# Blowing up Quartzite: Good or bad?



## kevintee (May 7, 2007)

I'm a lehman in the matter, but by the photo depiction and description in the photo's I think its a good thing.


----------



## codyhoward (Feb 26, 2007)

umm.......blowing up rapids is bad mmmkay.

glad you enjoyed the wilderness. would have liked to see it at it's original state too. unfortunate.

Cody


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Who's to say that with different technology, better boater, different flows, etc. that it never would have been runable? Imagine if someone had done blasting at Lava on the Canyon because it was "unrunable" years ago. This is like climbers chipping holds to make things climbable... I see it as unethical for many reasons, but the number one is that maybe somone would have been able to do it later on. 

Keep chipping down the sharp shit on the Poudre though... I have a new raft coming and as those of you who know me know, I like to occasionally wrap a little bit of hypalon around the rocks on the Poudre....

Oh, and I do think we should blow up the Glen Canyon Dam. Hayduke lives!


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

I didn't realize this was your post Dan! You are wise beyond your years...


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

stupid question. what cody said.


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

whitewaterjunkie said:


> As of a few years ago, Quartzite Falls no longer has a place for river-runners to scout, so I don’t think there would be any way to portage it if that were still necessary (it would be very, very, very difficult).


What happened to the portage route?


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Hey Mania, you're stupid. It's a great question and an interesting thing to ponder. Lots of rapids have had this kind of history (Iron Ring on the Upper Gauley for example) and if we can't discuss and talk about the philosophies behind it, it will likely happen more and more. I can't help but wonder if the guide who bombed that rapid on the Salt had been involved in this kind of open forum if his actions would have been different. I guess you would rather we just talk about cool kayak stickers and new videos? Sick bra!


----------



## Awoody (Nov 15, 2006)

Those cocksmokers should have gotten more time.


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

Having run Quartzite before the blowup at moderate flows, it wasn't hard to make the right sneak in a kayak.

If you don't appreciate wilderness, stay out of it.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

Yep, it's a legitimate question. Should we take wood out of the river? Should you alter the stream bed to form a play park? They all seem to be altering the natural state of the river, just to different extremes. The Salt case would seem to be an extreme case. From a legal standpoint, it's a good thing that dynamiting rock in riverbeds is illegal - not much argument there. 

We alter nature all the time for commerce and recreation, so from a moral standpoint, it's a reasonable question to ask. In this case, it's a balance between recreational benefit, environmental impact, and what I'll call impact on natural beauty (maybe that falls under environmental impact). I'm not really sure what the particular issues are surrounding this particular drop, so I can't judge. 

I also think there's a legitimate argument that says creating opportunities for a wider population to appreciate natural wonders is important to environmental preservation. We might love it if the only people that ever ran the Salt or say the Ark or the Poudre were dedicated members of the boating community, but when it comes time to build a dam because some f-in cattle rancher with government subsidized water rights can't get his alloted share, or some f-in builder wants to put in the next Highlands Ranch in the desert, then it's not so great if 99.9% of voters are totally apathetic because they never saw a stream beyond the city runoff going into their gutter when it rains.


----------



## jeffsssmith (Mar 31, 2007)

*No Blow*

I was robbed of a goal to run Quartzite that I made to myself when I portaged it early in my river-running career. To say that it's okay to alter a rapid for personal reasons goes completely against my philosophy. Preserving the remaining wilderness in its natural state should be a goal of our nation and especially of river runners and other people who enjoy wilderness. 
The Black Canyon of the Gunnison has many challenging rapids and portages, and it obviously is out of reach for most river-runners as is many other canyons or rivers. We shouldn't even entertain the idea of altering such runs. Not to be crass but I prefer to recreate in the wilderness with people of the same such opinion.


----------



## Ice Water (Aug 28, 2007)

At times you have to wonder though... I certainly don't condone the blowing of the rapid. However, I have watched stupid, STUPID private boaters - and now on a frequently rafted river, people might not die. Personally I think the seriously annoying portage would be FUN! It's part of the adventure having to make things work though elbow grease & heavy lifting... After all the time on the river is more than just a couple cases of beer.


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

Ice Water said:


> After all the time on the river is more than just a couple cases of beer.


Yeah, you're right. It takes at least 3 or 4 cases.


----------



## Ice Water (Aug 28, 2007)

COUNT said:


> Yeah, you're right. It takes at least 3 or 4 cases.


Well there is that!


----------



## yourrealdad (May 25, 2004)

If you have to blow up a drop cause you aren't skilled enough to make the move or too lazy to make the portage you don't belong on the river. Go check out the log ride at Disneyland.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

Randaddy said:


> Hey Mania, you're stupid.


I'm stupid huh? thats a personal attack and not appreciated on this board. you don't really know how stupid or smart I am but I will wager I am smarter than you.

questions however can be stupid - although maybe you are right that this should be discussed so we don't have ANY DOUBT that blowing up rapids is wrong. don't make me come over there thru the internets to correct you.


----------



## WyoPadlr1 (May 5, 2005)

Let's see....... I've done the Salt 14 times now: 8 before they blew it up, and only 6 since. Had portaged, lined, and ran Quartzite at lots of different levels, once at 18,000cfs. Burly, but paddleable, and lineable on the right. Those dumbasses wrecked the whole thing for groups that had their shit together. Prior to the alteration, you didn't need a permit, because the river was self-regulating. If a group of people didn't think they had what it took to get their party around Quartzite, they didn't clog up the river or the campsites. It was never crowded, except maybe at Quartzite once in a while, but again, if your group had their shit together, lining on the right was fast and simple. Now, you have to apply for a permit, and you have to hope your permit date is within the Salt's notoriously fickle runoff window. We used to just watch the snowpack and the weather, and when it started climbing, we'd put a trip together. Admittedly, more people get to "enjoy" the Salt now, but is that necessarily a good thing? And, are they necessarily the people who should be getting to "enjoy" this incredibly wild place? I guarantee you the beaches and side canyons were in far better condition before Quartzite got blown up. Seems like people who don't care nearly as much about this unique place now have easy access to it and take it for granted far more than when one mildly troublesome rapid kept the river much more "self-regulating." I miss the way it was, plain and simple.


----------



## Snowhere (Feb 21, 2008)

It is the wrong thing to do on many levels. I am sure that if Quartzite was not an isolated incident, the powers at be, both public and private, would of just made off limits, many runs. Private access is tough enough to get without the owner having to think about people blowing up the river. Now think of some stupid beginner, not able to run your favorite drop on your local river. If they could think, "They did it on Quartzite, on X, on Y, why can't I do it on Z so I can run it?" That is just what we do not need. It can be taken to the extreme where the government decides that anything beyond class III is costing the public at large and something has to be done. You would not want your favorite IV or V being blasted into class II or III dom, would you?


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

KSC said:


> Yep, it's a legitimate question. Should we take wood out of the river? Should you alter the stream bed to form a play park? They all seem to be altering the natural state of the river, just to different extremes.


no its not. wood and play parks were not the question. the question was it good to blow up quartzite and the answer is no. if you think there should be some debate on that then i must respectfully say please don't boat.


----------



## Ice Water (Aug 28, 2007)

WyoPadlr1 said:


> 7 Admittedly, more people get to "enjoy" the Salt now, but is that necessarily a good thing? And, are they necessarily the people who should be getting to "enjoy" this incredibly wild place? I guarantee you the beaches and side canyons were in far better condition before Quartzite got blown up. Seems like people who don't care nearly as much about this unique place now have easy access to it and take it for granted far more than when one mildly troublesome rapid kept the river much more "self-regulating."


If only there was a way to see how ignorant people were before they got on the river... Having a campsite destroyed by casual boaters is a horrible slight to our entire community.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

okay I am going to apologize to whitewaterjunkie it was not a stupid question but a misguided one.



whitewaterjunkie said:


> Every raft trip would probably have to take out at Gleason Flat, less than half way into the 52-mile run, missing the inner gorge, which has the best rapids and is easily the coolest section of the river.


Every raft trip? If you have the skills to run, portage or line the rapid you would not have to take out at gleason.



> But the truth is that raft trips through Upper Salt River Canyon would now be impossible if Quartzite remained in its natural state. The commercial outfitters would not be running customers through every spring, and there would be no private permit lottery every January.


Impossible? How do you know it would be impossible. this is why you are misguided. Let people try and see what is possible rather than alter the river to make it certainly possible. I certainly dont cry for the commercials (yeah I know).



> But on the other hand, we can now enjoy one more incredible natural resource, and learn more about and grow a deeper appreciation for our surroundings.


I think it would be more enjoyable and incredible if it were more natural. Now every yahoo can go through and I mean yahoo. I once encountered boom box booming party camped right across from us and another time gun shooting party just downstream (both camp below quartzite). you call that wilderness and appreciation for it? if they had to really get through the real quartzite like real men i doubt they would be bringing guns and boom boxes.


----------



## WyoPadlr1 (May 5, 2005)

Right on, Mania. Like I said, it was a WAY better place to visit before Quartzite was blown up. The caliber of people that we encountered in there was much higher than some of the groups we have had the misfortune to interact with since then. I don't know if that's necessarily a result of making Quartzite easier for turkeys, or if the Salt just got a lot more popular in the last few years.


----------



## Jay H (May 20, 2005)

*bad idea, without question*

umm, sorry, I'm all for open discourse, etc., but this has gotta be the dumbest question I've heard--of course it's a bad idea to blow up any part of a river...by anyone, not to mention some renegade bomb builder.

If this was proposed by a government agancyfor the intended purposes mantioned, and there was even $1 of federal money, an EIS or at least an EA would be required...USFWS and marine fisheries would most likely reject any such proposed action, not to mention the thousands of rolling eyes of the public over such a thing

and, if some yahoo takes it upon him or her self to "improve" the natural features of rivers (or climbs, trails, etc.), the entire boating community, and all outdoor enthusiasts for that matter, would pay the price in terms of reduced access, increased regulation, more stringent enforcement, etc.

I've ridden trails that some @$$hole has "modified" so that his pathetic incapable wife could ride thru the "hard" sections, and I can hardly remember being more po'd, having enjoyed the difficulty of the original challenge.

I second the "go to disneyworld if it's too hard" motion--if you can't appreciate nature as she is, and you have to modify nature because it's too difficult/dangerous/scary/etc., you don't belong in the wilderness...:twisted:


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

mania said:


> no its not. wood and play parks were not the question. the question was it good to blow up quartzite and the answer is no. if you think there should be some debate on that then i must respectfully say please don't boat.


Look, I'm not saying blowing up the river is acceptable behavior. In fact I'm probably more conservative about changes in the environment for recreational use than post people. But maybe you can read a little depth into the topic and my post before you banish me from the river forever.

I obviously interpreted the original question differently. I don't think the question was: "Is it ok or not to go to the river and dynamite a rapid you don't like?" I think the question was more generally about when is it ok to alter a feature in the river? Why do I say this? Well, the original question said: "Now, I’m not condoning the altering of Quartzite." and went on ask us to consider two hypothetical states of the river. He describes how a canyon that previously was unaccessible to most people has now been made accessible by alternation of one feature (whether or not this is true for the Salt I'm not sure, but that's how the question was phrased). So I don't think I'm pulling this out of my ass.

My point is, we DO alter riverbeds in ways that most river runners condone and sometimes encourage or participate in - i.e. removing wood and moving rocks around for features or adding cement for play parks. You could say that log choked creeks that have been unrunnable for the past 20+ years because it has giant logs laying across the river in dangerous places should be left alone as well. Before someone else gets their panties in a wad, I'm not saying I personally have a problem with you clearing wood on your local creek and I know this issue has been addressed before, notably in some AW article. 

It makes me f-cking irritated as I write this that I have to write all this down as an explanation. All I'm saying is don't jump all over a guy like he just kicked your grandmother because he poses a question. I tried to do this BY PROVIDING EXAMPLES of other LESS EXTREME RIVER ALTERNATIONS we accept as a way of demonstrating that his question offered room for DISCUSSION. 

Thanks for pointing out though that the question was not about wood and play parks, because I'll be damned if I didn't have to reread the post 10 times before I realized he was talking about that quartzite rapid on the Salt and not a playpark at Glenwood. Sometimes I feel like people on here are just waiting for the next opportunity to try to attack someone. The rivers are starting to run, spring skiing is in, the winter blues excuse isn't even here anymore. 

I think I'm done with this subject.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

KSC said:


> My point is, we DO alter riverbeds in ways that most river runners condone and sometimes encourage or participate in - i.e. removing wood and moving rocks around for features or adding cement for play parks. You could say that log choked creeks that have been unrunnable for the past 20+ years because it has giant logs laying across the river in dangerous places should be left alone as well.


Yes yes good points but clearly a wilderness rapid is not to be altered with explosives. Wood is another thing since its more like temporary trash. play parks are generally in urban areas where lots of things have already ben altered. This is really mostly common sense I wish people would use it more often.


----------



## Unordinary (Jun 20, 2006)

Blowing up quartzite BAD!!!

What about blowing up man made hazards like bridge on Piedra???

For history on blowing up rapids look to the Rogue in Oregon...

Emotions blown up on this thread.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

Unordinary said:


> Blowing up quartzite BAD!!!


agreed



Unordinary said:


> What about blowing up man made hazards like bridge on Piedra???


bad. cutting torch better idea.



Unordinary said:


> For history on blowing up rapids look to the Rogue in Oregon...


bad. that run is so lame now.



Unordinary said:


> Emotions blown up on this thread.


:-x


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

I largely agree with Unordinary about the comparison of the Quartzite issue with that of the Rogue because both rivers were modified for navigational purposes. 

Iron Ring on the Gauley is not as good as a comparison, because the right side of Woodstock was blown up around 1900 to create a passageway for logs, not to create a navigable passageway. While the rapid was probably unnavigable prior to the modification, it's still class V and arguably the most difficult rapid on the Upper Gauley.

Both the Rogue and Iron Ring modifications are distinguishable in that they occurred in a different era when the word conservation meant something different than it does today. The Rogue and the Gauley were modified at a time when they were seen as channels of commerce, whereas the Quartzite event happened on a river which at that time was valued for its wilderness qualities. The Quartzite event was very wrong.


----------



## whitewaterjunkie (Feb 8, 2006)

*wood=rocks*

I just want to thank you all for your thoughtful responses. I got exactly what I was looking for: a Buzz thread with real content about a real issue.

I obviously do not think it was a good idea to dynamite the rock that formed the ledge that formed the killer keeper hole at Quartzite Falls. My opinion has nothing to do with whether it was illegal or a 'wilderness area.' Those tags are arbitrary and irrelevant. It's simply something that shouldn't happen anywhere, on any river, because it rubs against our innate moral instinct to protect and preserve our environment. It's perhaps our most important human trait.

But I really don't see how removing logs from a creek run is any different. It's a natural, eons-old natural process for logs (boulders, too) to get pushed downstream by floods and high-water, sit there for a few millennia, and move on. We remove wood from the Poudre early every spring so that the poor shithooks from Omaha (and yours truly) don't end up like the schmutz in the colander left from the dishwater after I cook a 5-star meal on day 14 of a Grand trip.

Ken Stoner (love that name) couldn't remove the boulders at Quartzite with the same ease you can remove wood from your local creek, so he blasted them instead. Someday nature would have probably altered Quartzite on it's own, eroding the rock, perhaps, or simply moving it. Just as someday nature would have floated the wood from your creek. But no, you went and moved the wood yourself. River alterer!

Also, I do not doubt that the Salt River Canyon was pristine before it was 'overrun' by permit-toting rafters like myself, but I was just down there for five days and everything was absolutely pristine. We slept on huge, spotless beaches every night, hardly saw anyone, and, sadly, didn't have to portage anything.


Would one of you please link the AW article about removing logs from rivers? I'd love to read it.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

junkie,

wood is NOT rocks. I think we need to look to our rock climbing brethren for guideance. Lets say I want to free climb some route on Yosemite wall but I just can't quite do it even though there are a few who can. so I go chipping some holds on the route to make it easier (that's called cheating by the way). there would be outrage in the climbing community and rightly so.

now these same outraged climbers routinely remove dirt and sticks from their climbing routes just as we do in the river. they also might go to a rock climbing gym or ice climbing routes made from hoses that are in more urban settings much like we might go to a kayak play park for training or fun.

You don't seem to understand the essence of our sport and fair means. You aren't distinguishing between altering the rapid itself and removing temporary wood. worse, you are using removing wood as an excuse for the destruction of quartzite (if they are equal and one is okay then the other must be okay). that's some sad logic there friend.


----------



## floaty22 (Dec 3, 2003)

-What I think is interesting about this situation is that Ken Stoner and 2 OTHERS hiked dynamite in on 3 seperate occasions. Once at 48lbs. once at 54lbs. Last at 104lbs of dynamite. This was a well persued attack. He and the others knew what they were doing. They also knew they had to finish the job no matter what. 
-Ken fled the country cause he couldn't keep his big mouth shut. He thought that he had really done something cool. 
-He got caught in New Zealand and extradited because he answered an ad in the paper for high wages as a raft guide on some river in the states.
Did the probabtion that the two helpers got and the few years in prison that stoner recieved make up for defacing a natural wilderness enviroment forever? We will never again see that place in it's natural state. 
-No matter how many people get down and "use" campsites with guns and boomboxes, which still remain a small percentage of "real" river runners, as the salt becomes more and more popular, remember that 3 persons f'ed it up for everyone who were the "real" river runners. Curse Stoner and friends for their lack of foresite. Not the small amount people beyond the very knowledgable and respectful river runners nowadays who "use" the camps. "Gunrunners" and "mooshiners" know no better, even though they should. An all to common reality for people in this country. But, now they have just as much a right on that river as everyone else. It's not class V anymore. Yea, I said it.
Just food for thought in camp above quartzite and while sitting in the eddy.
Johnny


----------



## ecjohnson (Nov 6, 2007)

Is it gas wells, mines, reservoirs, trails, roads, urban sprawl, water canals, coal fired power plants, Hummer's, chaining the desert for grazing land, etc, etc that give you this idea? 




whitewaterjunkie said:


> ...because it rubs against our innate moral instinct to protect and preserve our environment. It's perhaps our most important human trait.


----------



## whitewaterjunkie (Feb 8, 2006)

No, I was thinking more of National Parks, National Forests, BLM Land, Wild and Scenic Rivers, World Heritage Sites, State Parks, State Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, etc, etc. The fact that these sorts of protected lands exist at all is a testament to the better aspects of our human qualities. Should there be more? Of course. Should they be altered with man-made devices like roads and dynamite? No way. 

I really don't have a problem with the removal of wood from a river or creek in the name of safety. It just seems like many of you are 'purists,' and I don't think that jibes with the removal of wood from a creek to make it navigable. 

But as I mentioned before, I do it every year on the Poudre. I really just like playing Devil's advocate to get some good debate going on here.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

whitewaterjunkie said:


> Would one of you please link the AW article about removing logs from rivers? I'd love to read it.


American Whitewater - stewardship:woody_debris


----------



## stinginrivers (Oct 18, 2003)

Like it was said earlier, before quartzite was blown up there was no river permitting at all. The salt was a relatively unknown non permitted free flowing desert canyon. You watched the flows and if they came up you went and ran it, if it didn't you went somewhere else, and sometime for years in a row it wouldn't run like after they blew it up.

Yes you say it is a pristine place, but you have to keep in mind that the salt just got an 80,000 cfs cleansing not too long ago. If you were down there last year you would have seen fire ring scars and trash. The rangers spend quite a bit of their time cleaning that place up and this year nature did it for them. 

If quartzite was still intact you could still line it or portage it, I am not really sure where you are getting this that it would be unnavigable or unportagable thing. If you are not competent enough to do that then you wouldn't go, plain and simple.

I don't believe that every person should have the same access to everything, if you have the skills then great if not go play somewhere else.

The reason Ken blew it up was because the portage was taking too long as his river company ran that section in 2 days, so a couple hour portage would always have him finishing in the dark. So it really wasn't a safety issue like he has claimed and everyone thinks. That is what the other 7 people that helped him blow it up thought as well. Which by the way were unknowing bystanders that he conned into helping him. 

They were customers of his on a 2 day river trip through there and he talked up how dangerous that rapid is and that it would be great if it was gone. Well they just happened to be demo experts and thought what they were doing was a justified and legal action as they did not do anything to hide their identity.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

blowing up a rapid does just that. it destroys it. there's no planning that goes into it and the outcome can be worse than in the first case. this is the problem with blowing up a rapid compared to pulling logs out of the creek or developing a whitewater park. they are completely different.

keep the wilderness run wild and if you are to lazy to portage a drop than you have no business on that run or even in a fucking boat.

anybody that blows up the shit i want to run is going to get a size 12 straight to the sack, and than they will be castrated and feed there own.


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

This was also my question. I've been there twice this year and was able to scout Quartzite both times. Once from the left at higher water and once from the right at lower water.
From the pics, it also looks like the portage route is still there (except part of the bottom that was blown up maybe). 

In addition, the Salt offers something like 20 fun, big, continuous,sometimes scary rapids. Wouldn't it be cool to HAVE to portage one? Just to say- wow- what if we could run that? And maybe wait for nature to make it possible. The challenge is a huge part of the attraction. Using dynamite is like bringing a gun to a knife fight- where's the challenge?

Removing a downed manmade bridge is completely different.



stinginrivers said:


> If quartzite was still intact you could still line it or portage it, I am not really sure where you are getting this that it would be unnavigable or unportagable thing. If you are not competent enough to do that then you wouldn't go, plain and simple.


----------



## ecjohnson (Nov 6, 2007)

whitewaterjunkie said:


> No, I was thinking more of National Parks, National Forests, BLM Land, Wild and Scenic Rivers, World Heritage Sites, State Parks, State Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, etc, etc. The fact that these sorts of protected lands exist at all is a testament to the better aspects of our human qualities.


And where do you think most of that mining, drilling, chaining, logging, and illegal road building (sometimes using equipment "borrowed from the county") happens? BLM land, National Forests, and National Parks... 

Grand Canyon is still dealing with the radioactivity from the Orphan Mine which operated into the late 1960's. Horn Creek during flood stage has 3 time the uranium allowed for drinking water... think about that next time you run Horn.

It's all happening on our public lands, sometimes with the eyes of government officials turned the other direction. There are two definitions of conservation, and unfortunately most people use the multiple use - greatest good for the greatest number of people - definition. Thank you Gifford Pinchot. 

I'm not trying to take this another direction, albeit I love this topic, but I am trying to point out that our federal public lands are not usually treated with respect as the Feds would like to make us believe.


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

For the record, I got out of my boat and scouted Quartzite this spring without any problems and I believe there was still room for at least a couple rafts. There might not be beach sand like I see in some of the photos, but there was a well defined eddy.

Also, nature has a way of taking care of man's "alterations". Quartzite is one of the most resistant rocks around and after a few years (maybe many years) this ledge will form again due to its stratigraphic location. The softer rock downstream will begin to erode way faster than the quartzite and a new ledge hole feature will be created.

Anyone have a record of how many fatalities occured at Quartzite prior to 1994? From the photo, it looked like a nasty hole, but not totally terminal, just curious.


----------



## freexbiker (Jul 18, 2005)

TakemetotheRiver said:


> Using dynamite is like bringing a gun to a knife fight- where's the challenge?quote]
> Awesome


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

How about bringing dynamite to a knife fight? That would be sweet.


----------



## Unordinary (Jun 20, 2006)

*Blowing up Quartzite*

I was not serious about blowing the bridge on Piedra like I have said before I think pressuring the FS to take responsibility for their hazard is the best option. The bridge has been in disrepair for years and should not have been allowed to get to this level. It was more a question about man made hazards and the use of explosives, and a chance to gig FS again.

The Rogue reference was just historical, makes quartzite job look like small time..., but also opened the river and not just to downstream traffic.


----------



## WyoPadlr1 (May 5, 2005)

rivermanryan said:


> Anyone have a record of how many fatalities occured at Quartzite prior to 1994? From the photo, it looked like a nasty hole, but not totally terminal, just curious.


I have the really old Dana Hollister Salt River Guide, and it only says "people drowned and many nearly drowned." I had heard there were three confirmed fatalities there, two on one trip and another on a trip after it became considered a more or less mandatory portage. I'm not sure if that number is still valid, but it wasn't like 20 or anything like that.
I saw it several times at flows between 4,000 and 18,000cfs, and the ledge hole was decidedly deadly. We once lost a boat into it that was being re-rigged in the eddy, and even with 3 lines on it, the hole still destroyed the frame and popped one tube before we could extract it safely. It wasn't coming out on its own. That was before we learned the awesome lining system for the right side. I ran it in a kayak at 18,000 and it was a very thin line between "no problem" and "you're f*&^ed" Just FYI, it was still easily lined on the right even at that unusually high flow. But, a guy in a party in front of us unloaded his gear and passengers and rowed an Achilles down the same line I paddled, and he skated through. Big problem for his group at that level was that all 3 rafts then flipped in Corkscrew, which must have made for unbelievable carnage. By the time we finished setting up and lining our 4 rafts on the right and being psyched out by what had happened to them in Corkscrew, we finally caught up to them at the end of the narrows downstream. They were badass whipped. 
Somewhere, in an old Paddler / River Runner Mag there is an awesome photo of the late Dugald Bremner dropping in to the hole at monumental flows. I think it was a brutally long ride, and he swam, but he lived. You might be able to search that pic online somehow. 
This has been a great thread, brought back a lot of fond memories of the Salt, both before and after the senseless destruction of a spectacular rapid. Luckily for me, my wife scored a permit for next week, there's still decent water, and we're off to make some more memories and pay our respects to a dear, departed, badly missed old friend: Quartzite Falls. R.I.P.


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

In 2001, there was an interesting documentary done on this issue titled: _Quartzite's Fall: A Wilderness Tale_. Not sure where you can obtain a copy but it's worth tracking down if you're really interested in the whole saga.


----------



## Dallas Blaney (Mar 31, 2005)

*Quartzite*

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. ~ Aldo Leopold


----------

