Environmentalists destroy white water park development - Page 2 - Mountain Buzz
 

Go Back   Mountain Buzz > Whitewater Boating > Whitewater Kayaking


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-07-2018   #11
Shapp
 
the grove, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1986
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,781
A six pack says this is "James H." yanking the proverbial chain with a bunch of weird questions.

shappattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-08-2018   #12
 
lmyers's Avatar
 
Buena Vista, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2005
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,750
This is also like the OP's 5th or 6th thread about whitewater parks. He starts a weird thread and then might follow up with one post before creating a new thread. Perhaps we need some more strict standards for forum etiquette....
lmyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018   #13
 
caverdan's Avatar
 
C. Springs, Colorado
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by shappattack View Post
A six pack says this is "James H." yanking the proverbial chain with a bunch of weird questions.
I don't think I'll take that bet.
caverdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-08-2018   #14
 
Horserump, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1975
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 512
I vote for the fish and free flowing rivers. If it wasn't for the environmentalist you'd probably wouldn't have any free flowing rivers. If you want a white water park go to some where where they have some. Last time I checked Kansas was still mathmaticly flatter than a pancake. Any park they thought of building there would be so inundated with insecticides, herbicides, fertilzer, and who knows how many other hazardous materials that if you boated in it your boat would probably disolve.
yak1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2018   #15
 
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Paddling Since: 1990
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4
Misleading post headline.

Yes native fish passage is a concern and should be. Paddlers need to demonstrate we are good stewards of the environment if we wish continued access and yes artificial structures and parks. Beyond that, according to the article, even portions of the whitewater community oppose the proposed park.

These conflicts are very rarely based on a single issue. Usually rare species are used as a proxy because if present they have state and Federal laws protecting them.
McGinty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018   #16
 
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,385
Doesn't the Snake have a bunch of excellent natural playspots somewhere pretty close to there anyway?...must be a little out of town
cayo 2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018   #17
 
Jenks, Oklahoma
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,722
From an engineering and design standpoint, it is relatively easy to include a fish passage in just about any WW play spot design.

Most play spots I know of have a fish ladder.
okieboater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018   #18
 
SLC, Utah
Paddling Since: 1983
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 145
Looks to me like there are concerns about the proposal that need more investigation. Anyone see a problem with that? And if the proposed action does negatively impact the fish, do you really think adding a play spot is worth damaging a species? [sarcastic political comment deleted]
paulster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2018   #19
 
Boise, ID
Paddling Since: '99
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by cayo 2 View Post
Doesn't the Snake have a bunch of excellent natural playspots somewhere pretty close to there anyway?...must be a little out of town
Alpine Canyon stretch has a bunch of play spots depending on flow. For Victor/Driggs folks, 1-2 hrs, for Jackson folks, 20-45 minutes depending on where they live.

I'm all for fish habitat. If that or another true environmental problem is not the issue and it's a bunch of wealthy nimbys complaining, I propose a 200 yard setback from the river for all the richy riches for their $20m homes unless a park can go in. No grandfathering either. It's navigable water and I don't want MY experience floating it ruined by mansions in the view shed. Just like the affluent don't want the riff raff around.

I honestly don't know enough about the debate though. I've taken a "shower" at the proposed site after sleeping in my truck and logistically, it seems like an awesome spot for a wave but I'm not a scientist.
Conundrum is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019   #20
 
mvhyde's Avatar
 
Technology Partner, Littleton, Colorado
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 648
Send a message via AIM to mvhyde
Well, not sure why they really want to do this... But, Lunch Counter is not all that far away and it is wayyyyyy better than any man-made stuff.
__________________
And the Lord said, let there be whitewater. So on Friday, the 13th day of the month....
mvhyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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
In stream white water parks vs pumped white water Gamer242 Whitewater Kayaking 8 12-07-2018 02:00 PM
Proposed Restoration Project to Destroy Dowd Chute? WhiteLightning Whitewater Kayaking 6 10-11-2006 10:28 AM
Wolf Creek Ski Area Development cemartin Whitewater Kayaking 5 01-05-2005 04:17 PM
Neat article on new BV kayak park/river development cstork Whitewater Kayaking 2 10-26-2004 11:33 AM
Wolf Creek ski area development!!! rebecca Winter Buzz 2 05-03-2004 05:38 PM

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.