Nisqually eats another boat

Discussion in 'Watercraft' started by Jon Borcherding, Jul 10, 2007.

  1. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Keep in mind that this is the same river that kids float down on walmart air mattresses!
    The guy that flipped this boat has been floating the river for many years. He had been down this channel just a couple days prior to this mishap. His fiance' was with him when they flipped the boat and they both managed to get ashore but they lost a small dog that was swept downstream under a log jam. The dog is gone and they lost most of their fishing gear.

    There MANY logs, sweepers, strainers, etc on the Nisqually this year. It's real important to pay attention. The attached pic shows the boat upsidedown and dug into the gravel about 75 yds downstream from the log that flipped it. I spent 2 hrs helping this guy get his boat floated again.
    I didn't even laugh once. It's a long fall off a high horse.

    JonB
     
  2. Dave Hartman

    Dave Hartman Strip'n Flywear

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    Whitefish, MT
    Home Page:
    Wow. Hope they find the dog.
    Hey, I've lived and floated in lots of states (and Canada) that don't allow (technically. . .) any sort of man-altering-the-stream efforts, (i.e., taking a chainsaw to a sweeper). I kinda agree bc I can see how this would cause interpretation (of the law) problems. But. . . it just seems like if there's anything we can do to avoid kids from drowning, we should do it.
    Does Washington have such a law?
    Personally, I think I'm good to go on a river and feel that most boaters are safe as well. And, if I ever do get myself into trouble, I knew what I was doing was dangerous and I'll take responsibility. But it's too often I see tubers, cheap Sevylor rafts, air mattresses filled with kids and or/beers on the rivers. These people aren't aware of the dangers and don't have the capabilities to navigate around danger. For their own good (at least until they aren't allowed on such water), I'd like to see some of the known dangers removed.
    Also, there are so many stretches of river that are perfectly safe and not where the fishermen are; I just wish the tubers were confined to these waters.
    What are people's thoughts on this?
     
  3. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Please! NO RIVER POLICE! NO NEW LAWS!
    Keep in mind that the guy that flipped this boat knows the river better than I do. He's been floating it since he was a kid. Anyone can make a mistake.
    I agree that it's stupid to float this river in a tube and it's stupid to float it without a PFD but, I don't want to see more laws, more bureaucracy, more govt. oversight, more nanny state BS.
    If we create laws to regulate every behavior that might be dangerous and we hire enough cops to enforce all those laws we will then have created a "perfect" police state. Even then there will still be those who manage to flip their boats.
    Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances!

    JonB
     
  4. Dave Hartman

    Dave Hartman Strip'n Flywear

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    Whitefish, MT
    Home Page:
    No, I agree. Regarding laws preventing taking a saw to a sweeper, I was just wondering if there already are such laws.
     
  5. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Yeah, I'm curious about that too...... I'm almost afraid to ask. You know that old saw (no pun intended)...."better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission".:confused:

    JonB
     
  6. fredaevans

    fredaevans Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,157
    Likes Received:
    138
    Location:
    White City, Oregon, USA.
    Interesting thoughts, and most applicable to the upper Rogue River. Many shops, gas stations, etc., and etc., rent all 'kinds' of floating 'craft' to run the upper river. And just because the insist on giving you a PDF doesn't mean the idiot will actually ware same. You could buy a 'river map' for around a dollar or two that showed the main 'fast water' and recommendations on how to approach/run same.
    All with spoken (written too?) proviso that rivers change, trees fall, and water conditions vary, so PAY ATTENTION!:eek:

    Few years back a fellow drowned and the estate sued the rafting company for negligence as the mad did not include a tree that had fallen into the river the past winter. Clown went right into it and drowned. Rafting company paid ........ I guess there are financial rewards for even the most stupid of people.:mad:

    Maps now? Not a chance!!! You're on your own down 7'ish miles of river.

    ps: given the picture that must have been a bugger to get that boat right side up!:rofl:
     
  7. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    there are definately laws against cutting out timber....removing wood from streams around here is arguably one of the most detrimental things we have done to salmon. I feel bad for the people this kind of thing happens to, but with proper precautions, these accidents can be prevented....without harming fish.
     
  8. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Tom, we're talking about one log that crosses the entire river. It is one of about a thousand trees that went into the river durring or shortly after our wind storm last winter.
    Rotting woody debris is important to the eco system on many levels but, we don't leave logs across roads, we don't leave logs laying on powerlines and, like it or not, I can virtually garranty you that the tribal gillnetters won't be leaving this one in the river so it doesn't really matter how we feel about it. When the gillnet season gets into full swing this log will disappear. Oh, and speaking of the "most detrimental things we have done to salmon", doesn't gillnetting figure in there somewhere?
    Take a trip down the Nisqually, Tom. I think that log is the last thing the salmon are worried about.
    Believe it or not, there are a couple of wild steelhead left in this river. If they had the ability to worry I think they would be worried about getting past the gillnets strung across the river and across every tributary below Yelm.

    JonB
     
  9. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Chasing trout and birds
    I say leave logs nature put them there and nature will take them out. inthe meantime those anglers can wade like the rest of us land lubbers.

    The gill net argument is a red herring and has nothing to do with cutting logs in a river. The Boldt decision is not going away any time soon and until the the tribes learn the error of some of their harvesting practices (like the way a gill net strung across a river indiscriminately targets all species) it will continue.
     
  10. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    The gillnet argument is a red herring and it has EVERYTHING to do with the log in question. Nature put it there and nature will take it out. The "natural americans" will have that puppy chainsawed before you can say "hydrology violation". Nature will take it's course and the salmon and steelhead will leap happily into the nets and we'll all have a little "yil me hu" down by the river.
    Seriously folks, have you ever been down this river or does your vast knowledge allow you to simply make blanket judgements for every body of water on the planet?
    And is this thread about a log? Or a chainsaw?
    NO. This thread started to let people know that there is a hazard on the river so that they can take proper precautions.
    I would be happy to debate you on other topics but perhaps it's best if we do that elsewhere.

    JonB
     
  11. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Chasing trout and birds
    Jon

    You'll get no argument from me on the tribes and their activities. Personally, I wish the tribes were held to the same environmental laws we are all held to. They should not be able to cut logs like the rest of us.

    No I don't know that river, never fished it, and I am not trying to pretend I do know it.

    I am also not trying to sound like a jerk. I am just coming from the belief that humans have messed up the rivers in this state enough already and if nature decided to put 2 or 2,000 trees in the river then they'll work their way through the system eventually and in the long run the river (and the fish) will be better off.

    If there is a public safety issue then maybe they should close the section of river in question to all floating craft (or post notice of the hazards at the access points and let god sort out the numb nuts that don't read).

    BTW you did a very good thing by helping that couple. And even though I don't fish that river thanks for taking the time to post the notice of the hazard. I hope people will do the same on the other rivers that have these types of hazards.
     
  12. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,639
    Likes Received:
    2,990
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Jon,

    Thanks for the post and alerting folks to the hazards.

    Regarding Wooleybugger74's question, yes, there is a law. It's the Washington Hydraulic Code. However, it's commonly ignored by people, and navigation hazards that involve logs are routinely subjected to a chainsaw. There is a large log jam obstructing drift boat navigation on the Green River, and many upset anglers have suggested chainsaw therapy there too, but I guess the logs are too numerous, and it's in a well known location, and so far no one seems to want to risk getting caught.

    I think the take home message is that logs, log jams, and other obstacles to safe or convenient navigation are natural and common attributes to PNW rivers. These hazards obstruct navigation, or make navigation risky and difficult. Some appreciate these rivers for the additional challenge they represent.

    Could we do something about it and make rivers safer and more convenient for navigation? In many cases the answer is yes. However, society has to decide whether it is more important to leave rivers in a more natural condition, and thereby more environmentally productive, or modify them so that uninformed and ill-informed rookies can more safely navigate them. For the time being, WA has decided generally to leave logs and log jams in place. Exceptions are sometimes made when jams pose a significant threat to property. Those exceptions would likely be made if the jams posed a threat to life as well, providing the use for navigation was essential - like navigation channel dredging for commerce that delivers significant goods and services to society.

    Navigation on the Nisqually and similar rivers is for recreation, and the commerce tends to be limited to guided rafting and boat trips for floating and fishing, which are also recreational. Commercial fishing has enough clout to often gain exception, and navigation obstacles are usually allowed to be removed. Generally, a tree in a river hasn't gained the same status as a tree down on a road. Most roads are deemed inherently essential for commerce, even if it's so a couple folks can drive their cars to their jobs.

    So, we could do something about it. And sometimes we do. The more interesting question to me is, should we? We could reduce the habitat value in a river and make it more navigable and safe, possible safe even for people who, by their ignorance, ought not be on rivers. I think public education is more important. People ought to generally learn that the world around them isn't universally safe for whatever they might try. Rivers are one of those things. I would no more make rivers universally safe to navigate for rookies than I would suggest we ought to flatten steep and tall mountains so that anyone, with no skills whatever, might ably and safely scale them. Some things in life and in the world ought to be challenging, difficult, and dangerous. Otherwise, why would anyone have reason to respect the world around them? And exposure to challenge, difficulty, and danger makes us better human beings for having faced it and learned to deal with it.

    Sincerely,

    Salmo g.
     
  13. Dave Hartman

    Dave Hartman Strip'n Flywear

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    Whitefish, MT
    Home Page:
    Thanks for the info and your thoughts Salmo G, always perfectly informative and insightful.

    I wonder why I cared so much in the first place? I have a Watermaster, it weighs 30 pounds and depending how much beer is in the cooler, portages are a breeze.
    :)

    Actually, I really do care. I wish we could do more to educate the public as to the hazard of rivers. Climbing a mountain, like in your example, well, that's common sense, of course it's dangerous. But the twelve year olds who have grabbed the inner tubes from the garage. . .
    People can just be stupid when it comes to water.
     
  14. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    That is the kind of attitude that got us where we are today. A jam has to start somewhere, and a big full spanner is one of the best ways...look at the EDT analyses...large wood is frequently ID'd as the most important factor limiting chinook productivity in many of our watersheds.

    Whether or not the log should be removed has nothing to do with netting...if you think netting is a problem, get active on that front rather than suggesting habitat doesn't matter...two wrongs don't make a right.
     
  15. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Hey guys, I want you to look back over my previous posts and you'll find that I haven't advocated cutting out the log. I simply wanted to point out how ridiculously incongruent this concern over one log seems, compared with the reality that this river is being destroyed by gillnets. You don't have to be a scientist to see it if you actually float down it a few times. Even compared with other readily apparent hydrology violations, this log is a funny place to focus your concern.

    Can I remind you one more time that I never advocated cutting the log?? I would just as soon see it stay. Keeps most of the driftboats out of the river. You're right, Tom, there's a heck of a jam starting up against these logs. Suits me just fine. Until someone cuts a hole, I'll have more river and less people. But when the hole gets cut, and it will, I won't get too worried about it because there's not much I can do to stop it. If I could wave a magic wand over just one thing on the mighty Nisqaully it would make the nets go away.

    I guess at the end of the day it all comes down to your principles. If any of you guys wanna float down there and chain yourself to the log, I'll be happy to show you where it's located and I can even call the eyewitness news crew.:clown:

    JonB