Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-15-2010   #31
NathanH.'s Avatar
N/A, North Carolina
Paddling Since: 2010
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 325
I agree with filling the thing with rocks, Frog Rock is more of a hazard than a rapid. One rock causing such a serious problem should be taken care of as best we can without causing damage to the rest of the run.

I agree the rock is really nasty at this flow, which is what we can expect most the rest of summer.

NathanH. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010   #32
Andy H.'s Avatar
Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,909
My condolences go out to all involved in this tragedy. Its a shame that someone at such a young age should be called away from us. I know the grief the friends and relatives are going through right now and wouldn't wish that on anyone.

While the rapid is uncharacteristically dangerous for that section of river and is probably the most dangerous rapid between Leadville and Canon City, it was there long before anyone ever paddled the first boat down the Ark. Dynamiting or otherwise changing the rapid could have unintended consequences including making it even more dangerous, or leaving razor sharp rocks that make it unrunnable without slicing a boat in two. It also sets a precedent of one group deciding to change a feature which could lead (yes, this is going to extremes) to the whole river being turned into a series of boat chutes because someone decided certain rapids are too dangerous.

If you don't want to run a rapid, portage or don't run that stretch. The river doesn't exist solely for our amusement.


Nothing in the world is more yielding and gentle than water. Yet it has no equal for conquering the resistant and tough. The flexible can overcome the unbending; the soft can overcome the hard. - Lao Tse
Andy H. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010   #33
Lakewood, Colorado
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 504
I'm so sorry for Kimberly and her family & friends.

The warning sign could be a little more prominent. I look for it every time I'm there and still miss it about half the time.
mjpowhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010   #34
Hate Valley, No Tresspassing
Paddling Since: 2020
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 11
I see no reason that the rapid cannot be changed to be safer. Screw nature, most of our predecessors did.

They blew up quartzite and most are happy. Perhaps the same team should be used. I think the one that did that one had a relative killed in that rapid. I am glad they did that one.

They mined the crap out of most of the rivers, we have very weak environmental protection of rivers vs. other states, many have died, only 3000 justified a multi-decade long war with more death and environmental destruction (on your behalf) than you could even imagine. They blew the crap out of the rogue and if they want to build a new highway anywhere in CO, they will just dump unlimited amounts of blast rock into any river. There is not a culture of being kind to rivers here, even in recent times. Besides, don't they "ruin" nature over and over on the Ark with all the play parks, that arguement falls way short.

Sad that folks have passed, more will at the same location doing the same thing.

Sure folks can avoid that section, but they can also not get into a car....but somehow we still have 1000's of driving regs, the repair the roads and even have multiple roads to get the same place. One cute girl dies doing something very odd and we will make new laws and restrict future activities, this happens multiple times and the same culture argues to respect nature. Would folks feel the same if it was your wife, daughter, sister or grandma? Should they?

I am pretty sure anyone that knew this woman would place TNT if it was legal or even of low consequence. It would be fine with me.

I will show my condolences by suggesting solutions to avoid future death and being as flexible as CDOT to avoid future deaths, not suggesting she should have walked when accidents happen.

And yes, I have run this section. Blow it up or fill it with concrete/rocks. The first may have far greater penalties than the second. The second could be done very quietly, on a series of warm fall nights, if one was into such things.
Full Of Hate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010   #35
El Flaco's Avatar
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,879
Yeah, I can see both sides of the blasting / no blasting discussion. If this were the Upper Animas or another wilderness-type run, I would totally be against changing the riverbed. I think blasting Quartzite was a mistake. But this is the Ark- we've got three playparks that have altered the flows, a number of dams, and there are substantial stretches where the railroad changed the river. It's not a natural or original environment - it's almost as much a commercial entity as Cherry Creek rez.

This particular hazard has killed too many people, and I don't feel that filling in that sieve changes the existing paradigm of how we treat the Ark as a whole. And the rapid that would be affected is not a defining feature of a 'classic' stretch of water. It's time to address it & fill it in.

My condolences to Kimberly's family.
El Flaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010   #36
pnw, Washington
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,404
You guys can go back several years and talk to the climbing world about modifying holds and bolting routes. Make everything safe, etc. I am very sorry about this and my condolences to the family but leave the river alone. If you think its dangerous then portage it and leave the river alone.
"Yesterday I was clever and tried to change the world. Today I am wise and try to change myself." -Rumi
gh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010   #37
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 111
Isn't very little of the rapids in the upper arkansas natural. I thought most have been altered in some way by irrigation or the railroad long time ago.
panicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010   #38
surrounded by mountains, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1981
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 475
Obviously, boating is often done and enjoyed in sections with exteme hazards. That is a decision most of us make. However, I think the class III Fractions section is often boated by less experienced boaters and they are unsuspecting of the undercut/sieve nature of Frog Rock Rapid. I do think that the warning signage there is not as obvious as it could be and should be improved.

As far as the rapid goes, modifying it may not be a forbidden thing in Frog Rock's case. It presents some advantages characteristics for making it into a play park feature. It is basically a straight channel there and would not present a land-grab objective or hardening of the bank deflection to change the course of the river type of an intrusion that some housing developers are sometimes guilty of. However, access for a track hoe is probably not available.

As mentioned above, a cause is the amount of traffic this section might be receiving. Like a dangerous street intersection that has cost lives, maybe something needs to be done. Mainly, though, an improvement in signage might suffice.

God bless.
No risk, no reward. It is not that we have to, it is that we get to. Preparation and education are essential to self-confidence and success. - KV
"If there is no risk there is no adventure."- Bill Briggs
Ken Vanatta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010   #39
Arvada, Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 29
So if you fill in frog rock, does that mean you can fill in Widdow Maker Rock as well? Or how about going down to parkdale and getting rid of all the rebar in the river? And how about the gorge and all the shit that's in that section? Or how about altering pine creek rapid. All sections have caused deaths, do they warrant change too? Or how about the cold water, I'm sure that has killed more people state wide than Frog Rock has, do we install a water heater?? It's a river, shit happens, we as people can't do anything about it. I was part of an death earlier this season and seeing the rock that caused it, I wanted to blow it up with TNT as well, but I realized that this is a sport that has natural hazards (cold water, sharp rocks, strainers, sieves, undercuts, etc) that we need to be aware of in order to be safe. And yet shut still happens and we as boaters need to realize that we are at the rivers mercy. We complain about the railroad altering rivers, developers altering channels, etc. If you alter the river, you're in the same boat and would therefore have no grounds to bitch about others who have altered the river. Also imagine all the bad river karma you'd have for the rest of you life. Suck it up, realize it's there, just don't go right, and just keep on paddling.

Sorry to all involved, it sucks loosing someone you know.
extremekevin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010   #40
Boulder, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2000
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 328
Get rid of it.

Terrible tragedy.

I think in general we should not alter the river to make it safer. However I think there are certain exeptional circumstances where changing a river feature is OK, and this is one of them.

If this were a class V+ rapid that most boaters simply considered to be too hard and one or two people had died running it, the situation would be different. I don't think anybody should go blow up Poudre Falls. However Frog Rock is a deadly sieve on a class III section of water where numerous people have died and more probably will. Blowing up the sieve or throwing some rocks in it is not going to destroy a high quality or challenging rapid, but may save someone's life.

All of the people who are against getting rid of this sieve, must be completely against all play parks, or any form of river restoration, or even being on the river, because this all goes against "nature". Play parks alter the river for a few kayakers enjoyment, and you are telling me that altering one part of one not so great rapid for the purpose of saving people's lives is wrong. I understand that you want to protect rivers, we all do, but in this case your idealism is totally misplaced. Get rid of it, maybe you can save somebody's life, I would feel better about that, rather than protecting a rock.

Claytonious is offline   Reply With Quote

accident, ark

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Accident on the Ark? schubutt Whitewater Kayaking 37 06-04-2008 09:28 AM
Yesterday's CC accident Seadog Whitewater Kayaking 0 07-05-2007 09:04 AM
Accident on the Poudre? sshallen Whitewater Kayaking 0 06-10-2007 11:30 PM
Another Commercial accident andy Whitewater Kayaking 7 06-15-2006 08:39 PM
Vallecito Accident floaty22 Whitewater Kayaking 24 06-05-2006 05:11 PM

» Classified Ads
Wavesport Project X 56

posted by rendock

Hardly used Wavesport Project X56 kayak $400 obo

Wavesport Diesel 60

posted by pattimiller747

Cool colors - purples, black and greys Lightly used two...

Pyranha Burn 3 XL

posted by Rendezvous River Sports


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.