Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

gonna throw my 2 cents in.

if You are someone who trys to run crooked creek any chance you get, then you start to see a pattern on the way the river floods.

The previous year, when Ike and gustov came through, the river (at albert pike) was close to the same levels. but campers were not in the area. the major difference was that the river didnt rise as fast, not creating as much damage. on another trip up about 2 weeks before this, myself and Jason Mellor stood at the Bridge and couldnt go any further because the forest service wouldnt allow us to because they were rescueing victims. this was the highest I had seen the river, it had got up into the bathrooms aned had trapped some fish in them. I have watched the little mo and its watershed pretty close over teh past 10 years, Ive paddled crooked when the little mo didnt get over 4.5 on the gauge at langley, on the flip side ive been there when the langley gauge was 16 feet+ and crooked wasnt there.
If you look at the amount of damage that was done, this wasnt a steadily riseing river, my thoughts are that there was a wall of water that came through the campgrounds that night. Three major tribs come together just up stream of the campgrounds, if the entire watershed of the littlemo had gotten hit the langley reading would have been much higher, hell the Tot didnt get above 6ft that day.
(the last of my Rant)
Being able to camp near the water is what makes albert pike so great, if you could not get that close, most people wouldnt camp there at all. do i think there should be some warning sighns up,(probly wouldnt hurt) but at the same time that is part of the risk for getting what most people want when camping.
I think the lawsuit is a bunch of BS, and do not see where any good could come from it.

THE US FORESTRY AND USDA RREPORTS BOTH SAY THE RANGER BUILT
LOOP D KNOWING IT WAS A FLOOD PLAIN AND CROSSED THEIR FINGERS.
THE 3RD DAY AFTER COMPLETION THEY HAD TO RESCUE PEOPLE. SO FOR
7 YEARS THEY KNEW THIS COULD HAPPEN. I THINK RANGER WATSON COULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH 20 COUNTS OF MURDER.

When does personal responsibility kick in? Know where you are and how to get out. If Ranger Watson is responsible for 20 counts of murder then I will make you responsible also because unless you wrote letters to those "in charge" or made other efforts you are guilty also.

tomOzarkVideo wrote:

The suit also claims that Loop D, which sustained the worst of the flooding where the campers died, should not have been built because it was in a flood plain, something the Forest Service knew.

OK so.... every NPS site on the buffalo needs to be closed?? Devils den too?? Hell.. I can't think of a place i've camped in the last 3 years that WASN'T on a flood plain. :myday"

I hate bottom feeding attorneys.. Go chase an ambulance

This kind of snipe is unnecessary. Discuss the issue. As a longtime lover and user of the outdoors (and even a victim of nature's lack of mercy... I was rescued from a mountaineering accident by Rocky Mountain Search and Rescue in the past) I always cringe at litigation that could result in reduced access to wild (and yes, dangerous) places.

But this situation is complex, does have two sides, and the blame, if it is even fair to blame anyone, isn't on those who are hired to represent the families who decided to sue. That's what the legal system is for. There's a dispute about whether there was reasonable care in the face of a known risk, each side has a position, each side will be well represented, and... whatever.

Blaming the lawyers for "creating" litigation is ridiculous... equally ridiculous, perhaps, with blaming the park service for deaths from a once in a lifetime flash flood. But as one of those lawyer types on this board (and not ashamed of what I do... I represent poor people. I'm sure you have politics to vent about that, too) I'd encourage you to keep politically oriented snipes off the board.

And least of all to blame are the poor families who pulled into this well advertised camp in campers with no knowledge of the potential hazards. The first they knew of the dangers was when their campers started to rock and float. Jeez, there weren't even warning signs as recommended by the state's own studies. Please read the reports and consider the facts.
Now, flood warning signs are plastered throughout the Ouachita recreational areas.

The suit also claims that Loop D, which sustained the worst of the flooding where the campers died, should not have been built because it was in a flood plain, something the Forest Service knew.

This statement is 100% responsible for my remark.

As I've stated before, I ment no disrespect for the families. I have no opinion on whether they should be awarded compensation. I agree that there should have been some information conspicuously posted or communicated about the area to the campers.

I also have no problem with the practice of law on whole. It is a crucial practice for the operation of our society.

However.......

The person that made the statement quoted above needs to be VERY far away from any litigation involving access to parks and forests. IMHO

Very well said, Tom. The last thing we want is an overreaction by the government setting a simplistic policy of closing all recreational areas that happen to occur in legalistically defined flood plains.
When the studies recommended that warnings be posted and they weren't adequately followed through, it's possible it led to or contributed to the tragedy. Up to midnight, the rangers were monitoring the rains. It's tragic that the valiant rangers couldn't even get to the campground when the tremendous rise occurred. Alarms would have helped. It is woulda, coulda, shoulda and no amount of lawsuits will bring the victims back. But it's very difficult for me to take the position that the victims should have known and that no one or nothing else was responsible.

As an engineer, I think the problem is a lack of specificity. If you ever ask an engineer a question, the answer will be "It depends". When you say flood plain, you could mean, a 500 year, 100 year, 10 year, or 1 year flood plain. The difference between a 500-year and a 1-year flood plain is going to be enormous, both physically and liability-wise. I trust that this case will be decided on the details, not on general statements, and I hope that the long-term outcome of USFS and Akransas State Parks policy will also be nuanced.

Thanks,
Paul

The older and more experienced I get in life,
The more my answer is "It depends on.........." you fill in the periods.

I think there are solid yes or no answers to some things
but
for the most part "It depends on............" fits the situation.

No disrespect to the victims of this tragedy either,
When the government bureaucrats or Congress seeks to solve a problem and "reform" is mentioned, I immediate think of the law of unintended consequences kicking in almost every time.