones and making sure the river wasn't altered.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Datju said:


> When will ass clowns like Randaddy learn that debating public policy on the buzz is like screaming for help in outer space? Change happens in the real world...not in your sim-city, on line, idealistic, mamby pamby land. Get off your ass and take your philosophy degree to the real world where people hold meetings and discussions about these matters all the time - which as everyone knows is EXACTLY what they did down on the Arkansas River. Granted, you'd have to sign off the web, get dressed, and speak face to face with those you've openly accused of crimes - but I'm sure they wouldn't hold it against you.
> 
> Props to all involved in the tireless effort to bring Kimberly back to her loved ones and making sure the river wasn't altered.


You're insulting me because I'm discussing this on Mountainbuzz? You're discussing this in the same "mamby pamby land" you fucking retard. Are you that stupid to insult someone for participating in a discussion that you're also participating in? Jesus. 

And the river was altered. It was done without the input of those who opposed changing the river. It was done by people who didn't have the authority to change the rapid. It was done without considering the natural environment, the value of risk in outdoor sports, or the law.

I'm sorry that so many of you disagree with me, you have that right. I didn't insult anyone here, and am not sure what part of my opinion on river management policy makes me so soulless . I never intended to insult the memory of a fallen comrade, and don't think I did anything to do that. 

I just think that changing a rapid is a big fucking deal and should be done legitimately. 

This will be my last post on this thread, as I have no intention of being offensive to the boating community. Sorry for disagreeing.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Datju, altering the river bed is change. How can you say its in altered..from pics looks like they did the right thing. Hopefully it doesn't turn for the worse if it does I'm kinda wondering if the search and rescue people are trained in hydrology and have protection from liability. I don't count on logs and sticks and what not from tracking around the seive.. seams like they should have thrown big splat rock in front of the entrance so seive is fed from the reverse end rather than the upsream entrance, If you change it change it so its not a problem. I don't see a giant 18 foot splat grind rock as guard as a problem


----------



## Phin Diesel (Oct 14, 2003)

I just want to jump on here and thank the SR crew that went in and recovered the body and did what they had to do. Great work and thanks again for you hard work and dedication to your mission.


----------



## robanna (Apr 20, 2004)

Randaddy said:


> ... you fucking retard. Are you that stupid...
> 
> ...I didn't insult anyone here...


classic


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Randaddy said:


> ...And the river was altered. It was done without the input of those who opposed changing the river. It was done by people who didn't have the authority to change the rapid. It was done without considering the natural environment, the value of risk in outdoor sports, or the law...


By this, did you mean they didn't consult you first and do it (or not do it) your way? I didn't realize you are the ultimate authority on all things relating to rivers.

I don't think you are paying attention, or at leasst you're exercising selective memory. From what I read, they did listen to public opinion, and they did consider the environment. I'm not a lawyer, so I I won't speculate on that, but I am sure they know more about their legal rights than you do....


----------



## mtmassive (Nov 22, 2010)

swimteam101 said:


> The same as Quartzite , what raft guides motivated by laziness and greed altered frog rock . What a joke comparing the use of explosives in a wilderness area to what has happened at frog rock.


Get your facts straight. The guy who blew up Quartzite did it because that rapid killed their friend. It was an act of closure, as pointless as it may have been.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I agree with Randy. While in this situation with a body recovery most people agree that the "incidental" change to the rapid during the rapid is OK, will they agree when the next "accidental" change takes place for or during something they don't support? How about when one of those excellent Colorado property owners wants to close "their stretch of river" and since he (hopefully) can't do that he just decides to change the river, By accidentally driving his backhoe in there (oops, the brakes went out), or even easier midnight explosives. The point is that a civilized society does not strive towards backdoor choices and hoping that forgiveness is forthcoming, when the permission would not have been granted or would be difficult to gain. Yes, going through the process of formally planning a change would have been slow and painful, and that is as it should be. If it's too easy for us to do as we please it's also easy for others to do the same when we don't agree. You all sound like our illustrious Congressman who alludes to lack of state oversight of wolves pushing us to "shoot, shovel, and shut up". Leaders need to be better than that, and we should hold them to that standard.

If you don't want to hear opinions you don't agree with, stay off the internet.

And for the record, many of you mentioning Idaho seem to miss the point. A permit was issued in violation of many, many rules, in addition to without any public input of any type. There still has not been a formal hearing, just an informal meeting where the proposed-permitee talked to the local boating community. Then there's some talk of some rocks "accidentally" falling into the NF Payette. It never ends, and certainly will not if we don't speak up and debate it.


----------



## UserName (Sep 7, 2007)

um... so what are you trying to say...


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

What makes people think that it wasn't publicly discussed, or that the proper channels were not taken in the AHRA's actions? The Forest Service, BLM, Army Corps of Engineers, AW and county officials were all either consulted or an active part of this operation. There was even a community forum/public input meeting. You can't expect them to start a thread on MountainBuzz to get the opinions of the boating community. You have to take the initiative to be active in their processes and to share your opinion on the matter at the appropriate time. Not after the fact.


----------



## climbdenali (Apr 2, 2006)

MtMassive- I think you should get _your_ facts straight. First, it's not clear that Quartzite was changed as "an act of closure" for losing a friend. There is plenty of reason to believe that the change was perpetrated in large part to obviate the need to portage, and to reduce congestion at Quartzite. Second, the "act" was not a single act. The *EIGHT*, individuals involved in destroying federal property in a wilderness area hiked in on four separate occasions, using 154 Lbs of explosives in at least 4 separate detonations.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

lmyers said:


> What makes people think that it wasn't publicly discussed, or that the proper channels were not taken in the AHRA's actions? The Forest Service, BLM, Army Corps of Engineers, AW and county officials were all either consulted or an active part of this operation. There was even a community forum/public input meeting. You can't expect them to start a thread on MountainBuzz to get the opinions of the boating community. You have to take the initiative to be active in their processes and to share your opinion on the matter at the appropriate time. Not after the fact.


I understand that the entire plan surrounded doing what was necessary to recover the body, and then return the river to as close to it's original state as possible. If indeed they did not follow this intent, and left the river significantly changed, then they did not actually plan for the work that they did, which was to leave the river changed. A public/planning process for one plan does not constitute a process for doing something else.

Assuming my understanding is correct, a person who did not support changing the rapid was satisfied with the plan when it was presented as not significantly changing the rapid. So they go away. Then the work progresses, and they do something different than planned. It is completely appropriate for someone to come in after the fact and cry foul if they think a foul occurred. It's entirely possible they did do the best job possible to return the river while minimizing impact. Those things can be tough to balance. Unfortunately this discussion was not allowed to dig into those issues as flaming started quite quickly.

I don't understand any connections posters are making to MountainBuzz and this being public comment area or needing planners to start a thread here. I don't think anyone even alluded to that. This forum is simply a place for people to discuss, debate, and bounce ideas off each other. Randy was expressing his opinion (a quite passionate one), and others were telling him to essentially shut up. These sort of forums can be excellent places to allow people to shape their opinions, and even change their minds. More info, more ideas, more discussion, and people go from their own thoughts and ideas to better formed opinions. That is good. Especially with contentious topics a place to discuss them with those that don't necessarily agree is valuable.


----------



## psu96 (May 9, 2006)

lhowemt said:


> I understand that the entire plan surrounded doing what was necessary to recover the body, and then return the river to as close to it's original state as possible. If indeed they did not follow this intent, and left the river significantly changed, then they did not actually plan for the work that they did, which was to leave the river changed. A public/planning process for one plan does not constitute a process for doing something else.
> 
> Assuming my understanding is correct, a person who did not support changing the rapid was satisfied with the plan when it was presented as not significantly changing the rapid. So they go away. Then the work progresses, and they do something different than planned. It is completely appropriate for someone to come in after the fact and cry foul if they think a foul occurred. It's entirely possible they did do the best job possible to return the river while minimizing impact. Those things can be tough to balance. Unfortunately this discussion was not allowed to dig into those issues as flaming started quite quickly.
> 
> I don't understand any connections posters are making to MountainBuzz and this being public comment area or needing planners to start a thread here. I don't think anyone even alluded to that. This forum is simply a place for people to discuss, debate, and bounce ideas off each other. Randy was expressing his opinion (a quite passionate one), and others were telling him to essentially shut up. These sort of forums can be excellent places to allow people to shape their opinions, and even change their minds. More info, more ideas, more discussion, and people go from their own thoughts and ideas to better formed opinions. That is good. Especially with contentious topics a place to discuss them with those that don't necessarily agree is valuable.


blah blah blah....get over yourself


----------



## watermonkey (Aug 11, 2009)

I find it rather odd that so many people are upset about the Frog Rock rapid not being returned to the original state when two miles down river the whitewater park has totally, artificially altered the river. For months there were excavators in or on the banks of the river, tearing up the bed, building boulder wings in the river, killing fish, destroying habitat, releasing silt, and generally making a mess. I don't seem to remember a major outcry when that was going on.


----------



## mjpowhound (May 5, 2006)

watermonkey said:


> I find it rather odd that so many people are upset about the Frog Rock rapid not being returned to the original state when two miles down river the whitewater park has totally, artificially altered the river. For months there were excavators in or on the banks of the river, tearing up the bed, building boulder wings in the river, killing fish, destroying habitat, releasing silt, and generally making a mess. I don't seem to remember a major outcry when that was going on.


That's soooo different! The playpark will generate infinite fun while filling in Frog Rock will merely potentially save lives.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

psu96 said:


> blah blah blah....get over yourself


Come on, get the quote right. It's blah blah blah blah GINGER. (Loved the Far Side comic and had a dog named Ginger)


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

lhowemt said:


> Come on, get the quote right. It's blah blah blah blah GINGER. (Loved the Far Side comic and had a dog named Ginger)


What?!?!? You're not gonna take a-fence and start a secondary flame war?

P.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

If it's a matter of keeping it safe and saving lives why aren't there more people demanding complete shut downs of river sections. Every time you put on you know you are taking a risk whether it's a rapid that has killed, or one that is waiting to.

I'm not really a fan of changing rivers, but if they are going to be significantly altered shouldn't they go through a proper process? Play parks require permits for re engineering. Frog rock was re engineered under the guise of a rescue, not a reworking to reduce the risk of the rock.

lhowe, yes the exact details of the ID issue are not the same as the frog rock issue. However, there was some funny business with both. I was surprised how vocal and uncharacteristically nasty the boating community got towards that situation, and when it came to this one, which really is not all that different, I felt like others were trying to shame me into being quiet. It's probably just because it's the off season and I expect next year when people start running this section, another series of threads will start up asking how/when/why the rapid changed. Maybe the real debate will happen then.

I think we are on the same page that it should be open for discussion, and that was my point.

I don't want either rapid changed, and I don't want to make personal attacks on those who are doing the rescues, or attempting to change the rapids through the appropriate means. Being shifty with permits, saying one thing doing another, and saying nothing changed so you won't be accountable when you should be doesn't sit well with me. 

I don't live in the state anymore, so it's not my place to go in, asking for answers, but I am wondering why no one else here is.


----------



## climbdenali (Apr 2, 2006)

I think some folks are losing sight of the fact that the motives behind actions are as important as the action itself, and that the same action might be justifiable when backed by one motive, and unjustifiable when prompted by another motive. In this case changing the river is the action, and the motivations are, in the examples cited above, safety concerns and improvements to increase play.

To me, the notion of people leaving a river in a completely pristine state, and never changing it is unbelievable and impractical. In the case of the Ark, it's already been modified beyond where we can possibly return it to its original state- trains, roads, and mining have all irreparably altered the river, for better or worse.

The idea of using heavy machinery to create an artificial hole or two, or even 5, with the intent of creating recreation may be OK. Obviously it depends on what kind of environment you're talking about.

On the other hand, the notion of changing rapids that are dangerous, to me, is quite a slippery slope. If we decide that one rapid is OK to change because it's dangerous, shouldn't we be looking at changes for all the rapids that have killed? What about locations where foot entrapments have occurred- should we be filling in every little gap in the bottom of the river? Just plaster the whole length from Leadville to Florence with quickcrete- turn it into the LA river so there's no entrapment hazards.

There is value in having danger in our lives- especially so in activities which we have the choice of participating in. If we completely remove all dangers in whitewater boating, skydiving, climbing- ANY adventure sport, we also remove a major part of why we participate in these activities. We know, accept, and embrace the risks of the activities we partake in, and I, for one, will no longer enjoy rafting if all dangers were eliminated.

A quote from Krakauer comes to mind, and I think translates just fine to boating: "Climbing was a magnificient activity, I firmly believed, not in spite of the inherent perils, but precisely because of them."


----------



## panicman (Apr 7, 2005)

Bunch of damn Philosophy majors in here. Does anyone here have a real money earning degree.


----------



## cslebn (Jul 19, 2009)

panicman said:


> Bunch of damn Philosophy majors in here. Does anyone here have a real money earning degree.


The degree has nothing to do with the money you earn. Example my philosophy degree has nothing to do with me working in engineering. And neither has anything to do with this thread


----------



## 1whitewattafoo (Nov 25, 2007)

yo randaddy, what years did you work for ava?


----------



## smauk2 (Jun 24, 2009)

Enough with the six paragraph 400 word posts.

http://freedomofphiladelphia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/stfu.jpg


----------

