Here are some of the reasons why the log in the Chicayne Rapid in the Hutt Gorge should be removed in January 2008.
The log is a hazard, it is temporary. The bulk of us started paddling the Gorge without the Log stuck in there. It will disappear eventually but in the meantime someone may get pinned under it and drown, thereby jeopardizing our “quiet use” of the Gorge. Inquests etc.
The log is dangerous at flows below 2.2m on the Te Marua gauge because anyone who exits their kayak above it has a good chance of being pushed beneath the log on the right side. At low flows it is easy to see how death could occur here because of the conglomeration of other logs beneath the main log. The recent example when Matt Gardner was flushed under the right side of the log has highlighted the potential for drowning and this can not now be ignored. Matt was flushed through but only just and received severe bruising as he was forced against logs etc. It is only luck that he did not get pinned.
Good paddlers have gone under log recently, so this should be enough of a warning for all.
By opposing an obvious safety issue like this, are those who are against cutting the log prepared to accept responsibility for a person's death if they are trapped under the log?
Everyone should ask themselves the question: If someone drowns trapped under the log, will we then change our mind and want to cut it out, after the fact? Seriously? If we would, then we shouldn't wait for someone to die first. [If Matt Gardner had drowned under the log, would we have now decided to cut it out? If Kathie Stobbs had drowned under the log, would we have now decided to cut it out? These are real examples, not made up.]
At least two people have gone under this log already that we know of, so this proves that it is a real risk, not just a hypothetical one. When Gerry went under a log in another rapid, we went and cut it out afterwards.
Even if lesser paddlers plan to walk the log rapid, they may still swim above it like Matt Gardner did.
I have heard people argue that people should only do the run if they are 'good enough', and therefore the log doesn't matter. The trouble is, it is impossible to predict for certain who is 'good enough' to go through without going under the log. Eg. Noone would have predicted that Matt Gardner would have swum above it and gone under.
We've been removing log obstructions in the gorge for years and continue to do so, so what is so special about this log that we have to keep it?
Paddlers were enjoying the Gorge for decades before the log was there, and will continue to. Many of us can remember the gorge before the log was there, and it was still great. There is a rapid under the log, and the rapid above the log will get faster once the log-dam is gone and the silt flushed away.
A log that has floated down the river and become wedged between roacks can not be considered a permanent feature that deserves preservation.
The danger posed by the log is hugely more than any other feature on the run. Therefore it increases the level of danger hugely for anyone coming through, without really raising the excitement/interest level of the run in general. [Remember I don't find the log drop a particularly interesting or enjoyable or fun rapid.] This limits who can use this run to progress to harder whitewater. Apart from the log obstacle, the Hutt is/would be a very good river to progress on. Basically, the log hazard is preventing new "entrants". Ultimately this will reduce the use of the Gorge which is a bad thing conservation-wise.
People who want the Gorge run to be exciting can do it at high level. These people often don't want to do the run at standard 2.0 m any more anyway because it is not challenging enough for them, log or not. So why should the log ruin (stop) the run for lesser paddlers who would be at the peak of their abilities just going through at the easiest level ie 2.1?
Liability. If somebody drowns under the log, ignoring our own consciences for the moment, what will be the public view (e.g. coroner's inquiry, media) if it turns out that we (local clubs, local paddlers) knew about the obvious danger (and had several warnings and discussed it) and how to remove it but chose to do nothing? Will a trip leader end up liable in some way as well? A club? Will we be banned from using the river for club trips by some authority? Does our sport need this kind of publicity, when we are fighting hydro schemes etc. and need credibility as a safe and responsible sport?
If a log was totally blocking the river so that noone could paddle the run at all (no portage possible) then even good paddlers would want to remove it. If a log was blocking the river so that absolutely everybody had to portage it then even good paddlers would want to remove it, since it was only a hindrance and an inconvenience. I think that, though this particular log is easily paddleable if you are in control, the more competent paddlers are being selfish in wanting to keep it at the expense of lesser paddlers who may not be able to do the run because of it.
