# Mr. Shaw gives permission



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

This is in the breaking news section of the post. How nice of Mr. Shaw to give his permission.


DENVER—Property owners have declared a temporary truce in a dispute with commercial rafters and will allow commercial rafting on their property this summer. 

The Jackson-Shaw company, which owns the Wilder on the Taylor fishing reserve, said Friday it is granting the two Taylor River rafting companies, Three Rivers Outfitting and Scenic River Tours, permission to float through its property this summer. 
Conflicts between fishermen and commercial rafting on the Taylor River gave rise earlier this year to Colorado House Bill 1188, which died at the end of the legislative session this week. Lewis Shaw, chairman of the company, says it will take time to work out a permanent agreement and he wanted to give rafters a chance to begin their season.


----------



## billcat (Jun 3, 2008)

(Not to shoot the messenger.)

How does this "kindness" help those of us non-commercial types?


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

mr. compassionate said:


> he wanted to give rafters a chance to begin their season.


Well that's more than the bastards at Zion National Park, they waited until the brink of the short season to shut it down.


----------



## CB Rob (Feb 13, 2010)

*raise that bridge*

Lets see about getting some volunteers together to help him raise that bridge up another 3 feet. Since we are all friends now and everything..


----------



## kclowe (May 25, 2004)

What a turd. He really does think he owns the river. I can't wait to float through "his river". I'm just sad that I'll have to refrain myself from making a scene. Don't want to give him any ammunition, but it would be a lot of fun ruining his day! Has he ever said how he feels about private boaters? I am guessing that he doesn't know the difference.


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

I'm betting he knows the difference and a huge reason for "allowing" the commercials to float through is to try to avoid the sort of mass float protests the private boaters have been talking about all along.


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

Paddle Iraq.....where did you find info on Zion shutting down the canyon? The website doesn't say anything about it. And no offense, but the park shuts that canyon down based on overall park safety. Even with the few that do go in there with no issues, after those two guys who died building a raft this season and last season's fiasco, don't hate the park too much, it takes a lot of $ and energy to send a SAR team in every time someone doesn't show up.


----------



## riot (Apr 28, 2009)

Shaw is trying to play all of us. He looks like the "good guy" now because he is "allowing" the two companies to float through. If you look at the detailes, he will let 4 boats float through from each company. That doesn't work, any of us that have been raft guides in this state now that the commercial boys make any and all there money in the 3 weeks around the 4th of july. They need to be able to take as many boats as there permits will allow when the people are actully here! Im with kclowe us privates need to make a presence on the middle taylor this summer. Every private boater in the state should try to float "his river" at least 2 times this summer!
And while your at it fish the shit out of it!


----------



## montuckyhuck (Mar 14, 2010)

ski_kayak365 said:


> don't hate the park too much, it takes a lot of $ and energy to send a SAR team in every time someone doesn't show up.


 But they have an annual budget to do this, and if the need decreases so do those jobs and that budget. Most of the NPS SAR guys ( I used to be one in Yosemite) live for that shit. These are not county voulinteers that have regular jobs and show up sporting jansport packs filled with band aids and peroxide. The park service has reacently tried to replace Darwinism with restrictions, this in my mind is not cool. 
let the tards walk off cliffs and save the jobs of dedicated SAR techs.

Now back to Mr. Shmuck and HIS river.


----------



## outbackjack (Feb 10, 2010)

Welcome to our world!!! Many eyes are on this forum, and we need to let them know that we, as public boaters, will run the Taylor from the Damn to Almont in mass all summer!!! Word is that they are scared to death of us!!!! It is time to show them that they should be!!!


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

What a benevolent dictator sir Lewis is.

How nice that he will "permit" these two rafting co's to float through his property. I must of missed the part where the Forest Service abdicated their authority and granted it to the Duke. 

Make no mistake about it, this nothing more than an attempt to deprive the rafting co's a foot into the courtroom door. Any legal remedy they'd possibly seek depends upon the existence of conflict between the parties. No conflict, no case - it's that simple. I'd reply "Thanks, but fuck you"


----------



## MountainMedic (Apr 24, 2010)

same jackass used to complain when we had the nerve to run lights & sirens near the "compound".


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

One thing for us all to be aware of is that anything we say or do that's the least bit offensive may be caught on tape and used in advertisements come referrendum time. This is a good year to be respectful to all we see on the river, and retire the custom of showing the Amtrak the "full moon over the waters." 

We've seen from stuff like Mitchell's commentary that the truth isn't important to some of these folks. We need to remember that alot of landowners who have been sympathetic to floaters in the past have been getting propaganda from the likes of Shaw & Co about how a Right to Float success will be the end of their way of life and that they won't be able to stop rafters from rustling their cattle and kayakers from raiding their refrigerators. We'll be hearing some outrageous stuff and no one needs to inflame the situation with flipping off landowners or giving them an earful. 

Any kind of protest floats need to be peaceful, polite, and coordinated with CW/AW. Show them that we're not the heathen rabble Shaw's folks will portray us as.

-AH


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

mr. compassionate said:


> ...The Jackson-Shaw company, which owns the Wilder on the Taylor fishing reserve, said Friday it is granting the two Taylor River rafting companies, Three Rivers Outfitting and Scenic River Tours, permission to float through its property this summer...


That's a poor excuse for "compromise." How can you "grant permission" for something that's not yours? That's just a good as me telling Jackson-Shaw that they have my permission to fish in the Black Canyon (public space that everyone has a right to use). It's an empty gesture/ploy being used to make them look like they're taking the "high road."


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

I for one, plan to boat the Taylor this summer. I will enjoy myself and respect the other river users, and the river itself.


----------



## robanna (Apr 20, 2004)

I here by grant you all permission to drive by my house, but only 8 cars a day, and no picnics on my lawn, but if you must, you can get out and use the sidewalk.

You're Welcome!


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

robanna said:


> I here by grant you all permission to drive by my house, but only 8 cars a day, and no picnics on my lawn, but if you must, you can get out and use the sidewalk.
> 
> You're Welcome!


Good analogy.


----------



## riot (Apr 28, 2009)

they will start letting water out of the taylor dam on wed. time to start floating the middle! after work run anyone?


----------



## kb52 (Apr 19, 2008)

"Giving permission" in regards to adverse possession and prescriptive easements is a legal maneuver to put an end to such. I suspect that there's a little more to this than meets the eye.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

http://cofarmbureaublog.wordpress.c...-river-rafting-companies-permission-to-float/

(emphasis in bold added)
May 14, 2010

*Jackson-Shaw Grants Taylor River Rafting Companies Permission To Float*

Posted by Chad Vorthmann in 2010 State Session, Legislative, Water. Leave a Comment

GUNNISON, Colo. –Jackson-Shaw, owner of the Wilder on the Taylor fishing reserve, announced today that it is *granting* the two Taylor River rafting companies, Three Rivers Outfitting and Scenic River Tours, *permission* to float through its property this summer.

Conflicts between fishermen and commercial rafting on the Taylor River gave rise earlier this year to Colorado House Bill 1188, which died at the end of the legislative session this week.

Jackson-Shaw Chairman and CEO Lewis Shaw said, “While mediation between Jackson-Shaw and the two Taylor Riverrafting companies continues, Jackson-Shaw recognizes that Three Rivers and Scenic are at the threshold of their commercial rafting season and that it will take time to finalize any formal agreement. Accordingly, as a show of good faith, Jackson-Shaw has decided to *give* Three Rivers and Scenic *permission* to float through Wilder on the Taylor this summer.”

Shaw added, “Jackson-Shaw is still hopeful that the mediation process will result in a formal agreement among the parties.”

Mediation between the two rafting companies and Jackson-Shaw began on April 22 and remains ongoing. All parties have agreed that the content of the mediation must remain confidential.

Due to differences in the parties’ and mediator’s availability, a second mediation session could not be scheduled at the Judicial Arbiter Group in Denver until May 26.

Shaw said that he hoped this *permission* would minimize disruption to the rafting companies’ business and allow Three Rivers and Scenic to keep commitments they have already made to guests and employees for the upcoming summer.

*To balance the commercial rafting with fly fishing by guests of Jackson-Shaw and Harmel’s Ranch Resort and to protect the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fish habitat improvements Jackson-Shaw has made, Jackson-Shaw will require Scenic and Three Rivers to abide by six simple rules this summer:

1. Commercial rafting will be allowed through Wilder on the Taylor between May 15, 2010 and August 15, 2010, provided there is adequate water in the river (at least 200 cubic feet per second of water at the United States Geological Survey gauge below the Taylor River Dam). Based on average flows over the past 34 years, this threshold requirement would be satisfied for the entire duration of the above season.

2. A total of four commercial rafting trips will be allowed through the property each day. Three Rivers and Scenic may allocate these trips between themselves in whatever manner they please. Two trips will be permitted in the morning, and two trips will be permitted in the afternoon. Each trip may include up to four boats. A boat can hold up to 8 guests, so the 16 boats per day limit would allow for 128 guests to go down this section of the Taylor each day.

3. To preserve early morning, evening, and lunch time fishing, the morning trips will need to occur between 9:30 and 11 a.m., and the afternoon trips need to occur between 1:30 and 3 p.m. Jackson-Shaw believes that these time windows complement the launch times identified in the rafting companies’ Forest Service Permits.

4. Jackson-Shaw will allow the rafting companies and their guests to portage around the bridge on the property. Jackson-Shaw just asks that the companies and their guests be respectful when portaging and floating through the property.

5. The rafting companies and their guests will not be permitted to fish through the property because preserving the exclusive fishing for Jackson-Shaw’s guests is essential to protecting Jackson-Shaw’s investment in habitat improvements.

6. Three Rivers and Scenic will need to add Jackson-Shaw as an additional insured on their insurance policies to protect Jackson-Shaw from liability in the event one of the rafting companies’ guests is injured.*

“We believe that these *rules* are reasonable and will *allow* the rafting companies to meet demand, operate profitable businesses, and conduct far more commercial trips through the property this summer than last summer,” Shaw said.

This proposal will easily accommodate the maximum number of trips allowed by their Forest Service permits. At the allowable rate of 128 guests per day, the commercial rafting companies would surpass the number of guests taken through this stretch of river in 2009 in less than 8 days. They would surpass the maximum number of guests allowed under their Forest Service permits in 34 days.

Also, the rafting companies can and do conduct a significant number of Upper Taylor and Lower Taylor trips without passing through the property. It has been reported that Three Rivers took less than one percent of its Taylor River guests through the property in 2009.

*“So long as Three Rivers and Scenic are willing to accept Jackson-Shaw’s permission and follow these simple terms, Jackson-Shaw will allow the rafting companies to conduct rafting trips through the property this summer,” Shaw added.* “Acceptance by these two rafting companies of these terms will not prevent mediation from continuing. However, it will give the two companies some certainty as the rafting season begins.”


----------



## kclowe (May 25, 2004)

Wow! So they really want the companies to sign an agreement that allows them to do what they are already allowed to do by the forest service? Does anyone know if they have any intention of signing this? I would think that if they sign this, it could only lead to bad things in the future. Anyone have any info on how the companies are reacting?

Kim


----------



## fella (Jul 29, 2008)

This whole situation presupposes that the centuries old laws governing waterways are no longer valid -- that navigable waterways are in the PUBLIC domain. 

Private property can include riverbeds, but not the navigable waters within.

Perhaps someone with greater understanding of the situation can explain how or why private boaters stand to lose access to a public, navigable waterway??


----------



## outbackjack (Feb 10, 2010)

fella said:


> This whole situation presupposes that the centuries old laws governing waterways are no longer valid -- that navigable waterways are in the PUBLIC domain.
> 
> Private property can include riverbeds, but not the navigable waters within.
> 
> Perhaps someone with greater understanding of the situation can explain how or why private boaters stand to lose access to a public, navigable waterway??


 
The landowners believe that they own everything above their property for infinity. Right now they are focusing on the Outfitters because they are easy targets. should the outfitters be forced to stop floating through private property, guess who is next???


----------



## robanna (Apr 20, 2004)

> to protect the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fish habitat improvements Jackson-Shaw has made


Which, I'm sure, were all approved by the Army Core of Engineers.


> 5. The rafting companies and their guests will not be permitted to fish through the property because preserving the exclusive fishing for Jackson-Shaw’s guests is essential to protecting Jackson-Shaw’s investment in habitat improvements.


I don't fish but you can bet I'll be bringing a pole for this trip.


----------



## outbackjack (Feb 10, 2010)

I don't fish but you can bet I'll be bringing a pole for this trip

Awsome robanna, this is going to be one hell of a summer!!!!!!!


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

robanna said:


> Which, I'm sure, were all approved by the Army Core of Engineers.
> 
> I don't fish but you can bet I'll be bringing a pole for this trip.


You can borrow a flyrod from me anytime - I'll even include a casting lesson and a box of flies


----------



## riot (Apr 28, 2009)

we ran the middle taylor yesterday. its a little boney but plenty of water for kayaks untill wed. we need to get more people in there all summer long.


----------



## acetomato (May 6, 2006)

Andy H. said:


> ... and kayakers from raiding their refrigerators. ...
> 
> 
> 
> -AH


Come on Andy, give us a little credit, we'll be stealing their daughters.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

The following statement was issued this afternoon by the Colorado River Outfitters Association (CROA) and individual member outfitters Three Rivers Outfitting and Scenic River Tours in response to an announcement from Jackson-Shaw Chairman and CEO Lewis Shaw concerning 2010 river access on the Taylor River:

“While it is a positive development that Mr. Shaw has backed down from his attempt to block boating enthusiasts and professionals from accessing a public river, the fact remains that neither of our companies nor any other CROA member outfitter nor any other rafter or kayaker needs permission from Mr. Shaw to float the Taylor River. We will be evaluating these newly proposed conditions and discussing them with Mr. Shaw as the mediation moves forward. We will continue to try to be good neighbors as we raft the Taylor River this summer, as we have for more than two decades.”


For more information, please contact:
Drew Kramer Adam Eichberg
Director of Strategic Communications Headwater Strategies 
Colorado River Outfitters Association or O: (303) 834-7799
C: (720) 530-5899 C: (303) 204-6930
E: [email protected] E: [email protected]


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

I've got two words for that - SUH-WEET!


----------



## fella (Jul 29, 2008)

slavetotheflyrod said:


> The following statement was issued this afternoon by the Colorado River Outfitters Association (CROA) and individual member outfitters Three Rivers Outfitting and Scenic River Tours in response to an announcement from Jackson-Shaw Chairman and CEO Lewis Shaw concerning 2010 river access on the Taylor River:
> 
> “While it is a positive development that Mr. Shaw has backed down from his attempt to block boating enthusiasts and professionals from accessing a public river, the fact remains that neither of our companies nor any other CROA member outfitter nor any other rafter or kayaker needs permission from Mr. Shaw to float the Taylor River. We will be evaluating these newly proposed conditions and discussing them with Mr. Shaw as the mediation moves forward. We will continue to try to be good neighbors as we raft the Taylor River this summer, as we have for more than two decades.”
> 
> ...


 
WELL SAID!!!!


----------



## kclowe (May 25, 2004)

Fantastic! Glad to hear it. I really hope this guy gets the message soon that he doesn't own the WORLD!!! He reminds me of a bully that used to beat the crap out of me in grade school. She eventually got hers, and I think this Shaw guy will get his. Just a matter of time. It will all come around.


----------



## ec (Jun 7, 2004)

Awesome reply!

I've never paddled the Middle Taylor. So, what's this talk about the bridge? Is there a manditory portage on his land around a bridge or something?


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

Just to clarify, you've always been able to float, but he found his loophole by not allowing people to portage the bridge...correct? I've heard alot of "we'll show him" attitude, but technically the problem isn't running the river, but it is in the portage. For everyone's info, can you run this stretch without portaging? In a raft? a kayak?


----------



## robanna (Apr 20, 2004)

caseybailey said:


> Just to clarify, you've always been able to float, but he found his loophole by not allowing people to portage the bridge...correct? I've heard alot of "we'll show him" attitude, but technically the problem isn't running the river, but it is in the portage. For everyone's info, can you run this stretch without portaging? In a raft? a kayak?


Shaw claims to own the river that passes through his property and is trying to stop rafts from running the section of the Taylor they've been running for years. I believe he had plans to fence off that section of the river.
It's my understanding that the bridge is runnable except at high water in a raft.


----------



## robanna (Apr 20, 2004)

I'm sorry, I'm still stunned that a Texas land developer just gave us permission to use a Colorado Public Waterway....


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

caseybailey said:


> Just to clarify, you've always been able to float, but he found his loophole by not allowing people to portage the bridge...correct? I've heard alot of "we'll show him" attitude, but technically the problem isn't running the river, but it is in the portage. For everyone's info, can you run this stretch without portaging? In a raft? a kayak?


I think you can get under the bridge in a kayak at most flows. I'm not sure it's worth going there though.


----------



## honkey-in-a-coleman (May 14, 2010)

Ran the middle yesterday. 9' raft r-2.
Still boney. More water from the dam supposedly on the 20th. 
Plenty of fishermen.
The bridge is passable w/ limbo skills untill high water.
Fishing frames will get f-ed
River-wide strainer on public land just above (50 +/- yds.) take out.
Float the shit out of it.


----------



## CBrown (Oct 28, 2004)

* Shaw added.* “Acceptance by these two rafting companies of these terms will not prevent mediation from continuing. However, it will give the two companies some certainty as the rafting season begins.” 

So what he is saying is that we will be sure to bend you over next year. This guy really sucks. The Taylor is "our river", not yours Lewis.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words, Isn't It?*



Theophilus said:


> I think you can get under the bridge in a kayak at most flows. I'm not sure it's worth going there though.


Who's taking ongoing and detailed time/dated, cfs and gps images to document Public persons (wading, swimming, birding, floatings, hunting (waterfowling), fishing and/or kayaking, etc, water users) and/or boats/boots/shoes/kayaks/booties/rafts/tubes, etc. using water, incidentally touching beds, passing through and/or portaging (in progress) not only on the Taylor but also any natural stream in Colorado? 

Who's taking closeup, landmarked pics of every inch of river sections, beds, obstructions (bridges, ungated fences across the water or on the adjacent land, etc.), "ordinary high water mark", banks(area between the ordinary high and low water marks), etc. to illustrate "modern" use of waters, touching beds incidental to that use and portage around obstructions, such as may be the Wilder on the Taylor bridge, at various water levels, especially at prime boating/runoff and fishing/seasonal levels?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Theophilus said:


> I think you can get under the bridge in a kayak at most flows. I'm not sure it's worth going there though.


It may not be worth going there if you have to come from Random Points, Front Range...but if it is a hop-skip-and jump away, and you use it regularly...then it is worth floating to prove the point that Mr. Shaw (aka The Duke) doesn't own the Taylor River.


----------



## kclowe (May 25, 2004)

Theophilus said:


> I think you can get under the bridge in a kayak at most flows. I'm not sure it's worth going there though.


Snob.


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

I guess if it's in your back yard and you wanna "stick it to the man" who has probably never stepped foot on the property himself then guess I understand your zeal.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

ec said:


> Awesome reply!
> 
> I've never paddled the Middle Taylor. So, what's this talk about the bridge? Is there a manditory portage on his land around a bridge or something?


The bridge would be easilly passable at all but the highest flows, but for the fact that they've allowed wood and debris to pile up on the upstream side, basically creating one great big strainer. Last I heard, the bridge was passable on the far river left side, not sure about now though.


----------



## wild bill (Jun 1, 2008)

Nice picks Slave. 

The bridge is passable on the left, but his so called improvements have changed the water flow. The fishing dams and spillways have made it so that more water is pooled more than two years ago at the bridge and the huge strainer pile pushes more water left. I hear that the Army Corps of Engineers has asked Shaw to remove the strainers though. Also, his private, exclusive, man made creak (which is not running yet) alters the water level, so you cannot predict the specific flow at the bridge. 

Be safe, but no portage is necessary at the bridge now. A raft would have to portage the strainers right above the take out (this is on public land).


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

I'm a simple man and it seems to me that there would/could be a liabliity issue if some body(s) ended up injured or worse in that strainer especially if he has been asked in writing by the ACE to remove it.


----------



## robanna (Apr 20, 2004)

Theophilus said:


> I'm a simple man and it seems to me that there would/could be a liabliity issue if some body(s) ended up injured or worse in that strainer especially if he has been asked in writing by the ACE to remove it.


And since Shaw has given permission to run it...


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

robanna said:


> And since Shaw has given permission to run it...


That's a great point.


----------



## hkbeliever (Nov 6, 2008)

KB52 had it right. His attorneys are advising him with regard to defending the Adverse Possession and Prescriptive Easement arguments by the rafting companies with a 20+ year history of use that meets all the criteria of the law. Simply put ... Permission defeats an elemement of those claims and enflames the radical element of our group. Don't be persuaded to do something that gives them a better legal argument.


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

Ole Rivers said:


> Who's taking ongoing and detailed time/dated, cfs and gps images to document Public persons (wading, swimming, birding, floatings, hunting (waterfowling), fishing and/or kayaking, etc, water users) and/or boats/boots/shoes/kayaks/booties/rafts/tubes, etc. using water, incidentally touching beds, passing through and/or portaging (in progress) not only on the Taylor but also any natural stream in Colorado?
> 
> Who's taking closeup, landmarked pics of every inch of river sections, beds, obstructions (bridges, ungated fences across the water or on the adjacent land, etc.), "ordinary high water mark", banks(area between the ordinary high and low water marks), etc. to illustrate "modern" use of waters, touching beds incidental to that use and portage around obstructions, such as may be the Wilder on the Taylor bridge, at various water levels, especially at prime boating/runoff and fishing/seasonal levels?


(cross posted from yeti's post)

Does anybody know any property owners on that stretch of the Taylor that are sympathetic to the white water community. I ask, because it would be a good idea to get a motion activated game camera and set it up in close proximity to the river. That way, it could be documented by our side on how much traffic uses the river.

Pix Controller makes a great motion camera system that can use wifi (almost any distance via line of sight) or a cellular camera that uses the GSM band. It would need to have the batteries changed every few weeks, but AW or CW could be the recipient of all feeds. 

I'd be happy to donate time to set it up and some $$$ on it if something like this would help our cause.


----------



## darkbluewrangler (Jun 4, 2007)

This is horrible.. I feel bad for you folks in Colorado... If you look at the bright side though, it looks like mother nature will take care of that bridge sooner or later. I wonder how many more strainers it can hold back.


----------



## scagrotto (Apr 3, 2007)

hkbeliever said:


> KB52 had it right. His attorneys are advising him with regard to defending the Adverse Possession and Prescriptive Easement arguments by the rafting companies with a 20+ year history of use that meets all the criteria of the law.


I very much doubt that's the reason. Giving somebody permission certainly eliminates any claim for a prescriptive easement, but so does any attempt to prevent the unauthorized use. If he didn't make some previous effort that I'm not aware of he first covered that base in the letter telling the rafting outfitters that they couldn't float through his property. Talking to the sheriff about his options to prevent floaters is another action he's taken. I'm not sure what the time period is in Colorado, but he would have to fail to make an effort to prevent the (alleged) trespass for at least the next 10 years before any claim for a prescriptive easement could succeed. I'm pretty sure he can call the sheriff and complain every now and then and each time he does the clock starts over. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that his lawyers really believe, and are advising him, that he can prevent people from floating. There's no point in worrying about a prescriptive easement when there's already a public easement for navigation.

That last point suggests that pressing a claim for a prescriptive easement wouldn't be in the best interests of floaters, except perhaps in regard to use of the banks for portaging. There's a reasonable argument that by making the claim you'd be implicitly agreeing that you'd don't already have the right to float through private property.


----------



## outbackjack (Feb 10, 2010)

The Taylor is running good, along with everything else, anyone interested in boating this section get ahold of me. The Gunnison county Sheriff put a letter in the local paper outlining his approach to this river season, I cant get it to load here but it did post to the HB-1188 forum. Later


----------

