# U.S. Clears Art Project by Christo in Colorado



## Brotorboat (Apr 14, 2009)

Agreed.

But money, once again, has won. 

Did they at least make him agree to clean up in Rifle?? Doubt it...


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

As I understand it, most of the debris in Rifle is on private land and the owner asked to leave the remenants as a memorial to the project. Have you heard of anyone asking him to clean-up Rifle gap and him refusing? I'd be interested to know (as a past resident I really wanted him to, but then as I scratched the surface (barely) I ran into private property issues.


----------



## Brotorboat (Apr 14, 2009)

Personally, no. I also was not aware that the debris was on private land.


----------



## jimr (Sep 8, 2007)

I realize this will bring a lot of money to the area but what about environment impact? How many bolts are they gonna drill into the rock to support this bs? What if it breaks and the material ends up in the river? Bad idea jeans!


----------



## tango (Feb 1, 2006)

haters gonna hate


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

As I understand it, this article isn't complete, and this not actually a done deal. There evidently is an appeal of one aspect of this decision and a separate lawsuit against the State park agency on the issuance of the permit. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Brotorboat (Apr 14, 2009)

Good news for now...

But...

I am willing to bet that it will be passed. Money ALMOST ALWAYS wins.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

tango said:


> haters gonna hate


Yep Hahaha..

I continue to enjoy his art.


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

They are going to put nearly 9,000 boreholes in the river banks to hold the 1,200 anchors and concrete pads used to support the spans.

Rifle Gap was on private land and the landowners did want the pads to remain as keepsakes of the project.


----------



## TheKid (Aug 25, 2004)

"Drawing visitors to Colorado to see this work will support jobs in the tourism industry and bring attention to the tremendous outdoor recreation opportunities,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.

Bullshit!!!!

What a colossal waste of money and resources!!!


----------



## BellaBoater (Jun 24, 2011)

*is everyone angry?*

Hi everyone. I can understand the environmental concerns, plus bringing people to our fair (and quiet) state, but has anyone considered it's going to be just beautiful? 

Christo is a world renowned artist I learned about in elementary school who funds his own art AND CLEAN UP. he produces renderings of what his ideas could be and then sells these to raise the funding to make it happen. 

I'm not an advocate of destroying nature ever, but I think this is going to be an experience of a lifetime to paddle with friends and family through a moving piece of art. 

I'd like to suggest if you have concerns to the project instead of trying to kill the dream outline concerns that you have and get in touch with the project with these concerns to try and make the project happen AND not effect our environment. 

That is you could always keep the negative energy flowing and put it towards killing the dream too. best of luck.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

BellaBoater said:


> Hi everyone. I can understand the environmental concerns, plus bringing people to our fair (and quiet) state, but has anyone considered it's going to be just beautiful?
> 
> Christo is a world renowned artist I learned about in elementary school who funds his own art AND CLEAN UP. he produces renderings of what his ideas could be and then sells these to raise the funding to make it happen.
> 
> ...


No, not all of us angry but most of us who think its cool choose to not comment at this point. I have only been involved in about 6000 threads started about this and I generally come away angry so I will do my best to not get involved this time but dont think you are alone in thinking its ok. My favorite comment is that its a waste of money. Everybody talks about stimulating the economy and here is a project that will and its private money so let the rich spend. Doesnt bother me at all.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Word around the campfire is that parks plans to ration private boats / boaters during the display. 

Going to be interesting to watch this one play out to say the least.

Yep art....


----------



## BellaBoater (Jun 24, 2011)

gh said:


> No, not all of us angry but most of us who think its cool choose to not comment at this point. I have only been involved in about 6000 threads started about this and I generally come away angry so I will do my best to not get involved this time but dont think you are alone in thinking its ok. My favorite comment is that its a waste of money. Everybody talks about stimulating the economy and here is a project that will and its private money so let the rich spend. Doesnt bother me at all.


Thank you


----------



## TheKid (Aug 25, 2004)

The spending of this money is the issue. People can’t get home and small business loans, but a project like this can be funded? We have a failing education system that is out of date and underfunded; so much so that we are cutting teachers, and increasing class sizes. And money (doesn’t matter who’s) is going to be wasted on this. We are in the midst of an energy crisis and we are going to spend valuable resources creating these materials, trucking them out there, and installing them. For what? Colorado is so beautiful why add some man made drapes only to take them down shortly after. 
This is a waste.


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

RDNEK said:


> Word around the campfire is that parks plans to ration private boats / boaters during the display.
> 
> Going to be interesting to watch this one play out to say the least.
> 
> Yep art....


Limit boating? Like permits? Will we have to pay to float under it? So un-Ark.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

If it does go through....it will be an area to avoid for a few years.....unless you like to be stuck in traffic. :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## Brotorboat (Apr 14, 2009)

TheKid said:


> The spending of this money is the issue. People can’t get home and small business loans, but a project like this can be funded? We have a failing education system that is out of date and underfunded; so much so that we are cutting teachers, and increasing class sizes. And money (doesn’t matter who’s) is going to be wasted on this. We are in the midst of an energy crisis and we are going to spend valuable resources creating these materials, trucking them out there, and installing them. For what? Colorado is so beautiful why add some man made drapes only to take them down shortly after.
> This is a waste.


It is, supposedly, all out of his own pocket. But, what most people don't consider is the countless hours that have been put in, over the years, drawing up the paper work, drafting environmental impact plans, the phone calls, the luncheons, the meetings...etc..etc..I would LOVE to see the total on that. I bet it is STAGGERING. 

Wouldn't that money have been better spent protecting a river, locking up another fine chunk of land to protect from ourselves or reversing damage that has already been done. 

That would just make WAY TOO MUCH sense...


----------



## bonzola (Apr 13, 2005)

BellaBoater said:


> but has anyone considered it's going to be just beautiful?
> 
> 
> Beautiful? You`re kidding, right? This is absolutely ridiculous...


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

RDNEK said:


> Word around the campfire is that parks plans to ration private boats / boaters during the display.
> 
> Going to be interesting to watch this one play out to say the least.
> 
> Yep art....


That will be interesting. Especially the rationing of private boaters on a roadside stretch.....not sure how they will enforce it when you can launch and take out at any fishing access or highway pull-off. It will amount to lots of time and effort by the rangers.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Yep, this is stupid. If anyone else likes protecting rivers, and not decorating them like they're some upscale Manhattan loft, keep sending your emails to the state, the BLM, anyone involved. We don't need this shit just because some retarded artist wants to make nature prettier.


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

Randaddy said:


> Yep, this is stupid. If anyone else likes protecting rivers, and not decorating them like they're some upscale Manhattan loft, keep sending your emails to the state, the BLM, anyone involved. We don't need this shit just because some retarded artist wants to make nature prettier.


The Ark is flanked by a railroad and/or dirt road with lots of traffic for much of its boatable length. It has hundreds of people pushing rubber and plastic down its length for the better part of 6 months of the year. There's trackhoes and heavy equipment that have been driven into the water to "improve" the riverbed for our recreational enjoyment. 
How is this project any different?


----------



## BellaBoater (Jun 24, 2011)

TheKid said:


> The spending of this money is the issue. People can’t get home and small business loans, but a project like this can be funded? We have a failing education system that is out of date and underfunded; so much so that we are cutting teachers, and increasing class sizes. And money (doesn’t matter who’s) is going to be wasted on this. We are in the midst of an energy crisis and we are going to spend valuable resources creating these materials, trucking them out there, and installing them. For what? Colorado is so beautiful why add some man made drapes only to take them down shortly after.
> This is a waste.


Christo and Jeanne-Claude, Over The River, Colorado, Art project | Over the River

ok there's the link to the official site of the project. 

Quit your uneducated whining and do some research you children. this project is going to BRING in millions of dollars, tourists and attention. This project is going to be a gift by a wealthy benefactor and all the materials used are going to be cleaned up and recycled all under his own sponsored dollar all of which will be paying unemployed coloradans. 

here's some highlight quotes from the site

"Through the sale of his original works of art, Christo funds 100-percent of costs associated with the permitting process, manufacturing, installation and removal of Over The River. This includes all direct expenses to create the temporary work of art, as well as costs that result from it (e.g. environmental analysis, traffic control, trash removal and sanitation). The temporary work of art will be created without public subsidy or taxpayer support, because Christo and Jeanne-Claude have never accepted viewing fees, sponsorships or outside investments of any kind."

"The materials will be recycled."

"As with all previous art projects, Over The River is entirely financed by Christo, through the sale by his CVJ Corporation (Christo Javacheff, President) of Christo's preparatory drawings, collages, scale models, lithographs, and early works from the fifties and sixties. The artist does not accept sponsorship of any kind."


----------



## TheKid (Aug 25, 2004)

The work and drawings look far better then the crap that was the Valley Curtain at Rifle Gap, i will give you that. But much remains to be seen. Of course his website and website supporting the project is going to say exactly what you want to hear, and glorify the work!

On top of the cost, what is the carbon foot print of this "project"? Do you realize the amount of energy that will be consumed to make this possible, the amount of energy it takes to recycle that material. It is a massive waste of resources. Used to create nothing, something that will just be taken down and go away! If the man wants to make an impact do some art work on and restore any of the countless bridges in colorado that are in disrepair!

There is no way that this project will bring "millions" in tourist attention. The art museum has trouble with funding and they actually have works that look good and are meaningful; as opposed to this.


----------



## nicho (Mar 18, 2009)

CGM said:


> The Ark is flanked by a railroad and/or dirt road with lots of traffic for much of its boatable length. It has hundreds of people pushing rubber and plastic down its length for the better part of 6 months of the year. There's trackhoes and heavy equipment that have been driven into the water to "improve" the riverbed for our recreational enjoyment.
> How is this project any different?


Are you serious? Traveling a river in a raft or kayak does not even compare this project. The fact that a road a and a railroad are near the river does not mean we need more shit around the river. If you can't enjoy rivers and nature the way they are and need crap like this to "enhance" them stay the *%#$ home! The money and resources used to create this pointless useless project could be used to clean up the railroads trash along the river. I and others would volunteer days to help with this.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

CGM said:


> The Ark is flanked by a railroad and/or dirt road with lots of traffic for much of its boatable length. It has hundreds of people pushing rubber and plastic down its length for the better part of 6 months of the year. There's trackhoes and heavy equipment that have been driven into the water to "improve" the riverbed for our recreational enjoyment.
> How is this project any different?


Yes I'm familiar with the Arkansas river and its history of use. I wasn't around to comment when the river management plan or the railroads were being developed. I expressed my concern about changing the river bed when it has been altered. 

So are you suggesting that the place is already ruined so let's keep adding impact? I still get a pretty natural experience when I float down there; this will certainly change that. Just because a place isn't pristine doesn't mean it should be open to every whacko with a bolt of shiny fabric!




BellaBoater said:


> Quit your uneducated whining and do some research you children. this project is going to BRING in millions of dollars, tourists and attention.


So we're children because you're a sellout? If somebody spent big bucks and hired a bunch of Coloradoans to wrap Mount Elbert in tin foil would you support that too? Many of us children have been involved at every step of the comment phase, have read the articles, and are informed. We just don't support something purely for economic benefit. The Arkansas already brings in more money than it should. It's resources are already exploited. This is too much.

This is the problem with this state. Too many people from back east that worship money.


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

nicho said:


> If you can't enjoy rivers and nature the way they are and need crap like this to "enhance" them stay the *%#$ home!


I guess you've never used the playpark in BV, or anywhere else for that matter. 
I personally don't have an opinion one way or another about the aesthetics of the project..there's part of me that thinks it could be cool, and then there's a part of me that doesn't think the Ark Valley could be any more beautiful. 
However, I do see the project as being a net benefit for the valley from an economic perspective. And I think the goal is not to permanently alter or impact the river cooridor, and I think this is possible. My point about the trains and roads is that this area sees tremendous pressure, and imo, the project doesn't seem like it will add significant additional pressure to the river cooridor, especially since it isn't going to be permanent. 
Furthermore, its a false dilema to argue that the dollars could be spent in a better way. Those dollars would not/won't be there if Christo didn't have a desire to direct them there. They would be spent somewhere else, on another project that he wants to do...but you can feel free to think that you know better how to spend someone else's money.


----------



## nicho (Mar 18, 2009)

CGM said:


> I guess you've never used the playpark in BV, or anywhere else for that matter.
> 
> This project does not compare to the playpark. Playparks are places where people can learn a skill and practice a sport. Playparks don't restrict river access. If you like art go to an art gallery or maybe a museum. This has no place on the river! And if you think it does stay home, you don't belong on the river. This guy can waste his money all he wants. This is about him impacting the river.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

The project has already got the graffiti train along this section to be moved. A huge improvement already.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

TheKid said:


> The spending of this money is the issue. People can’t get home and small business loans, but a project like this can be funded? We have a failing education system that is out of date and underfunded; so much so that we are cutting teachers, and increasing class sizes. And money (doesn’t matter who’s) is going to be wasted on this. We are in the midst of an energy crisis and we are going to spend valuable resources creating these materials, trucking them out there, and installing them. For what? Colorado is so beautiful why add some man made drapes only to take them down shortly after.
> This is a waste.


Education underfunded...are you kidding me! Try reallocating and cutting administrators and back office people.


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

nicho;254488
This project does not compare to the playpark. Playparks are places where people can learn a skill and practice a sport. Playparks don't restrict river access. If you like art go to an art gallery or maybe a museum. This has no place on the river! And if you think it does stay home said:


> I think you're a pretty poor judge about how and where I should spend my time.
> Thanks for the uninteresting response.
> Seeing as how this isn't going to get answered here, I guess we'll just have to see what happens.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

To each his own, I guess.

While I personally think it's dumb and a waste of money, I can see why people would support it. Will it really bring millions of _additional_ dollars of economic benefit? I doubt it. Will it have some benefit, probably.

Will I avoid the river for several years? Not a snowball's chance in hell. I will avoid it like the plague for two weeks, while these "millions" of tourists come to look at their "art".

Will it have an impact? Of course it will. I just hope it's minimal. I hope they have defined what "clean up" means. If it's just taking down fabric, then that's not right. If all that is left are a few (or several thousand) holes where anchors and posts, etc were, I'll probably never notice or know the difference compared to the other impacts left behind. At least he's going to clean up. The railroad hasn't...

This does too compare to a playpark, or moving rocks to make a river safer, etc. It has an ipact just like any other project. sure, a lot of us would prefer a playpark, but some obviously prefer the art.

To each his own....

Yeah, another flaming thread! LOL


----------



## BellaBoater (Jun 24, 2011)

In lieu of your comment:

"So we're children because you're a sellout? If somebody spent big bucks and hired a bunch of Coloradoans to wrap Mount Elbert in tin foil would you support that too? Many of us children have been involved at every step of the comment phase, have read the articles, and are informed. We just don't support something purely for economic benefit. The Arkansas already brings in more money than it should. It's resources are already exploited. This is too much.

This is the problem with this state. Too many people from back east that worship money.[/QUOTE]"

I pointed out the monetary benefits because others were complaining about it taking funding from more worthy projects like schools or town functions when the reality is that this will fund towns and districts. that is uneducated. much like your comment. and it was the local Coloradoans who were worried about your precious dollars. 

there are plenty of people that think this is going to be a beautiful, temporary installation. if you don't like the art you are entitled to that, but being negative about it does nothing but try and ruin it for others. if you have concerns about damages, let those be heard to the committees so they can be dealt with and then you won't be such an angry person.


----------



## TheKid (Aug 25, 2004)

Bella you are uneducated! Schools are funded through property taxes solely. This will do nothing for property taxes!!! 

This project is just plain idiotic, let Bulgarian Mr. Christo ruin a river somewhere else in the world. 

Why this spot from his website.
"They drove 14,000 miles in the Rocky Mountains and inspected 89 rivers in search of the river that would provide all the characteristics they were looking for. After all of this research, they decided that the Arkansas River in the state of Colorado best fit the needs for the project."

So at 30 mpg that is 466.67 gallons of gas. The burning of one gallon of gas produces 19 pounds of CO2. So that is 8,866.67 pounds of carbon dioxide just to find the location. Not to mention everything else. 

How is this project going to affect wildlife in the area, ie big horn sheep and bald eagles? Or the famous may fly hatches on the river. the aquatic life in the river needs sunlight. Hello...this project is uneducated!!!


----------



## tallboy (Apr 20, 2006)

It is going to be awesome to boat through. All the haters will love it too. Keep beating on the dead horse, I will wait in line to put on the river without any complaints.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

tallboy said:


> It is going to be awesome to boat through. All the haters will love it too. Keep beating on the dead horse, I will wait in line to put on the river without any complaints.


thumbs up!


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

When did boating come to leave no carbon footprint? Some of you think it is a waste of money, well it's not your money, so you have no point. Christo sounds like a badass to me. He does not take sponsorships, so no bud-light logos will be found on the side of the river, he pledges to recycle and he thought out of 89 rivers he saw that the Ark was the best for his project. Awesome! I remember when he did the Saffron gates in New York and how much attention that got. I look forward to seeing the benefits in Colorado from this art project. It will bring in more money from tourists and hopefully give a boost to Colorado's economy so that we can start caring about the real issue of educating our children and a viable workforce.


----------



## BellaBoater (Jun 24, 2011)

TheKid said:


> Bella you are uneducated! Schools are funded through property taxes solely. This will do nothing for property taxes!!!
> 
> I never said it would fund schools or property tax. I said it would fund districts. the schools were mentioned by a previous post as where the money could go. so you're off on that one. but you do have a good point on the may fly hatch and the birds.
> 
> ...


----------



## steven (Apr 2, 2004)

gonna be cool all the way around i expect


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

Finally a reason to come boat the Ark ....... can't wait. Gonna git me a big bag o boomers and some turkey legs and let the freak flag fly.

Should be a shitshow of epic porportions - I can't wait. If you can't tell if I am being serious...neither can I.


----------



## saline (Jun 14, 2009)

You can't improve on nature.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

saline said:


> You can't improve on nature.


Actually you can, "pristine wilderness" is a myth, the Americans that were here before the Europeans arrived did much to change and manage "nature" 

You should read 1491 and let go of your myths.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

BrownTrout, I would rather we keep all art from the view of the public than educate a single child. The workforce will become viable when we stop creating such good competition.

You eat crepes.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

I like art. I like monumental architecture. I'm sure I'll paddle under this just to experience this man's vision of art. I may even find it inspiring. He seems responsible, within his context. I'm sure this will bring jobs and money to the valley. 

However, holy shit! What a massive expression of ego this is. How white can you get? He may be able to work the system and make it go and even "clean up" after himself but what a curious way to spend so much creative energy. It feels like a big city performance art piece imposed on nature. Does any one man have the right to do his art on this scale?


----------



## saline (Jun 14, 2009)

Jensjustduckie said:


> Actually you can, "pristine wilderness" is a myth, the Americans that were here before the Europeans arrived did much to change and manage "nature"
> 
> You should read 1491 and let go of your myths.


It was simply a statement that man does nothing to improve nature.

As for my myths, most of my ancestors were already on this continent prior to 1491.
tsa-la-gi


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Jensjustduckie said:


> You should read 1491 and let go of your myths.


Most myths come from stories. While that book was interesting, it really seemed torqued about trying to prove that Native Americans were just as fckd up as we are now. It's been a while since I read it, but now I can picture it being trotted up on Fox news.


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

Isn't man a part of nature, just as much as nature is a part of man?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

I am not necessarily for or against the project....but it's not going to be all $ signs for everyone. It sounds like it may even put some float fishing companies out of business:

Opposition expresses disappointment with

and for those that are strongly opposed, I suggest you check out this website:

Say NO to Christo - Rags Over the Arkansas River ROAR-Colorado

"Rags over the Arkansas" is the opposition group to the project, and they currently are plaintiffs along with Ark Anglers and Arkansas River Fly Shop in a lawsuit filed against State Parks because "what they did was illegal. They turned absolute control of the river over to Christo ... . He will have total control over rafting, fishing and everything else for five years."


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

BrownTrout said:


> Isn't man a part of nature, just as much as nature is a part of man?


We don't all have little birds living in our facial hair BrownTrout...


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

I also read where he is planning to cut the cable anchors off at the ground instead of removing them. I can see them shutting down that portion of the river when they start putting up the cables......and taking them down. That's called a public hazzard and you should expect to be kept away so you don't get hurt by the construction of this art project. I figured they would at least go to permits to control the traffic under this art project......looks like they will be. Maybe you can buy them on line or through ticket horse. There is no way they will let just anyone put on the river during this ragged display. 

So for those of you who want this project to proceed.....expect river and road closures, permits and government control of this section of river for the next few years. I rarely raft it now and plan to avoid it like the plague. I do feel sorry for my friends who live along Hwy 50 and will have to put up with this construction project.......it sure sucks to be them.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

I'm a huge fan of public art, however I'm strongly opposed to this project. We have beautiful towns, cities, and man-made infrastructure that is truly a work of art. Our beautiful man-made world isn't nearly as grand nor as beautiful as the natural world around us. It's ridiculous to try to impose our ugly man-made world in a large scale and permanent way on what's left of the natural environment of the Arkansas river. If you want to beautify the man-made whitewater park or town corridor, for a few hundred yards, then that's cool with me. If you want to hang rags over the downtown Denver skyline for a day or two, I'm down because it's man-made art attempting to beautify man-made art. When you start decorating nature, especially through a large scale construction project that does leave impact behind, it becomes an assault on the environment. It's irresponsible and wasteful. 

My 2 cents... not that I should care, since I rarely float that stretch anyway, and probably won't once they make it indoor.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Reading Cutch's post it occurred to me that it would be pretty cool and a lot less controversial if Christo did this over the Pueblo play park.The sides are already lined with what I have heard is the worlds longest mural.They could fill in the gaps or extend it farther up or down river with more art by local and international talent.It would be Christo's art over an art gallery of sorts and promote art in general.They could also promote the hell out of rafting up river and draw in people to commercially run 1/2 day trips on The Gorge and Parkdale in conjunction with viewing the exhibit.Pueblo would certainly benefit economically as would the Ark Valley in general,maybe not as much as in the proposed location but they'd be spared the bullshit too.I know probably a moot point.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

A part of the deal is that Christo has to pay for adding drops or improving existing drops.Outfitters could make out like bandits taking art lover's kids down the short run and/or with tube rentals[ if the insurance they already carry were applicable[?] ].You could boat under it ,but it would be more of a pedestrian art fair.Market package deals to view the exhiibit-hotel /restaraunt deals-rafting or other area attractions for weekend getaways.Benefits would be spread along an I-25-US 50-24TO I-70 OR 285 loop concentrated in Pueblo and the Ark. Move the Rags could be their motto.


----------



## justin.payne (Oct 28, 2009)

Randaddy said:


> We don't all have little birds living in our facial hair BrownTrout...


Now that there is just funny... the bird is the word.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

if this is the new idea of beautiful im never coming back to colorado.

i have more than one safety concern with this uneducated "Art Show", let alone the environmental impact of 6 more miles along the river.


----------



## headtrip (Feb 1, 2011)

So..... In my experiences as an old man and a pyro I have found that many lightweight fabrics are quite flammable when a little upstream wind is present. What happens when my celebratory cigar gets lost on some fabric above the river with a little wind? 

Just sayin'


----------



## tskoe23 (Jun 19, 2010)

"So..... In my experiences as an old man and a pyro I have found that many lightweight fabrics are quite flammable when a little upstream wind is present. What happens when my celebratory cigar gets lost on some fabric above the river with a little wind? 

Just saying'"

Yes. Direct Action, finally somebody actually wanting to do something and not just bitch. I like it.


----------



## tango (Feb 1, 2006)

headtrip said:


> So..... In my experiences as an old man and a pyro I have found that many lightweight fabrics are quite flammable when a little upstream wind is present. What happens when my celebratory cigar gets lost on some fabric above the river with a little wind?
> 
> Just sayin'


internet shit talkers are pussies. no way you'll do it.


----------



## MountainMedic (Apr 24, 2010)

Is the gauntlet down?


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

This project is bad for the river, bad for people that use the highway, bad for the environment and my bet is the clean up never happens any where close to actually fixing the damage done. This is a desert river and takes many decades to repair itself from even minor damage. Any money made during the "show" is going to be lost many times over during the so called cleanup actions.

One of my "professional" art friends tells me that art is anything that the person viewing it thinks is art. Well this type of "art" is not suited for the Arkansas River Gorge area - at least in my opinion.

We have all these so called "keep it natural" decision makers running the forest service, I was told one day by the camp host as I wanted to launch my kayak from the rocky river bed at the forest service camp on lower piedra river close to Pagosa Springs CO that "walking into the river bed from the bank would cause erosion and was prohibited and if I did not want a fine, to load my kayak on the truck and leave the area". Now these yahoos from where ever want to hang a bunch of stuff from one of the finest river banks in CO and completely alter the balance of what is left of nature on this river for decades and the project gets consideration. What is going on?

If the art community has all this money to spend, spend it to buy land in the watershed and protect the headwaters of this river from further exploitation. 

Some one posted to do the "art" down in the concrete canyons of the Pueblo area. For a lot of reasons this is a great suggestion, traffic control and river bank damage being major positive ones - move this ill conceived "art" down stream.

The entire Ark upper basin has been "loved" to the point it is either at or close to being maxed out. I admit that I am one of the thousands of people who make multiple long distance drives to enjoy what this area from Canon City up to BV has to offer. I leave my footprints along the river access points and a bunch of gas, food, lodging money for the home boys. And, do not regret spending any of it. I do not leave a high impact erosion prone set of foundations to mess up the environment. 

I hope the decision makers say NO to this project in the gorge. If it has to happen move it to Pueblo's Concrete Canon.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

My thoughts were to collect all you buzzards underware and hang it from the cables before the fabric goes up. Take a bunch of pictures of it.....put them in fancy frames.......set up a booth along the road......sell it as local art. What do ya think?? We could make a bunch of beer money and even sell buzz calanders and G strings signed by our Betty Buzzards.


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

For some reason, I had the impression that this "temporary" art installment was going to be constructed, displayed, and removed over the course of several months. Reading some of the posts, and looking into it a bit more, sounds like the environmental impact study says 2 years, and the opposition is thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-5 years. 
If it was going to take 6 months from cradle to grave, I think that the impact would be negligable from an environmental perspective, and the economic impact over a short period of a $50 million capital injection would be good for the valley. 
But stretch this out over 5 years, and I would agree with the opposition that this is too much for the river, and would argue that the potential loss in traditional tourism and recreation from the disruption of the installation would mitigate the dollars being brought in by Christo. Even if it only takes 2 years, I do have concern that this is too long and would put undue pressure on the watershed. 
I don't have all the info, and I think there's alot of misinfo out there, but I think that it would be helpful for those in the opposition camp to be constructive in their opposition. I think suggestions like an earlier poster had to move the installation to Pueblo is awesome, and could be taken seriously by Christo. Maybe reduce the scale of the project. Shorten the length and place it over the playpark in downtown BV, so instead of 6 miles, you only have a mile or less, which may shorten the project time enough to reduce alot of the potential impact...


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

I think that would be called vandalism. You sound like a great guy. If you disagree with something you destroy it? I know of several elementary schools that could help with your impulsive destructive behavior. This art is not installed yet. Anything could happen. If you think it's crap, then support one of the groups currently against it. Christo went through the designated process to make this happen I'm sure there is something peaceful you could do to make it not happen.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Fuck that. Burn it. BrownTrout, can you put me in touch with those schools?


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

Ranchild, you would not burn it. Don't be a part of the "Internet threat game" it does not suit you.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

For more information and a constructive way to react to this thing, folks might want to take a look at roarcolorado.org

There, as Paul Harvey used to say, you can get the rest of the story.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

lhowemt said:


> Most myths come from stories. While that book was interesting, it really seemed torqued about trying to prove that Native Americans were just as fckd up as we are now. It's been a while since I read it, but now I can picture it being trotted up on Fox news.


In some areas resources were pushed to their limits but the management of resources such as forests and herd animals was something we could learn from today.

The book was FAR from anything Faux news related and the author admits that certain theories cannot be proved. In general the book was about the fact that the Americas were NOT populated by small bands of tribal savages but were populated by millions of people who had larger cities than their contemporary European neighbors.


----------



## headtrip (Feb 1, 2011)

tango said:


> internet shit talkers are pussies. no way you'll do it.


As you so eloquently demonstrate.


----------



## chepora (Feb 6, 2008)

So if we don't agree with this project, is there a petition circulating? Can we get it shut down...I can't imagine it would be good for the herds of deer and bighorn sheep that use the Arkansas for water, nor for raptors and waterfowl or other animals in the corridor. I would really like for us buzzards to join together and get this stopped. I visited the ROAR site but am unsure as to the effectiveness of it.


----------



## Badazws6 (Mar 4, 2007)

I have heard concerns by people that are closer to the project then I that are very close to what caverdan alludes to. It now seems that the cable anchors are not going to be removed. It also appears there are plans for a permit system by AHRA during the viewing portion of the project that appears setup to be able to scaled out to other sections of the river on a more permanent basis. By the way, all that permit planning by AHRA was paid for out of the Christo project slush fund.

To me it sounds like a way to get an extra $10 pp out of boaters on top of parking to me in the long run. I for one do not like the sound of paying almost $20 to run numbers.


----------



## webby (Jul 11, 2008)

Voice your opinions about altering the Arkansas River to... http://www.coloradodot.info/topcontent/contact-cdot
[email protected]
[email protected]
Governor Hickenlooper


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

caspermike said:


> if this is the new idea of beautiful im never coming back to colorado.
> 
> i have more than one safety concern with this uneducated "Art Show", let alone the environmental impact of 6 more miles along the river.


I actually thought it might be cool to see, but that picture looks terrifying- I'm not usually claustrophobic, but then when I'm in a building, I expect to be in a building; on the river, I expect to see the sky. I would not advocate the destructive suggestions on here, but it does make you think... are they going to police the river to make sure this thing doesn't accidentally or intentionally catch fire? What if it came down on boaters?

Look on the bright side, the project completion date is Fall of 2014- Christo is 76 years old- the odds are in our favor that this project will not come to fruition.



> Fuck that. Burn it. BrownTrout, can you put me in touch with those schools?


Randaddy- as always, you crack me up.


----------



## Brotorboat (Apr 14, 2009)

All those in favor of this project keep throwing out the point about how much money it will bring in...

Once again I will say..

This CRAP has cost US a TON in tax dollars ALREADY. Who do you think pays to push all the paper?? This has been going on for years!! It should have been stopped from the very beginning! And, unfortunately, it's probably too late. 

I'm willing to bet that all of you folks who support this nonsense will probably eat your words when it's all said and done. That's the American way...go for the money and then find someone to blame when it doesn't work out the way it was supposed to.


----------



## nicho (Mar 18, 2009)

If this piece of shit goes through its time to ask, what would Hayduke do.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

cayo 2 said:


> A part of the deal is that Christo has to pay for adding drops or improving existing drops....


But aren't we opposed to altering the river? LOL 

Oh wait, it's OK if it's a play park or adding a drop.

It's not OK if it's moving rocks around a hazardous rapid where people are killed.

It's OK if it's under the guise of "art".


----------



## skipowpow (Mar 1, 2011)

nicho said:


> If this piece of shit goes through its time to ask, what would Hayduke do.


He got fed up and left Colorado 25 years ago.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Boiler , 

Are you familiar with the Pueblo playpark? It is the epitome of urban renewal,a completely manmade rundown industrial area was revamped into a park with paths on the side,several manmade drops -none natural,sloping concrete walls -something akin to the LA ''River" that they always have car chases in in movies-covered with drawings/murals ,adjacent to residential,industrial,and downtown area in the middle of a mid sized[100,000 + ] city.All the arguments about the environment being less than pristine along the Ark apply tenfold here.No I DON'T LIKE ALTERING NATURAL RIVERS,though i don't recall chiming in on those threads.Quartzite should have been left alone,as for some dangerous frequently commercially rafted spot on the Poudre or Ark being cemented in, i'm on the fence leaning towards" no avoid the damn thing".I didn't say the drops were art just a price Christo has to pay the community for allowing his project. Not trying to get too shitty with you ,this Christo dude really gets people at each others throats for some reason.I never expected anybody to take the idea seriously.

Matty , You may be right ,but only time will tell how much it generates.How much public money has been spent on this seemingly endless beaucratic process?I 'm not usually the guy advocating profiteering off stuff,just thats the pros and cons of this endless argument; the economic benefits and cultural value of the art versus environmental impacts,traffic jams disruption of river activities,the costs you point out,and the prejudices of people such as myself that just think his art sucks.


Mike, Don't hold this bs against the whole state bro.


Steven, You were right on the last Christo thread.I never should have mentioned Mapplethorpe,only a small % of his work is "shock jockish" most isn't and is quite good.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

okieboater said:


> We have all these so called "keep it natural" decision makers running the forest service, I was told one day by the camp host as I wanted to launch my kayak from the rocky river bed at the forest service camp on lower piedra river close to Pagosa Springs CO that "walking into the river bed from the bank would cause erosion and was prohibited and if I did not want a fine, to load my kayak on the truck and leave the area".
> 
> 
> If the art community has all this money to spend, spend it to buy land in the watershed and protect the headwaters of this river from further exploitation.


So an ex-security guard type guy with a small penis, who never got the sheriffs job he really wanted tells you, you can't access the river from a FS campground and you listened to him?

This puts your whole argument into jeopardy. 

Great idea on the buy up the river though. Good luck with that.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

oh yeah,lol the guy that wants to hang buzzard's underwear on clotheslines over the river.... see Christo started another argument just since i posted...


----------



## jimr (Sep 8, 2007)

One gust of wind and....she gone.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

"So an ex-security guard type guy with a small penis, who never got the sheriffs job he really wanted tells you, you can't access the river from a FS campground and you listened to him?

This puts your whole argument into jeopardy."

Good points Senor carvedog!!! Thanks for giving me a big laugh!!!

That incident was a good many years ago when I was much younger and respected people in authority over campground management. Now that I understand these "camp hosts" are mostly over the hill retired yahoos with about as much authority me being a beat up over the hill kayaker has, I would most likely tell him to call the Ranger except these days most Rangers I see carry Glock 19's along with a badge. The fact we were leaving our trucks there for an up canyon run might have been a factor in our thinking. We ended up parking on the paved highway off the right of way and doing that delightful jewel of a CO creek. Thinking back tho, your description probably fit this particular camp host.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

cayo 2 said:


> Boiler ,
> 
> Are you familiar with the Pueblo playpark?[\Quote]
> I wasn't referring to any one playpark in particular, or even the Ark in particular. I just find it ironic that it's either OK to alter the river or not OK to alter the river, depending on "what's in it for me". It wasn't even directed at you really, just a general disbelief at how the Buzz looks at things through rose colored glasses (or beer goggles) and not really from any broader perspective.
> ...


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

hey i'm tryin' not to argue so much,it ain't easy on here ! i see your point but i think the main difference is it is in a town and already manmade.Where they are planning this project at least the river is natural if not the shoreline.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Takemetotheriver and BrownTrout, will you please burn it with me?


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

Depends on what we are burning.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

I am a moderator for mountainbuzz and this is my personal observation of your comments and reflect my opinions and my opinions alone. 

Many of you are discussing breaking the law on a public forum and these posts do not go away and will be available to the authorities if they were to ever take you seriously or there were an actual crime to investigate. It would not be the first time that this forum has been used in a criminal case. Remember that you are liable for what you say, no matter where you say it. 

Most of you are acting like children that had your toys taken away. Grow up and find a productive way of expressing your dislike for this project. If your current dialogue continues I will consider locking this topic. I will open a discussion with the other moderators to discuss those options.


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

I agree with GH. Although it feels like it sometimes, this isn't a campfire in the middle of a river canyon where we can air our grievances without people listening. Try to imagine the hassle you're going to go through if someone else does something extremely stupid, but it's YOU that has to hire a defense attorney because of some bold threats you typed on a forum a year ago.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

gh said:


> If your current dialogue continues I will consider locking this topic. I will open a discussion with the other moderators to discuss those options.


GH, everything was OBVIOUSLY stated in jest. Speech is free in this country, particularly when it's intended to be funny - so nobody is breaking the law here. If somebody ends up burning this piece of shit, I mean art, I will celebrate by dancing. I doubt I'll get in trouble with the law, as I live and work very far from the Ark.

You're just butt hurt because you want to see this stupid little art project come to fruition and some of us would rather see it burn.  Quit being such a pussy and let people speak their minds.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

You want to lock this thread, but you've let others that have been far worse go? Wow. Do what you have to do I guess...


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Badazws6 said:


> It also appears there are plans for a permit system by AHRA during the viewing portion of the project that appears setup to be able to scaled out to other sections of the river on a more permanent basis.


You are right about this and it is very real. 

Or if it is not clear - Parks is going to make Christo pay all the costs to create a system to ration private boaters with the intent of moving this system to other sections as needed.

Boaters will be rationed during the project and Christo is paying for a bunch of extra "staff" or security to make sure this goes smoothly. 

The art continues.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

I have to agree with GH's approach here. There are pretty clear legal implications to the actions contemplated in a few recent posts, about which the moderators have a legitimate right to be concerned, in my view. 

Yes, over the years other topics have touched on activity that might be viewed under the law as criminal. But this seems to me quite a bit different than the usual banter about drugs and other river subculture stuff, which has been sort of part of the Buzz over the years. 

Torching Christo's "art" would go far beyond vandalism of a sign or poaching a river. It would be a very visible state crime, and even possibly result in a Federal arson charge. And I can understand why the folks running the Buzz would not want to be anywhere near an accusation that they helped propagate a conspiracty to commit arson. 

Sound far-fetched? Well, maybe a bit. But it's within the realm of probabilities the way things are going these days. And I'm sure the Buzz's bank account is nowhere near ready to buy the kind of legal muscle needed to fight charges of even tangential involvement in a major felony.

Final thought, even though I'm not a lawyer. Seems to me that individuals certainly can express whatever views they like in an available public forum. The forum, however, has no obligation to allow discussions of criminal activity to go forward -- and might even have an affirmative duty to act to stop them. And the First Amendment doesn't apply, since this isn't a government activity. 

FWIW, from a guy who doesn't want Christo to have his way either.

Rich Phillips


----------



## BrownTrout (Jul 1, 2004)

Randaddy said:


> We don't all have little birds living in our facial hair BrownTrout...


That's cause when you a grow a beard it looks like feces on your face. Perhaps from all the shit that usually flows from your mouth.


----------



## wasatchbill (Apr 9, 2007)

I understand GHs concern. Its not so clear what is a joke and what isn't on an internet board. Thats why they have smiley faces, frowny faces and such; there is no emotion to a written post, so its hard to interpret. 

I am also reminded of something that happened to a friend of mine, while going through airport security in Florida, to fly to Peru for a mountaineering trip. This was in the late 70s, far before 9/11 and the increased airport security we have now. Airport security asked him what the duffel full of ice screws, ice axes, and crampons was. He said, CLEARLY in jest, "its a bomb". Guess what, they did not think this was funny. Then saying "I'm joking!! It was a joke!!" a hundred times did not help. He was placed in solitary confinement, strip searched, and held for 3 days.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Randaddy said:


> GH, everything was OBVIOUSLY stated in jest. Speech is free in this country, particularly when it's intended to be funny - so nobody is breaking the law here. If somebody ends up burning this piece of shit, I mean art, I will celebrate by dancing. I doubt I'll get in trouble with the law, as I live and work very far from the Ark.
> 
> You're just butt hurt because you want to see this stupid little art project come to fruition and some of us would rather see it burn.  Quit being such a pussy and let people speak their minds.


Its not that obvious that you or any of you were speaking in jest. As far as free speech, I am not a lawyer but there seems to be limits and consequences to every action in my life so I am not sure how FREE anything is. Mountainbuzz is simply the communication medium that allows you the opportunity to speak your mind. You and you alone are responsible for the content of your posts.

Since you are challenging my position on this project. I will restate my thoughts. I probably run parkdale more than most that have posted here and I am happy to see the ugly graffiti train go and I would be happy to see some of the concrete and rebar gone with the $1M that they promised in additional cleanup. I did meet Christo and his partner at old parkdale take out at the very beginning of this project and they did seem like nice people and were very curious about what I thought about the project. They didnt act haughty or pompous like I would have expected. They explained it and I said I couldnt say I was for it but would keep an open mind. They explained they had $10M for cleanup and the additional $1M to improve existing problems on Parkdale. I pointed out the slabs of concrete and rebar along the section and they said yes we could use the money for things like that, well then I was for it and still will be if they follow through with that promise. Now if the AHRA is using this to start a permitting system that's not Christo's fault and a thread should be started about the AHRA. Because I would not be for that in any way.


----------



## BrianP (Nov 13, 2011)

Before jumping down everyone else's throats about their evil "carbon footprint":
Consider the footprint of our sport: Oil is drilled somewhere in the world (burning other oil in the process), then it is shipped to the US, processed once (burning more oil), then shipped elsewhere (burning more oil) to be turned into a material that can be used to mold a kayak (once again burning more oil). Then it's shipped to a manufacturer (yep, more oil) who turns it into a boat, in turn shipping it to a dealer (yes, still more oil burned). Then you go pick it up, and burn hundreds maybe thousands of gallons of gas driving to and from the river and setting shuttle. 
So if you really want to follow it through logically, which group is doing more harm..those trying to make a living by driving a truck and delivering your boat, or the rest of us just out enjoying ourselves paddling every weekend?
I don't know the specifics of the project and am not coming down one way or the other, but when people start attacking others based on their carbon footprint they should take a look inward first.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

There was a map of the locations where the "art" will be located in Salida's newspaper the Mountain Mail, Bureau approves











I guess I didn't realize it was going to be so big.....and they are basically going to cover all the rapids! Doesn't make sense...you think they would want to cover the flats...

here is a little tidbit from the article confirming some negatives:

"The mitigation measures fact sheet released Monday by the Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Field Office addresses key issues regarding bighorn sheep.
It acknowledges significant impact to angling in the immediate area of the project, stipulates at least one lane of traffic on U.S. 50 remain open at all times during the project, and mentions plans to develop a temporary boat rationing system for the exhibition.
Christo said mitigation measures are intensive. He said he isn't knowledgeable about specifics, but has confidence in the abilities of professionals he hired to meet requirements of the environmental impact study."

It also said he had already spent 11 million dollars just getting the project this far....


----------



## russelthelovemuscle (May 23, 2011)

wheres our modern day monkey wrench gang


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

11 Million paying people off.... rediculous idea? gotta be the stupidest thing i have ever heard of thats the only stertch for the canon folk when the gorge is too big for commericial.. and super popular due to the easy access..


----------



## mbannister (May 19, 2006)

Better idea, we take the $1000000 "bonus" clean up money and hire lawyers to sue the railroad till they clean up parkdale, the royal gorge, browns, gore, etc, etc, etc...

Is it silly? Yup. Is it unnecessary? Yep. Will I drive down and boat under it? Hell yeah. Do I wish cristo put it over ten mile so I could make money off it? Yeah. Is it going to destroy or ruin or other wise modify the river? No. It probably has less impact than the cars that drive into river every year or the MINE the thing flows out of or all the custy paddles and P-PM beers that get lost in there. 

Russel, I'm not sure of Hayduke/Bonnie/et als where abouts but I'm guessing they're stopping the keystone pipeline or something that is actually significant. If you care about rivers and the environment this is not the fight to fight, if anything this will get more people to care about the Arkansas who have never heard about it before.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

so you are for possibly not being able to run the river because of safety hazards.. for ruining that environment that needs cleaned? doesnt make sense. but you want to take his money and clean the environment, you can start by taking out the stakes that christo plans to cut off into the ground.. rad. cant wait to not see colorado.. its truely a BIG disappointment to see the Ark of all rivers made into a laughing stock.. might as well build a dam while you are at it. Cant imagine whats going to go down as soon as Christo gets his security crew going.. Wires will be hung accross the river that means they will be drapped through the air probably making boating impassable.. its totally negative. if he wants some art restrore that canyon and create some architecture or something out of the buildings.. wow. not some garbage hanging over your heads. sounds uncharacteristic of a place who pretty much put a ban on drilling holes into the ground for oil and gas, sure leave a bunch of steel in the ground its a great memory of the stupidness of humans. we have starving humans on the planet and we spend money to f*ck up the environment for the sack of a couple dollars? Wow you people who are for it havent experienced anything other than a man made reality. art is what we cant even imagine.. thats true art clean the river dont ruin it.

i dont count on you Christonians to be responsible cause you will more than likely directly profit, greed is a SOB

i also see a lot of swimming in the future of commericial rafting on that section..


----------



## MountainMedic (Apr 24, 2010)

As I posted on another thread, I am a former CO Parks Officer. I spent a season at the Rifle Complex & have seen first hand the damage this "artist" leaves in his wake.

I no longer call the ark my river, its not my backyard anymore. But it will always be a special place to me. It was a huge part of my life & a huge part of the livelyhood of many people close yo me.

I couldn't possibly be more opposed to this boondoggle.


----------



## rvboater19 (May 23, 2011)

It's hard to believe there are people on this site that actually like this guy! WTF!!


----------



## heytat (Jan 5, 2009)

*Here here*



mbannister said:


> Is it silly? Yup. Is it unnecessary? Yep. Will I drive down and boat under it? Hell yeah. Do I wish cristo put it over ten mile so I could make money off it? Yeah. Is it going to destroy or ruin or other wise modify the river? No. It probably has less impact than the cars that drive into river every year or the MINE the thing flows out of or all the custy paddles and P-PM beers that get lost in there....
> 
> ...If you care about rivers and the environment this is not the fight to fight, if anything this will get more people to care about the Arkansas who have never heard about it before.


 
Mbannister, I like how you keep this in perspective. This project is not going into some pristine wilderness area. I think it will be an awesome experience to boat under this and I cant wait to do just that. 

I could possibly see the hazard of tripping over a railroad tie, stumbling over a mine entrance log, and then stubbing your toe on one of Christos left over anchor stubs, but Im willing to risk that. 

Gheesh!


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

willling to risk stubbing your toe, the point all together i want to make is WHY? Why not spend the money to cleanup the environment, he could have a big group of christo parks. Doesnt seem to fit the rich complex though, caring about nature is def. not high on the Agenda


----------



## nicho (Mar 18, 2009)

mbannister said:


> Is it silly? Yup. Is it unnecessary? If you care about rivers and the environment this is not the fight to fight, if anything this will get more people to care about the Arkansas who have never heard about it before.


If you care about rivers and the environment then you must stand up for them in a ALL cases. 

Someone once said, "sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul".


----------



## heytat (Jan 5, 2009)

caspermike said:


> willling to risk stubbing your toe, the point all together i want to make is WHY? Why not spend the money to cleanup the environment, he could have a big group of christo parks. Doesnt seem to fit the rich complex though, caring about nature is def. not high on the Agenda


 
Caspermike, 

No disrespect intended, but I would answer you with this question "Why do you Caspermike spend your money on boating gear and river trips, when you could be spending it to clean up the environment?" I imagine that your answer is similar to "Because it's MY MONEY, and I can do with it what I want" 

I have no doubt that you DO spend some of your money on environmental causes, and that's awesome. I am willing to bet that Christo too uses some of his money on environmental causes as well. 

I am not Pro-Christo, or Anti-Christo, but I do think that each of us has the right to spend our own money where we want to, as long as it is legal to do so. 

You gotta admit that all of us boaters have spent a lot of our own money on doing something that we love to do. We could each of us nationwide spend all of that money on an environmental cause of our choice instead of spending it on our otherwise wasteful hobby, but we choose to continue to pour our cash into new kayaks, rafts, pfd's and shuttle costs, Yeti coolers, cold beer, ice, food and every other new fangled gotta have piece of gear, BECAUSE WE WANT TO!

I gotta respect this guys choice to spend his money on what he obviously loves.....

I hope to see you downstream some day and have a cool chat over a wasteful beer around a costly firepan.

Cheers


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

heytat said:


> Mbannister, I like how you keep this in perspective. This project is not going into some pristine wilderness area. I think it will be an awesome experience to boat under this and I cant wait to do just that.


Why is it when someone wants to do something stupid (mega loads, Christo, XL pipeline, expand dammed reservoirs into wild and scenic rivers, continue the list ad nauseum, someone always says how "it's not like it's (insert term here)? And they choose to insert whatever they want. It's not like it's NOT a road. It's not like it's wilderness. It's not like it's pristine wilderness. It's not like it's not already trashed. Why all the justifications to trash something, just because it's not this or that? Can't we protect places that are moderately trashed? Can't we strive to make them better, to make all places better? OK, let him put it over a dump. THAT would be art, and fitting for him.


----------



## BrianP (Nov 13, 2011)

Again, having never been boated there..I would point out that the purchase of your kayak, vehicle to haul it, and gas to drive it do way more harm than driving stakes into rock. 
Any climbers out there? Don't you put permanent bolts in the rock? What's the difference? Those bolts are serving a purpose..your purpose. Other people could certainly call you out and say, "The mountains are there to look at, not to deface with man made pieces of steel". 
The art or "art" as everyone seems to be calling it, is serving it's purpose, which happens to not coincide with your purpose. Us paddlers do not own the river; what's good for our purposes isn't always good for everyone else and vice versa.


----------



## BrianP (Nov 13, 2011)

..and if there aren't any climbers, how about skiers/snowboarders?
How much land had to be cleared so you could ski? How much steel went into the ground for chairlifts? How much fuel is burned to run them?

Don't take this the wrong way, I kayak, I've skied, and I've snowboarded. To me, it just makes no sense to raise hell over activities (logging, art installations, etc..) when they are at least producing something for the common good, while our RECREATIONAL activities can be just as damaging and serve no one but ourselves.

**If you happen to free climb, ski only backcountry (and ride your bike to the mountain and hike up), or bike to the river with your kayak and gear, you can disregard and my hat is off to you!


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

BrianP said:


> Again, having never been boated there..I would point out that the purchase of your kayak, vehicle to haul it, and gas to drive it do way more harm than driving stakes into rock.
> Any climbers out there? Don't you put permanent bolts in the rock? What's the difference? Those bolts are serving a purpose..your purpose. Other people could certainly call you out and say, "The mountains are there to look at, not to deface with man made pieces of steel".
> The art or "art" as everyone seems to be calling it, is serving it's purpose, which happens to not coincide with your purpose. Us paddlers do not own the river; what's good for our purposes isn't always good for everyone else and vice versa.



I agree that people should be able to spend their money how ever they want...so long as it doens't hurt anybody....but this project is going to cause major problems for the several thousand residents of Freemont County who live in the Bighorn Sheep Canyon. I think the "idea" of the art is neat....but who really wants it in their backyard?

Here is the list of major concerns directly from the opposition's website:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the influx of the projected 344,000-400,000 tourists will create a traffic nightmare on the narrow 2-lane canyon highway (U.S. 50).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How emergency and fire personnel will have great difficulty responding to accidents or fires in the canyon or surrounding area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns as to the increase in visitors also bringing more litter and human waste to the canyon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent defacement of the riverbanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bighorn sheep, elk, deer and other wildlife kept from accessing the river for water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bald and golden eagles kept from fishing and hunting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difficulty, or even impossibility, of fishing of these waters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negative economic impact on commercial and recreation industries that travel the canyon daily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure it sounds like a cool idea to someone from out of state, or even someone from the Front Range who is going to drive up and down the canyon for a day, say "oh honey, that was so pretty", and turn around and go home. The residents of the Bighorn Sheep Canyon don't have that luxury. They will have to deal with these impacts for a potential 5 year period....and the majority of these people have to commute to either Salida or Canon City everyday for work. Seems more and more like a rich spoiled artist pushing his agenda on an entire community so that he can be famous.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

lmyers said:


> Seems more and more like a rich spoiled artist pushing his agenda on an entire community so that he can be famous.


Yep. Real people get the shaft and the rich do what they want with Colorado. Just like always.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

That's total BS Brian. If all of those industries that you claim are so incredibly awesome and helpful to others really are so, then the same goes for our self-obsessed recreation. Just think of all the jobs in ND right now for oil extraction to make our gear and transport us to the rivers. The mining for all of the Aluminum (except that's mostly overseas) for our frames and dryboxes, etc. But then again, we don't need to make every decision in life just based on how we can profit from raping and pillaging the earth and the local inhabitants.

Now I wish I hadn't changed my siggy yesterday, it applied so well to drivel such as yours.

I can't wait to hear how it has become the dolphin nets of the west, for the raptors.


----------



## BrianP (Nov 13, 2011)

I actually have no idea what your post is trying to say. I don't believe I said anything that effect. All I was trying to say is that there are negative aspects to our sport too. Sorry if that comes across as "drivel".


----------



## BrianP (Nov 13, 2011)

For the record, I never said anything in favor of "raping" the earth,maybe I should've been more clear. Not all logging is good (if you re-read my post that is the only example I gave along with this art thing), but it does have benefits. We hate the logs in the rivers when the companies leave them, but if they do it to help the salmon run most think its ok. I also like living in a house made of wood very much.
Sorry, I didn't mean to work anyone up, but your response has little to do with what I actually said.


----------



## Cphilli (Jun 10, 2010)

^Welcome to Mountainbuzz^


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

Randaddy said:


> Yep. Real people get the shaft and the rich do what they want with Colorado. Just like always.


Sounds like Idaho....at least we don't have a gigantic shit show such as this. We just have 4 dams in 80 miles of river that kill something like 80 % of migrating salmon. 
That be the Snake River.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

BrianP said:


> ..and if there aren't any climbers, how about skiers/snowboarders?
> How much land had to be cleared so you could ski? How much steel went into the ground for chairlifts? How much fuel is burned to run them?
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way, I kayak, I've skied, and I've snowboarded. To me, it just makes no sense to raise hell over activities (logging, art installations, etc..) when they are at least producing something for the common good, while our RECREATIONAL activities can be just as damaging and serve no one but ourselves.
> ...


Apparent failure to communicate here. Unfortunately I'd love to reiterate my statement and elaborate on it so it is clear that I (intended) to respond to your post. But unfortunately I don't really have time nor the inclination right now. So I'll just leave it simply that I disagree with you and hope that you will see the weak stance of your argument some day. That day may come when you align with the side that is being wronged, and you see the huge disparity in whose values are protected.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

hey speaking of the Snake,is Evil Knieval available to jump this thing? You know ratchet up the circus atmosphere,maybe have a Sturgis type biker rally in Wellsville and a Rainbow Family gathering around Howard concurrent with the opening weekend of Christofest.

Lhowemt,
You may be being a tad harsh on this guy,but i really like the wording and sentiment of that last sentence! It applies to a lot more than just this topic.

Of course we need to utilize resources and that has impacts, but there are responsible and irresponsible ways to go about it. Instead of trying to minimize impacts the decision makers all too often prioritize maximizing profit for themselves.It is pretty straightforward that those type of decisions need to be democratized more.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

cayo 2 said:


> Lhowemt,
> You may be being a tad harsh on this guy,but i really like the wording and sentiment of that last sentence! It applies to a lot more than just topic


You're probably right, I didn't have time to really put an effort into making sense or a good point in all of this. I'm too distracted, and poor communication usually comes across quite negatively. I get tired of that type of argument, just because we use resources means we don't have a valid argument against abuses. Pshaw!


----------



## BrianP (Nov 13, 2011)

Good points, 
Since I dont have an immediate personal stake in this I was only trying to point out some things. I don't favor destroying the environment and I completely understand wanting to protect the river. My initial post was only in regards to a comment on carbon footprints, I was just stating that we are not blameless kayakers. I just wanted to provide a larger perspective. I guess in the end my post had nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

BrianP said:


> I guess in the end my post had nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.


Now truly you can be welcomed to the Buzz! It's especially appreciated if you can completely change the subject and create even more contention than the original post did. We should have an annual competition around this. The winner could get a Buzz calendar.... I nominate Mr. Compassionate.


----------



## BrianP (Nov 13, 2011)

Haha, I like to make an entrance.


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

Don't have a dog in this fight except that I run Parkdale a lot and it is one of the most beloved and accessible sections for newer boaters from the southern front range.

I'm also the President of the Pikes Peak Whitewater Club and wearing that hat if there are going to be significant restrictions imposed on us to river access during this installation/removal process I'm confident that our members would like to push back.

Personally I don't care one way or the other about the project except when it imposes itself on the lives of others by the use of force and restricts the freedom of those who live, play, and work there to move about as they always have.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Just saw that Fox News at 9 is doing a story on the "Over the River" project by Christo...looks like they will have some interviews with locals and might actually present the story from an unbiased prospective.


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

Personally, I think this is a very stupid artist with very stupid ideas and hopefully he hasn't produced any Spawn of Christo to further screw up the gene pool. BLM and CSP need to ensure that he cleans up his mess when this chit is done and over with. Insofaras whatever security crew he has, they need to be very respectful of boaters...scratch that, they need to be kissing some boater a$$es, otherwise they might find out how ******* people can turn. I won't be surprised if there's trouble on the horizon with this one. Too many people are against this.

I'd not be surprised if there were incidents of vandalism and even less surprised if Mother Nature and her winds don't rip this thing apart. Which presents some safety issues for all watercraft on the Ark.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

So much for public input to Forest Service decisions.
Any one know when public input changed Forest Service decisions (especially when F/S was getting money out of the deal)??

Even more so, so much for Forest Service hoop la over man made intrusion messing up "their" forest. My bet is this project will leave a ton of stuff left over for regular river folks to deal with.


----------



## eljim (Sep 19, 2007)

okieboater said:


> So much for public input to Forest Service decisions.
> Any one know when public input changed Forest Service decisions (especially when F/S was getting money out of the deal)??
> 
> Even more so, so much for Forest Service hoop la over man made intrusion messing up "their" forest. My bet is this project will leave a ton of stuff left over for regular river folks to deal with.


Once again I hope
doesn't take away from the hundreds of parked train cars, mine debris, and hwy 50 bc that would break my tax paying heart.


----------



## ptwood (May 4, 2004)

Everyone, of course, knows that a large part of Christo and Jeanne-Claude's art is the discussion. You knew that, right? Welcome to the project! I am not for or against but the absolute wackyness of the discussion is classic!

Cheers,
P.T.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

okieboater said:


> So much for public input to Forest Service decisions.
> Any one know when public input changed Forest Service decisions (especially when F/S was getting money out of the deal)??


I think it's BLM....pretty sure the project isn't on FS land...



ptwood said:


> Everyone, of course, knows that a large part of Christo and Jeanne-Claude's art is the discussion. You knew that, right? Welcome to the project! I am not for or against but the absolute wackyness of the discussion is classic!
> 
> Cheers,
> P.T.


You'r right PT. I wouldn't be surprised if he even reads these threads and laughs at us....


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

BLM or Forest Service Land, It is all federal government controlled land and based on what I read in their web sites is supposed to be managed for the long term good of the land and reasonable use by the public. Every one has an opinion. Mine is the short term benefit of looking at fabric hung across the river is not worth the long term impact the foundations and construction will have on the river banks. I am sure my opinion does not matter to the decision makers.

Also just because people have put in stuff like rail road tracks with parked railroad cars etc along the Ark's river banks is, my opinion, not a good reason to keep building hard structures that will last for centuries of time for questionable month or so viewing use or what ever along the banks. That is how dump sites start. As a society we have done a lot of things to the environment that at the time seemed ok. When we realize there is a better way, we need to do what we can to make things better - "not keep dumping trash on the pile". 

It is unfortunate that when some person dumps their trash in a spot, others tend to do the same. Just because someone built the RR tracks and parked freight cars on them to create a eyesore does not make it right to add more eyesores to the area. At least I don't think so.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

okieboater said:


> BLM or Forest Service Land, It is all federal government controlled land and based on what I read in their web sites is supposed to be managed for the long term good of the land and reasonable use by the public. Every one has an opinion. Mine is the short term benefit of looking at fabric hung across the river is not worth the long term impact the foundations and construction will have on the river banks. I am sure my opinion does not matter to the decision makers.
> 
> Also just because people have put in stuff like rail road tracks with parked railroad cars etc along the Ark's river banks is, my opinion, not a good reason to keep building hard structures that will last for centuries of time for questionable month or so viewing use or what ever along the banks. That is how dump sites start. As a society we have done a lot of things to the environment that at the time seemed ok. When we realize there is a better way, we need to do what we can to make things better - "not keep dumping trash on the pile".
> 
> It is unfortunate that when some person dumps their trash in a spot, others tend to do the same. Just because someone built the RR tracks and parked freight cars on them to create a eyesore does not make it right to add more eyesores to the area. At least I don't think so.


YOu are far too rational and reasonable for this argument.


----------



## Stuntmonkey (Jul 9, 2009)

Just to clerify, BLM is Department of Interior and Forest Service is Department of Agriculture- different funding, different missions, different priorities. Besides the point... this is not art, it's a waste of time and money, and a horrible eye sore for future river patrons to endure. I do not "Like"


----------



## Brotorboat (Apr 14, 2009)

Want to see what BLM is capable of doing and has been doing for years??

Keep in mind, this is just a GLIMPSE of how f'd up everything in this country is. It's a 3 part video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaEKB8pU2Tw


----------



## wasatchbill (Apr 9, 2007)

"The shouting isn’t over for “Over the River.”
The $50 million project by the artist Christo, who hopes to drape nearly six miles of the Arkansas River here in southern Colorado with suspended bank-to-bank fabric, received approval from federal land managers late last year.

But on Wednesday, a new battlefield emerged in law and local politics: in Denver, opponents filed a federal lawsuit aiming to block construction, which Christo had hoped to begin this summer. The suit argues that land managers violated federal law in approving the plan and gauging its environmental impacts."...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/u...s-coloradans.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha3


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

pushed back a year or two. really can't tell or care to be honest.

Artist Christo pushes 'Over the River' back to 2015 | Wildlife & nature

Now he will probably kick before this gets done.


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

Christo pulls plug on controversial Over The River public art installation, citing new "landlord" Trump


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Bwahaha! Everything is Trump's doing-the left in this country is truly psychotic!


----------



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

Thankfully, regardless of the real reason or any connection to politics, this idiotic plan, somehow approved by an equally ill informed federal agency, is over. Score one for the River!


----------



## jbolson (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm very happy to hear the project is dead.


----------

