Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

I, like the rest of you , have done my share of solo-ing also..but I definately don't like to do it, not just for the "what if" factor, but also the fact that I enjoy paddling with my friends.
I have also playboated at rockport alot solo, as there isn't always someone there..but its always in the back of my head that..even though I've never cracked my head looping before..etc. that there is always the chance that I could, and that makes me wary no matter how good of a day I'm having. It's always a relief when someone else shows up to share the waves.
Joe

A Savage spanke wrote:Thats not the part of the story that stuck out to me, telling her to let go off the paddle was what caught my attention...Roman, you said you had to tell her to leave her boat and get to shore, was she trying to unpin the boat or was she just acting like she was stuck on an island?

She was upstream of the boat and the paddle was jammed underneath it. She was trying to free it and nearly slipped under the boat. I told her to leave it and get out of the water. Gear can be replaced, but a swim at this location would more than likely be deadly. There are always a bunch of trees hung up here and a portage is required at lower levels.

is the water flowing to the left or the right of the page? Is that the class II falls?

water is moving right to left of pic. Those "lame ponds" have waaayy more current and push than one would think. Wasn't that the whole point here? Few shoals or drops but the current is there. Tree moving, boat pinning current. Saw an aluminum canoe flex to the point of beginning to wrap on a bridge post in the Ouiskey Chitto. Trick to getting it out was the same. The bottom was full of wood pinned on the same piers below the surface... real easy to be a dangerous scenario.

We were once in a swamp down there. paddling around in the trees with little or no current. As we backtracked, we realized the calm water we poled thru was now dropping and major currents rushing toward the river as acres of flooded woods pushed to drop its waters.. opposite direction from where we wanted/needed to go. All changed in an hours time. Point?? Just cuz it don't look dangerous.... doesn't mean it does not deserve respect.

From AW rapid rating page:

Class I Rapids

Fast moving water with riffles and small waves. Few obstructions, all obvious and easily missed with little training. Risk to swimmers is slight; self-rescue is easy.

Class II Rapids: Novice

Straightforward rapids with wide, clear channels which are evident without scouting. Occasional maneuvering may be required, but rocks and medium-sized waves are easily missed by trained paddlers. Swimmers are seldom injured and group assistance, while helpful, is seldom needed. Rapids that are at the upper end of this difficulty range are designated “Class II+”.

A Savage spanke wrote:is the water flowing to the left or the right of the page? Is that the class II falls?

Water is flowing to the left and I think it's pretty obvious that it's not a rapid.

Sorry I should have re-read the original post, you said she had already made it through those, it was a wasted question, my bad

perhaps Loren is trying to be funny i don't know. I don't know them. i don't know roman either.

From what i read the problem wasn't what you could see in the picture rather what you couldn't see under the water.

How scary or not is may have been is all in the perception of the situation of those who were actually involved.

what scares me may not scare you etc.

If people can drown in their bathtub, you could reasonably surmise that this particular situation could have turned ugly.

A class V rapid is not a big deal as long as you run it clean. That being said I have not ran one.

I was on a run with capt alieve on illinois bouyou and what appeared to be a straighforward little manuver ended up pushing me up under a strainer. I self rescued, but it was perhpas the most scared i have ever been on a river. To someone else it may not have looked bad, but in the future i will give strainers much more respect.

hopefully it will warm up and rain soon so that we can all be on a river.

my two cents
eric

by the way I tend to agree with Zach if Loren is in anyway serious in his comments.

Well guys I am going to say a few words here before the Boofmasters hammer comes down on you

This has been a great discussion up to the point where someone started personal attacks; insulting women and other states. I am not personally intimidated by it but this is not the place for sexist and other insulting commentary. If this truly causes Roman's girl friend to not want to paddle with us, that is a sad, sad thing.

OK, moderation was necessary. I have simply deleted those posts that were not in compliance with our guidelines, and also deleted responses to those posts because they won't make any sense now.

I chose to not lock or delete this thread because there was also a lot of good content.

Anyone who feels the need to ask questions should first review our message board guidelines; your question has already been answered. If you disagree with that, send me a PRIVATE MESSAGE and I'll try to provide you a more personalized answer for any specific concern.

For the record Loren is a male, so the perceived "sexist" remarks were all in good fun.

-Matt

Matt, your record is no good here,

-Ryan

I understood that LOREN is male and I understand that probably no offence was intended toward women. However, with that said, why is it usually considered an insult, even in good fun, to compare someone to a women or imply that that person has feminine characteristics? Why are feminine traits considered signs of weakness while masculine traits are considered signs of strength?

I really don't want to be overly politically correct in this but consider that most of us now would not make public negative comparisons to a person of another race but it is still ok or funny to make negative comparisons to women.

Not angry; just giving food for thought.

Without delving too deep into this because trust me my logic doesn't run deep on this one; a girl with a guys name is just as funny to me as a guy with a girls name. Traits be damned of either sex.

That makes that the most ultimate form of unilateral, bilateral, un-sexist, undiscriminating, un-sexual-anthropomorphizing (no, I don't think women are different creatures then men), equality based teasing ever, especially if nobody is safe from it.

BUT you're right; it is demeaning towards women to associate Loren with them, and for that I am sorry.

-Matt

FarPastGone wrote: BUT you're right; it is demeaning towards women to associate Loren with them, and for that I am sorry.

-Matt

Now,THAT's funny!