Go Back   Mountain Buzz > Whitewater Boating > Whitewater Kayaking

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-29-2012   #31
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,302
Ah, exactly CGM. Stick it to Grand County so that I can surf for free. Just stay out of my eddy!

Kyle McCutchen
Cutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012   #32
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2002
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 586
Originally Posted by Jensjustduckie View Post
CGM, if you don't care if Grand County builds a park why are you posting?

I think anything kayaking or boating specific added to any river in Colorado is a step in the right direction. We already have access issues and unclear laws on water access so anything that does not remove access is a plus in my book.
Wow, so just develop everything, pave anything, alter and f*** with stuff, let's build highways and ramps and railings and, hell, may as well charge admission, put in turnstyles, and we probably should have lifeguards... See where I'm going with this?
Is there any thought for just LEAVING THINGS ALONE?
Hecla is an abomination. It's an amusement park. Let the tourists have it.
I don't want to pay higher fees so a texas touron can have a DEE-LUXE bathroom and a nicely-laid sidewalk and staircase with railing... We have enough of that.
As I said - if the main thrust of this, from the AW standpoint, is flow protection, then hell yes - IF the impacts and development will be kept to a minimum.
And I would really like some answers from Nathan and Caroline, to my questions... What will happen to the open space and free camping around Insp. Pt., and what fee impacts will there be at Pumphouse? If you ask for our support, I would appreciate your willingness to answer reasonable questions, posed politely as I did earlier.
The argument that "It would be neat to have a new surf wave there" is not adequate justification for F***ing with the river, in my humble opinion.
Thank you.

Id725 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012   #33
Pinecliffe, Colorado
Paddling Since: 05
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 447
I for one would absolutely be in favor of the play park if flows on the Upper C were not reduced due to its construction. Lets get real here, water managers are not going to make flow decisions based on a play park. A playpark will not even be a factor in their decision process. Think about it, when and if (I hope they never do and I would fight against it) start taking water from this area do you really think they are going to say, oh we can't take water from that section, there is a playpark up there. They don't care why would they.

While this area is not "pristine wilderness" it is very nice and fairly remote. I have been going up there for over twenty years and I do hunt this area each year. There is an abundance of deer, elk, turkeys, bear etc... in the area that will be negatively impacted by a road and more facilities up there. As well as some recently released Big Horn Sheep. We do not need a road going through there!

The economic impact will be very small for Grand County unless they raise user fees in there. The nearest towns with commercial interests are Kremmling, Silverthorne, and Wolcott. All of which are over half hour away and the only one in Grand County is Kremmling. I know for a fact Kremmling caters to a lot more hunters than boaters. The construction of a road in there will hurt hunting in the area and have a negative impact on the fall economy of Grand County.

Lastly I find it odd that support for this must be a pm to CaroBradford, just post who comments need to go to and forget the middleman thing. I will look into who comments go to so all views on this project can be shared with Grand County.
treemanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012   #34
Durango, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1996
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 807
This proposal would:

(1) Protect existing flows in Gore Canyon (Not because some water manager is going to voluntarily release for a playpark, but because Grand County can get a RICD- which I think they have already applied for.).
(2) Possibly create a good surf wave at the Gore Canyon takeout.
(3) Cost you nothing.

How can you possibly be against this as a paddler?
jmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012   #35
caspermike's Avatar
Bozeman, Montana
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,507
As long as they build it out of rocks not concrete and use existing roads I'm down. If its anywhere in the paddle out I'm not really down with that. Gore was my first river run back in the day ran it top to bottom in a t3. Before that I had only been play boating. I don't think a play wave or hole will bring more people to the area people go cause it runs late season. That's the only good thing about it is play boaters won't need to drive to mwave. But hard to make a park good at 500 when you need it good at 6000 usually it's one or the other. Im talking legit surfs loops and blunts. Otherwise id rather go spin in some the sweet play spots in gore

Mack as paddlers we are stewards of our environment yeah play park in a city is one thing most rivers are eyesores through towns with litter. But to litter an environment with enough impact already doesn't really make sense for what I stand for. Find a wave, as paddlers how can we let instant gratification rule us. Yes it would be nice as a paddler. But as someone who also cares about the land the rivers I would choose a different location.. Just cause gore is lost in terms of being natural doesn't mean we should make it worse..

I also disagree that a play park will have anything to do with future flows for the region. I have yet to find a park that makes Dam and tunnel operators run more or less water for the purpose of quality of a whitewater park. Denver is the decider of that

Doesn't sound like glenwood is a far drive
caspermike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012   #36
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1994
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 325
I care about this insomuch as I think its a bad idea. But I'm not going to go further than complaining on the intrawebs.
I just don't see the interests of a small group of kayakers justifying the costs. I agree with Cutch that alot of parks have been built where there's no water...but at least these have for the most part been in urban areas where the addition of some TLC and river access has been beneficial to the surrounding communities and I would guess generally paid for themselves. As I mentioned, I don't think that pouring a bunch of concrete in the river at Pumphouse so that 30 kayakers can have another cartwheel spot in the "relative" middle of nowhere is worth the cost Grand County taxpayers (if that is, as I assume. who will be paying for it).
If the true design is to try and ensure flows in the upper Colorado river, wouldn't there be some better, more visible places to build a park along the Colorado or Blue where it will have more impact and get used more? Hell isn't there a better idea than building a playpark? Glenwood's already got a phenomenal feature...can't that be used as a catalyst for ensuring flows?
The more I think about it, the less I understand the connection between a playpark and conserving flows?
Perhaps one of the AW folks can elaborate on this and the funding for the project.
Chris Morrison
CGM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012   #37
nathanfey's Avatar
, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1989
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 80
At this point it might be best to look over some of the Project updates from AW on the Upper Colorado. You're asking good questions, and I think most can be answered here:

Upper Colorado Stakeholder Efforts:
American Whitewater - Project - Upper Colorado River (CO)

Gore Canyon Whitewater Park:
American Whitewater - Upper Colorado River-Gore Canyon Whitewater Park, Proposed by Grand County, CO

Also, maybe be you can help me figure out how best to get this kind of information out to a broader audience - beyond AWs membership?
I'd appreciate your input: nathan@americanwhhitewater.org

Originally Posted by CGM View Post
I would also question the cost benefit of spending the money to construct these features at Pumphouse. I don't see this being any kind of economic boon to Grand County...is there supposed to be a payback? If the only intention is maintaining streamflows, is there not a better way to do that than make a playpark in a relatively remote area...I hardly imagine this thing being a huge draw. Maybe it'll be "fun" for those already paddling Gore or Pumphouse. What about teaming with Trout Unlimited or other groups and see what kind of support their networks can drum up for maintaining streamflows?
Join American Whitewater!
nathanfey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012   #38
Fraser, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1997
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 64
Is it just me, or is this conversation gettin' a little outta control?Treemanji,there is already an established road there that gets significant use in the summer.On any given day or weekend its tough to find one of the already developed campspots down there.Now people are just throwing fire rings anywhere and trampling the vegetation.Id725,handrails?really?There has not been one mention of anything but a playwave,road upgrade,and maybe another port-a-john.Being a raft guide,and kayaker on the Upper C,I'm there most days in the summer,and to tell you the truth,this place is NOT secret by any means.All we are trying to do is add a little more variety for the area,while also helping the river.We would'nt be gettin' into this mess if you Front Rangers would quit watering your "unnatural to the area" Kentucky Bluegrass.;}
TELEYAKCO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012   #39
caspermike's Avatar
Bozeman, Montana
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,507
building a play park is not going to counteract the needs of Denver water sorry bro never going to happen. It's not like a scheduled release with aw; Denver is only going to grow. So that means the water will come from somewhere. That's less water in the future not more.....
caspermike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012   #40
nathanfey's Avatar
, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1989
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 80
One more thing -
American Whitewater reviews each Whitewater Park Proposal individually before taking any action to support or oppose the project. Clearly we are supporting this project, but adhere to our internal WWP guidance. We have published a set of resources that present the considerations we believe should be part of any whitewater park design and construction process, in our River Stewardship Toolkit:
American Whitewater - stewardship:whitewater_parks

Happy reading

Join American Whitewater!
nathanfey is offline   Reply With Quote


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
Whitewater Ramble and Oakhurst Bluegrass show at Buena Vista Whitewater Park ckspaddler Whitewater Kayaking 1 06-22-2011 06:59 AM
Fall Introduction to Kayaking Class ~ Pikes Peak Whitewater Club Theophilus Whitewater Kayaking 0 08-01-2010 06:01 PM
Fall Grand Canyon? rivermro Whitewater Kayaking 0 06-26-2010 12:15 PM
gore canyon Whitewater Festival 2007 stinky Whitewater Kayaking 74 08-07-2007 01:05 PM

» Classified Ads
Demo 2016 Jackson...

posted by 4CRS

Used 2016 Jackson Rockstar XS whitewater kayak - lightly...

Demo Jackson Shooting Star

posted by 4CRS

Used 2016 Jackson Shooting Star kids whitewater kayak -...


posted by jordanfrank7

I am selling my kayak to get ready for the winter season. ...

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 10:05 PM.

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