# Moving Rock In Tunnel, Poudre



## SimpleMan (Dec 17, 2009)

A potentially interesting discussion I think, a cousin to the chat about dynamiting Frog Rock on the Ark after the girl passed last year. 

What do you all think? Is it ethical to move obstacles that are dangerous/challenging/damaging? Myself, I see both sides. It's a slippery slope to start moving things in the river. Rafts are expensive though, and this is not a significant feature. Seems kind of reactionary to immediately say no, based on an inflexible ideology, while altering my home river in any way troubles me. 

Does the Wild and Scenic designation have any thing to do with this? 

Benson


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

I see both sides of this one too. What is the nature of the rock? Is it blast rock form road construction? Is this thing really slicing up boats left and right?

Can you wade out to it and actually see the sharp part?


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

The rock is probably from the tunnel blasting, it is part of one of two piles made by the tunnel builders. It likely turned this year and has seriously damaged 5 commercial rafts in a week. It's also easy to see and easy to go around. 

I won't be a part of changing it, but kind of hope someone else hammers it down this winter....


----------



## RiverWrangler (Oct 14, 2003)

I let my thoughts be known in the other thread so this post may even be a response to me, but my opinion is not "reactionary" or based on an "inflexible ideology." I've thought about this issue for a number of years and in this instance there is just no justifiable reason to mess with it. It may be road blast and yes the river gets modified all the time, by it's own forces and sometimes by the highway department or to build a playpark etc, but once we move down the road to modifying rapids because they are dangerous or damaging to raft equipment it is indeed a slippery slope. Next thing you know somebody will be blasting the rock wall out of the bottom of Cool World because it's a dangerous rapid with it in there and someone might break their boat on it.

It is a natural obstacle, is easy to avoid, and will only be a problem during a small flow window. We should not be in the business of river modification for the purposes of making a rapid less dangerous or damaging to raft equipment. If you know it's there, the river is wide and it is super easy to avoid it.


----------



## poudreraft (Sep 21, 2004)

I agree with Evan, do not move the rock in Tunnel (Crystal Wall). I have guided for 15+ seasons commercially on the Poudre and always felt it was a great training ground for solid guides. Through the years I have seen plenty of Poudre guides who have just memorized the lines. When they get on a different river or stretch they don't seem to know how to read the river. I haven't seen it yet, but it seems at 2.6 the wall is really super pushy an even if you start out farther left making the move shouldn't be that difficult, this is a class IV run after all. Go up and scout the rapid, use your river reading skills and make it around the rock. I agree that rafts are expensive, but river's like the Poudre are priceless! Lets keep it that way.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

*Hope it's not a picket fence.*



Randaddy said:


> I won't be a part of changing it, but kind of hope someone else hammers it down this winter....


Wow... how far up your patoot are you going to let that fence post go? Honestly, if you "hope" someone changes it then throw your support behind it rather than encourage a scapegoat.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can take a hammer to it then do so. It's not like the roads and bridges are OK to build and use, but to chip off a raft slasher is somehow taboo. Building a new boat ramp or improving the shoreline is somehow OK but making this boulder smooth enough isn't? If you so much as drive up that road, you're "a part of" the changing river.


----------



## BruceB (Jun 8, 2010)

I agree with Hojo. If it's a matter of breaking off a small part of that rock, then no big deal. It's no major change to the river. We remove wood from creeks all of the time; no one is bothered by that. I am not in favor of any significant river modifications however.

R-2ing this tonight. Benson (or anyone else) - join us and make it R-3.


----------



## RiverWrangler (Oct 14, 2003)

Actually many fisheries biologists are bothered by removing wood from the river and there have been cases on a Poudre tributary where too much wood was removed and fish habitat was destroyed. When removing wood, if possible, the best scenario is to cut a boat passage and not to clear the wood entirely, especially in flat or low gradient stretches where the wood causes pools and large eddys to form.

That aside, it is an ethical consideration and though Randy's stance is comical it outlines the situation quite well. I don't want the rafts to get destroyed, not my intention, but I can not condone modifying the river for that reason. I'm not in charge of the highway department so I have no jurisdiction to keep them from dumping rocks in the river. They have deemed that keeping the road safe is a legitimate reason to modify the river. As a community, I believe we should deem that a rapid being dangerous or damaging is NOT a reason to modify the river.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

RiverWrangler said:


> That aside, it is an ethical consideration and though Randy's stance is comical it outlines the situation quite well. I don't want the rafts to get destroyed, not my intention, but I can not condone modifying the river for that reason. I'm not in charge of the highway department so I have no jurisdiction to keep them from dumping rocks in the river. They have deemed that keeping the road safe is a legitimate reason to modify the river. As a community, I believe we should deem that a rapid being dangerous or damaging is NOT a reason to modify the river.


My point is at a slightly higher level. It's hypocritical of us to suggest that modifying the river for safety is any different than modifying it for access. If we (myself including) decide to use the road then we are condoning the modification of the river as a result of having the road. The ethics are much broader than simply the modification of a singular feature. We do have limited control over the highway department just as we have control over the use of our resources. We, as a community, drive up the road to access the river. That action is only possible through the direct manipulation of the river. We all desire that such access does not negatively impact the river, of course.

I cannot claim that it is categorically unethical to change this rock based on my own use of the river and surrounding infrastructure. I can state that, if knocking off a sharp point is doable and the forest service will do it then I will support it based on my perception of the consequences.


----------



## mrekid (May 13, 2004)

It is an interesting philosophical conundrum. To modify or not to modify, that is the question. As someone whose job reuires frequent and substantial modification to the riverbed, it would be hypocritical of me to come out against said actions. However, I do oppose single minded allterations for the good of a small interest group without considering the broader impacts to river function and aquatic habitat. I am also opposed to modification to "pristine" river beds where previous anthropogenic influence has not occured. We like to work in degraded reaches where human influence is present. Luckily these are easy to find as hydro-modification is one of the most influential human actions that significantly alters channel morphology. Such is the case on the Poudre, not to mention the impacts of putting a highway along the majority of the river corridor. Given these preexisting modifications I don't see why one should not make slight changes to a single boulder in this rapid to reduce boat damage and to moderate a potential physical hazard as well. Wouldn't a 12 pack and a sledge hammer resolve the issue?


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

mrekid said:


> It is an interesting philosophical conundrum. To modify or not to modify, that is the question. As someone whose job reuires frequent and substantial modification to the riverbed, it would be hypocritical of me to come out against said actions. However, I do oppose single minded allterations for the good of a small interest group without considering the broader impacts to river function and aquatic habitat. I am also opposed to modification to "pristine" river beds where previous anthropogenic influence has not occured. We like to work in degraded reaches where human influence is present. Luckily these are easy to find as hydro-modification is one of the most influential human actions that significantly alters channel morphology. Such is the case on the Poudre, not to mention the impacts of putting a highway along the majority of the river corridor. Given these preexisting modifications I don't see why one should not make slight changes to a single boulder in this rapid to reduce boat damage and to moderate a potential physical hazard as well. Wouldn't a 12 pack and a sledge hammer resolve the issue?


Honestly.. Do you think Randaddy is going to understand any of that? You ought to use words with 3 syllables or less. Of course, one must consider that if the road construction caused the hazard then we have a duty to correct it.


----------



## RiverWrangler (Oct 14, 2003)

hojo, I understand where you are coming from but don't agree that your point is somehow at a higher level. To me it sets a bad precedent. I wasn't around when the highway was built and though I do use it to access the river I had no part in the decision to put the highway there. I would be a lot more up in arms if someone was suggesting this on the Big South. In wilderness it's a no brainer. I just don't believe the reasoning is sound because the reasoning could easily be transfered to an unaltered river. "It ripped a few rafts so it needs to be modified," does not cut it for me, especially when you can just as easily go around it.


----------



## mrekid (May 13, 2004)

What I find really interesting about this argument is that we distinguish between woody debris and sediment (geologically sourced material). Both are mobile in the river environment and in the case of boulders the time scales of mobility often differ by orders of magnitude. We tend to see the river as a static environment rather than a dynamic one, as we so often cant see change on the times scales that it occurs. If we accept this premise than why not make adjustments when warranted. We pull logs for our own benefit.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

RiverWrangler said:


> hojo, I understand where you are coming from but don't agree that your point is somehow at a higher level. To me it sets a bad precedent. I wasn't around when the highway was built and though I do use it to access the river I had no part in the decision to put the highway there. I would be a lot more up in arms if someone was suggesting this on the Big South. In wilderness it's a no brainer. I just don't believe the reasoning is sound because the reasoning could easily be transfered to an unaltered river. "It ripped a few rafts so it needs to be modified," does not cut it for me, especially when you can just as easily go around it.



I'm not suggesting that my concept is "better." By higher level I was pulling back and evaluating my actions in using the resources from a broader point of view... "broader" would have been a better term. I always manage to start evaluating the situation and realize that I often miss some of the finer points in the narrower context. Just because you and I weren't around for the building of the road doesn't mean that our use is somehow exempt from the overall impact. If we didn't use it or the river, and stood our ground, then we would have a much firmer platform upon which to state that the changes under discussion shouldn't be made. I respect that you don't think it should be changed and I'll not try to change your mind.


----------



## RiverWrangler (Oct 14, 2003)

Not trying to change anyones mind either, just been over it enough in my head to know where I stand. I'm not against modifying any river. I am certainly against modifying currently unaltered or nearly unaltered rivers, we just don't have that many of them left. In this case my opinion is based mainly on principle. Once we start modifying the river we never know what the unintended consequences could end up being. Yes they are dynamic, yes stuff changes over both long and short time scales, but here we are making a choice to modify. My choice is to let the river do the modifying unless the hazard is life threatening to paddlers and then removal should be done as low impact as possible. Wood is a touch y subject for many non-paddlers who see us removing it and though we pull logs for our own benefit I would hope that paddlers gain the knowledge to become more judicious with it's removal. Every piece of wood does not need to be removed but if it is a commonly paddled section and there is no way around it, then I think it is a justified modification. If this hazard had the potential to cause a death on the river and was unavoidable my stance would be different.


----------



## gannon_w (Jun 27, 2006)

I'm curious, who actually needs this moved? Isn't the move around it easy? Has it made the rapid any more difficult? Do lazy rafters with no experience or skill on a guided trip mostly benefit?

I say we put whiteline back where it was if were gonna start moving rocks! Also lets fill in the last drop on Poudre falls so they go!


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

While I have a great respect for the natural river and will fiercely object to alteration of a pristine river environment, if the hazard in question is blast rock dumped in there by road builders long ago it is not part of any "pristine environment" and therefore has no sanctity in my book.

As for whether it presents a hazard, any time that you slice a raft from bow to stern during a Class IV run, you endanger not only the passengers on the raft but other boaters involved in getting the disabled boat to shore, rescuing any swimmers, etc. We often forget how easy it is to get hurt during a rescue when folks lose focus on their own safety. Granted its not a hazard that's imminently life-threatening but it could result in a fatality or serious injury if the situation is repeated enough times.

-AH


----------



## bigben (Oct 3, 2010)

WHADDUP ERIC!! i hear your up on the upper c right now so you haven't gotten a chance to see this rock. it's sharp and gnarly and right in the line. 
at this water level this rock is starting to come out and the move to avoid it is doable, but not that easy (if you work for a-1!) 
as it comes down a little more avoiding it will get a bit harder, but still totally doable.
hammering it down will help (just like it did with razor rock below 3-way), but it'll still be there. 
when there's finally no water left in the poudre (december maybe!!!) i'm gonna go out there and tip the bastard back over. i'll z-drag it with my truck if i have to. 
yeah it's a crazy raft ripper, but imagine if a swimmer popped out on the shit just upstream from it. i've seen 1 of the rafts it ripped, and i don't want to see what it'd do to a person

be safe out the everyone.
amen.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

hojo said:


> Honestly.. Do you think Randaddy is going to understand any of that? You ought to use words with 3 syllables or less


This is great. Hojo, I understands mrekid's fancy big city talk just fine. After all, my second degree was in philosophy. Oh, and I run Tunnel Rapid every day and I have for years. 

I have looked at the new/changed rock from three feet away ten days in a row. I have seen the faces of the people who had their trip ended by a slight change in the way a small rock sits and felt bad for them as we floated by and they sat on a destroyed raft on shore. When in doubt I generally lean toward leaving it alone, but have certainly overturned larger rocks in more pristine places with my own hands. My point is, Mr. Weekend Warrior from Lakewood, that I am ethically involved in this and do not have, as you put it, a fence post in my "patoot" (and who says patoot anyway, you fucking retard) for merely hoping for a scapegoat. It's not my job to decide what is done and I'll hope for what I want. 

If you want to see the rock come on up and run the rapid, otherwise keep you armchair ethics and insults where they belong, in Lakewood.

Evan, by the way, I like where you're coming from. If I have to run the crap line on the left forever now because it remains inappropriate to change a rapid in Colorado so be it. But part of me hopes it goes away....


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

*Pot... Kettle... Black.*



Randaddy said:


> This is great. Hojo, I understands mrekid's fancy big city talk just fine. After all, my second degree was in philosophy. Oh, and I run Tunnel Rapid every day and I have for years.
> 
> I have looked at the new/changed rock from three feet away ten days in a row. I have seen the faces of the people who had their trip ended by a slight change in the way a small rock sits and felt bad for them as we floated by and they sat on a destroyed raft on shore. When in doubt I generally lean toward leaving it alone, but have certainly overturned larger rocks in more pristine places with my own hands. My point is, Mr. Weekend Warrior from Lakewood, that I am ethically involved in this and do not have, as you put it, a fence post in my "patoot" (and who says patoot anyway, you fucking retard) for merely hoping for a scapegoat. It's not my job to decide what is done and I'll hope for what I want.
> 
> ...



Oh come now.. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. And I admit that I don't raft every day. But it's not about us, it's about the rock in the river. Though I might add that if calling me a "fucking retard" is the best retort you can muster, I would encourage you to write to the University of Phoenix and ask for your money back on that philosophy degree.


----------



## bigben (Oct 3, 2010)

don't even ask what his first degree is in!!


----------



## gphunk (Oct 21, 2006)

Ben,
Since you don't really guide maybe you can post a picture of the rock?


----------



## bigben (Oct 3, 2010)

tooshay mr bond. obviously you know me, so who are you??


----------



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

bigben said:


> tooshay mr bond. obviously you know me, so who are you??


Touché in your patoot, Mr Bond.


----------



## Awoody (Nov 15, 2006)

Rubber pushers flexing nuts! WHOOOHOOOO! I say leave the rock. The main gripes I'm seeing here are that this little rock is tearing the floor out of the profit margins of the river pimps of the Poudre (raft companies).


----------



## bigben (Oct 3, 2010)

so the anonymous a-1 guy won't stand up and collect his prize eh?? oh well.
5 bucks says it's one of the 4 a-1ers who popped a boat there. 
still a little sore from the old man's tongue lashing that afternoon, are ya fella?? 
...oh wait, that was the prize.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

hojo said:


> And I admit that I don't raft every day. But it's not about us, it's about the rock in the river.


Oh, it's about us, at least those of us that interact with the rapid and have to balance this hazard with our ethos. It has very little to do with you I imagine. 

I'm heading up in two hours to run Tunnel, see the rock again, and think about where I stand. Enjoy your day at the office, and remember to use the new cover sheets on all of your TPS reports.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

Randaddy said:


> Oh, it's about us, at least those of us that interact with the rapid and have to balance this hazard with our ethos. It has very little to do with you I imagine.
> 
> I'm heading up in two hours to run Tunnel, see the rock again, and think about where I stand. Enjoy your day at the office, and remember to use the new cover sheets on all of your TPS reports.


God damn TPS reports.


----------



## BruceB (Jun 8, 2010)

*Old Aire Meets the Ripper*

Nice to see some lively discussion here but some of you may want to take it outside.

I thought we were enough to the left but we ended up going right over that rock last night. The sound was horrible but only scratch on the boat. And I have been meaning to permanently remove that belly stap anyhow. It took maybe two seconds for the rock to cut it! We were R-2ing; the damage may have been worse with a full boat.

Curious to see what emerges as the water level drops and I hope no one swims over it.

My stance on the issue remains the same: if it's just a matter of knocking an inch off the rock with a sledge, then BFD. It's it's more, leave it.

Have a great winter everyone,

Bruce


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

The water is dropping out fast and we're back to another 7 months of BS personal insults and shit talking. Starting to feel like Colorado again. 

As far as river modification standards go, I'm with Evan. Contrary to rafter belief, the majority of river runners that utilize pristine river environments (usually hard-shell kayakers, because of the sharp dangerous rocks) clear very few logs out of the way, and instead let the river do the work. Navigating a natural river involves natural obstacles (logs, rocks, rapids) and through a combination of paddling and portaging one may succesfully navigate the river corridor. Gaining access to the river corridor isn't meant to modify the navigation of the river, it's just meant to give us point A to B. Modifying the river to make it easier for a specific water craft is disturbing to me. Having paddled the Poudre vertical mile, I can say that most of the rocks in that river corridor are naturally sharp, and only time wears them down (not to mention water rolling them). A little extra consequence for a missed line (a torn raft, or worse) should only lead to extra appreciation for the difficulty of the rapid and confidence in your ability not to hit the rock. When you scout a rapid the choice should be 1) find a clean line and run it 2) if unable to find a clean line portage. We don't need a third option of modifying the river bed to our specifications. Instead of busting out the dynamite (albeit historical status quo), learn to portage like normal river runners that can't stick the line.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Randy you sure have change your opinion in the last year.. Remember your take on Frog Rock?? 

"I've never heard a serious discussion about filling in a strainer until now.

I don't mean any disrespect to anyone who has been affected by this particular rapid -or recent tragedy- but I think we need to leave the river alone. Sure, pull wood out - it's a little less permanent, but blasting and filling rock with concrete? 

If it's too dangerous then go find another stretch of river. What's next, lowering Mount Everest to keep people out of the death zone? (maybe an extreme comparison - insert your own here) If we're going to pull out the dynamite let's do it to redesign the diversion dams that kill people every year and remove something manmade at the same time.

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

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

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


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

Cutch said:


> Gaining access to the river corridor isn't meant to modify the navigation of the river, it's just meant to give us point A to B. Modifying the river to make it easier for a specific water craft is disturbing to me.


This is what I was emphasizing. The devil's advocate (me in this case) would state that our desire to access the river has directly impacted the makeup of the river bed in many areas; Evan's unintended consequences in action. It could very well be that this rock ended up where it is as an act of god or an act of front loader. Can you imagine what Gore Canyon looked like before the railroad was put in? Still just as awesome but drastically different. So how does the impact of knocking off a sharp point compare with the tons and tons of blast rock deposited in and around the river for the specific purpose of getting around and into the river (Never mind the diversionary structures).

If the rock is easy to get around and only causes a problem for a short window then the issue is greatly diminished. I think the question ends up being, "Should we, as a boating community, implement river mitigation on rivers that are heavily manipulated by transportation impacts?" After all, we directly benefit from this process in places like the BR section of Clear Creek. I can see the fear, here, where someone comes along and says... blast and bulldoze BR out.. it's too dangerous for the public. That would be a very tragic unintended consequence.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

this is rubbish..cutch you are far to right to be argued against..


----------



## scooby450 (Dec 4, 2008)

Both sides have merit. If commercial boats that run this stretch all the time are having difficulty avoiding the hazard then therein lies my concern. Private boaters must accept the risks of running rivers. I do not have an answer but I do have some questions. I have been on this river once, I look forward to doing it again. With all due respect, anyone guiding on this river should be able to avoid the obstacle. There are inexperienced people's health at stake. It's been identified and should be avoided. It has been stated, on this thread, that it is possible to avoid it. The professionals have to able to go around it. I've been there, I was not very good at it. I understand that a crew with limited abilities makes it difficult in situations. I also know there are a lot of capable guides that make it happen with rookie paddlers, much respect to them. They are better boaters than myself. If there is an injury that occurs due to this rock then this debate will take a different tack, won't it?


----------



## trickpony (Apr 20, 2010)

Honestly... I don't see any harm in filing (hammering? banging?) down a sharp edge on a rock that was thrown into a river after blasting a tunnel 30 feet up.

I mean, you're right next to a road... for fuck's sake. It's not exactly a wilderness trip. If a road sign fell in and was suddenly cutting up rafts, would that be part of this "pristine" riverbed too?


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

Cutch said:


> We don't need a third option of modifying the river bed to our specifications. Instead of busting out the dynamite (albeit historical status quo), learn to portage like normal river runners that can't stick the line.


*Bomber Who Destroyed Quartzite Falls Flees*

April 13, 1995|PAUL DEAN | TIMES STAFF WRITER

Taz Stoner, a river guide who led the dynamite crew that calmed the fatal rages of Arizona's Quartzite Falls, apparently has fled to avoid prison.

"I had to leave on short notice to God knows where," said Stoner in a letter read to U.S. District Judge Earl Carroll on the day of his sentencing. Prison would have been "just too much," he wrote.


Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton said investigators have been unable to find Stoner. Acquaintances believe the 34-year-old outdoorsman and engineer could be in Canada.

So an arrest warrant has been issued for William (Taz) Stoner, who claimed he blew up the falls to save the lives of weekend white-water rafters, not to vandalize a wilderness treasure or decrease its challenge.

"I kinda knew we were doing something wrong," Stoner said in a December interview with The Times. "But I had no idea you could go to jail for it. I did it to save lives, to make it safer for people to pass through there."

But environmentalists say that quartz rock helped squeeze the Salt River into a natural canyon hazard that no man should put asunder. The U.S. Forest Service said the falls' broad lower lip was federal property destroyed by Stoner and seven acquaintances with 45 pounds of dynamite.

Last year, the Quartzite Eight were arrested, charged, and eventually pleaded guilty. Stoner signed an agreement to spend 18 months in jail and pay a fine of $30,000. Others plea-bargained for probation, suspended sentences and fines.

But hours before sentencing on March 27, Stoner became a fugitive. His flight, prosecutors say, breaches the agreement and leaves Stoner vulnerable to heavier sentences. Destruction of federal property, for example, carries a maximum of 20 years in jail and a $250,000 fine.


----------



## festivus (Apr 22, 2006)

Un freaking believable.

This conversation could be a skit on SNL.

So... just so I am clear on this.... it is OK to clear a river of wood, which is likely to have an impact on river ecology... but not OK to move a pathetic rock that is tearng up a bunch of rafts?


----------



## KUpolo (May 24, 2005)

festivus said:


> Un freaking believable.
> 
> This conversation could be a skit on SNL.
> 
> So... just so I am clear on this.... it is OK to clear a river of wood, which is likely to have an impact on river ecology... but not OK to move a pathetic rock that is tearng up a bunch of rafts?


Unless the woot floats and is Therefore a witch and must be burned.


----------



## gannon_w (Jun 27, 2006)

festivus said:


> Un freaking believable.
> So... just so I am clear on this.... it is OK to clear a river of wood, which is likely to have an impact on river ecology... but not OK to move a pathetic rock that is tearng up a bunch of rafts?


 
I'm not sure but I think "pathetic" rocks create eddys for fish to live in which are likely to have an impact on river ecology? I may be wrong though.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

RDNEK said:


> Randy you sure have change your opinion in the last year.. Remember your take on Frog Rock??


I do remember. I also remember teetering on both sides of that argument - primarily because of the man-made/natural distinction. Though I ultimately spoke out against the changes being discussed at the time, i.e. blasting or filling, and still oppose the permanent re-channeling, part of me still feels happy that the hazard is less likely to take a life on that easy section of river. 

Of course the Tunnel rock seems to me to be "man-made", as it is one of two large piles of rocks from the blasting of the tunnel in the early 1900's. The rock might even be able to be turned by hand.

RDNEK, I'm really not sure what my opinion is, as I've clearly stated in my posts above that I'm on the fence about this. I think it's more than alright for a person's wilderness ethic to cause conflict within them. That's why I participate in these discussions, to really talk it out - many of us are on the front lines of these sort of decisions and should be as prepared as possible when it comes time to make them. Forgive me if I've given you the wrong impression.


----------



## the_dude (May 31, 2006)

this could be a skit on snl. it's a rock like a million other rocks in the poudre, a lot of which are sharp. leave the damn thing alone and find a way to go around it. tunnel is not that difficult of a rapid.


----------



## Ed Hansen (Oct 12, 2003)

the_dude said:


> this could be a skit on snl. it's a rock like a million other rocks in the poudre, a lot of which are sharp. leave the damn thing alone and find a way to go around it. tunnel is not that difficult of a rapid.


That would be a pretty dumb skit. Obviously it could not be with the original cast.


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

im interested to see what happens today (if anyone goes up there) - the options in tunnel get a lot more limited when the water drops. That said it might not even be in play with the lower water.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

North Fork Payette is almost entirely made of sharp, jagged rocks tossed in the river from road construction. NFP is also the source of a number of deaths - kayaks or otherwise. Let's fix our mistakes and make this a friendlier river!


----------



## SimpleMan (Dec 17, 2009)

This sure has been fun guys. Been up at the Upper C for three days and missed all the fireworks. Just like to thank Randaddy for balancing his experience and thoughtful musings with his usual douchebaggery. Good restraint. Myself, I'm with Big Ben. I am going to break out the disguises and the Zdrag and we'll use Ben's big ass truck to turn that bastard back over again. 








Think Ranger Rob will recognize us Ben?


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

I'm all for leaving the rock where it is........unless it trashes my boat.......then I'm all for removing it.


----------



## craporadon (Feb 27, 2006)

RiverWrangler said:


> I let my thoughts be known in the other thread so this post may even be a response to me, but my opinion is not "reactionary" or based on an "inflexible ideology." I've thought about this issue for a number of years and in this instance there is just no justifiable reason to mess with it. It may be road blast and yes the river gets modified all the time, by it's own forces and sometimes by the highway department or to build a playpark etc, but once we move down the road to modifying rapids because they are dangerous or damaging to raft equipment it is indeed a slippery slope. Next thing you know somebody will be blasting the rock wall out of the bottom of Cool World because it's a dangerous rapid with it in there and someone might break their boat on it.
> 
> It is a natural obstacle, is easy to avoid, and will only be a problem during a small flow window. We should not be in the business of river modification for the purposes of making a rapid less dangerous or damaging to raft equipment. If you know it's there, the river is wide and it is super easy to avoid it.


For one of the first times, I do not agree with Evan. What is sacred about rocks that get thrown into rivers during road construction? They were placed there by man, they can be moved by man. The Cool World example is completely different b/c that is a natural river. If you only alter things that have already been altered, there is no slippery slope. 

On the WW Park side nobody seems to have a problem with changing perfectly natural rivers in Salida and BV. I say not only change it but make it a badass rapid with splat rocks and waves.


----------



## RiverWrangler (Oct 14, 2003)

craporadon said:


> \I say not only change it but make it a badass rapid with splat rocks and waves.


Now we are talking! Throw some splats and a sweet wave in there and as a community maybe we can judge that as reason to alter the river. Playparks are great for the river as they bring attention and people to the river to experience and hopefully protect the remaining wilderness and unaltered stretches. I think playparks have their place and it is in urban areas. I'm not into changing the natural streambed, not my style, I don't like to play God but I can see the good that playparks bring and they are one of the best places for teaching kids and for basic swiftwater rescue classes. The ones crapor builds are the best in the biz and I could get behind them. When we get one in Fort Collins it's going to be bad ass and I have used the streambed is already significantly altered argument to push for it, so I understand that.

Nothing is sacred about the blast rock, but who's to say it's blast rock for sure and who's to say that after you roll that thing someone won't get a foot entrapment on it or that it won't claim a life anyway. If we build a playpark and that happens then we had a sh!t engineer and we should have hired crapor, but the reasoning behind building it and the good the ww park will do, in my opinion, outweighs the negatives of altering the streambed. On the other hand, altering the streambed just to make an easier line for rafting the stretch at well below optimal water levels ain't a good enough reason for me and I stand by the idea that altering streambeds to make them less dangerous, even on previously altered stretches, sets a bad precedent. I guess I'm agreeing that it's situational and when the river is altered the line becomes fuzzy but I think playparks belong in urban areas and rivers outside of urban areas should not be altered for the purpose of making them less dangerous.

Confusing enough that now I'm questioning everything. Good discussion. Off to the Clarks Fork bitches...


----------



## bigben (Oct 3, 2010)

whaddup eric!! how's the upper c treatin ya man?!? 
...perfect disguise. noone will recognize us in that thing!! yo i guarantee my truck'll tip that bastard back over man. good z-drag practice too (like i needed any more after 5 years at a1!!) 
hit me up when you come back to foco man. gotta get some drunken pineview ducky runs in before the water's gone. 
peace brotha


----------



## festivus (Apr 22, 2006)

That is actually a good point... made even more poignant by the fact that I was up there today flyfishing and got skunked.


----------



## rmathis27 (Apr 2, 2008)

Hey Randaddy(Randy) why don't you go boating and shut the f*** up. Suprised any company lets you guide after my experience with you d-bag.


----------



## gannon_w (Jun 27, 2006)

Did ya'll see on the rock report they said they are moving it?


----------



## smoes (Jun 25, 2007)

Wait - Randaddy is a guide, with a philosophy degree? so cliche...


----------



## David L (Feb 13, 2004)

How do you get a rock report? And, is it also for other rivers?



gannon_w said:


> Did ya'll see on the rock report they said they are moving it?


----------



## xena13 (Mar 21, 2007)

Poudre Rock Report:

Poudre Rock Report


----------



## Camp Falbo (Apr 30, 2010)

*Actions To Be (And Not To Be) Taken*

While scrolling through the six pages of philosophical discussion, mud slinging, ethical questions and insults has been entertaining, there are two things to remember-
1)	This new hazard is a Life Safety issue, not a profit issue
2)	The ultimate decision of what, if anything, is to be done about this hazard rests with the owner/steward of our beloved Poudre- the USFS

The issue of this new and dangerous feature, as well as this forum, is not only on the radar of the USFS, it has made it to the To-Do list. 

A local USFS representative has asked me to post on the various social media forums I am involved with a simple request to those concerned about this rock- Please do not attempt to remove, blast, fill, turn or alter in any other way this rock. The USFS intends to take action to mitigate this new life safety hazard in a safe, controlled and legal fashion. 

Nobody said they are “moving” the rock (Gannon). At this point, they may not know exactly how they are going to mitigate the hazard. Knowing the folk at the local level, I believe it will be done in the most ethical and environmentally friendly way, affecting the local habitat, the streambed and the “Line” as little as possible. 

As a member of emergency services and an avid boater of this very stretch of river, I support the decision to mitigate this new life safety issue- legally. 

So, save your dynamite, big ass trucks, z-drags, concrete and sledgehammers. As for the recommendation of a 12 pack, bring it on up and let’s boat!


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

*pwned... the river.*



Camp Falbo said:


> 2)	The ultimate decision of what, if anything, is to be done about this hazard rests with the owner/steward of our beloved Poudre- the USFS


That makes me wonder... just how will the USFS fine God for moving that rock in the first place?

Your intentions are sound but who ever "asked" you to post can get on here themselves so I can flip out at the idea that the USFS owns the river. Steward, yes, owner... this is the kind of shit that really makes for bad PR from a public entity that is *owned* by the tax payer. This is the kind of language negativity that alters the concept that rivers, at least for now, are public entities.


----------



## Camp Falbo (Apr 30, 2010)

Ease up on bashing the USFS about “ownership”- that was my lingo. The request I post their intentions to fix the problem from an official capacity, legal and safe- their lingo. The request for concerned boaters to not take matters into their own hands- their lingo. The rest of it- my lingo.

The only negativity being slung around here comes from the handle “Hojo”. We can easily get into another 6-page discussion on who “owns” the river, who “owns” the USFS, what a public entity is, etc. I don’t have the time. Call it whatever you want- that particular stretch of river is in the Roosevelt Nat’l Forest, which is owned by the public and administered by the USFS. So as far as I’m concerned they call the shots. 

And besides, what’s this I hear about you having problems with your TPS reports…


----------

