Northwest Kiteboarding
Forum | Classifieds | Lost & Found | CGKA | Industry | Sensors | Forecast | Spots | Seattle | Decals | RSS | Facebook

Events | Photos | Search | Register | Profile | Log in to check your messages | Log in 

Lyle Community Council 6/5/18
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast
previous topic :: next topic  
Author Message
bigjohn

Since 13 Mar 2012
385 Posts

Obsessed



PostThu Jun 07, 18 7:56 pm     Reply with quote

Cannon wrote:

A shorter term solution and more viable will be to push for an updated boat ramp while we work on the above. Having a workable boat ramp will at least allow a relatively easy access should the current access somehow change.


Not sure what your thoughts are on this, but about 35 years ago I used to windsurf out of that boat ramp occasionally (well a couple of times anyway). I remember there being a pretty big wind shadow. I had to swim out a bit before I could get up on my board. Coming in I would come in real fast so I could float the last bit without wind.

Perhaps that ramp has changed in the last 35 years and it now extends past the rock wall (probably depends a lot on river height)? Or perhaps you could launch up higher and keep your kite over the rock wall (like arlington)?

_________________
mowing the river like Jack Nicklaus was comin to town.

View user's profile Send private message
Cannon

Since 13 Sep 2010
71 Posts

 



PostThu Jun 07, 18 9:45 pm     Reply with quote

I was more thinking some local kid would set up a shuttle or the CGKA could partner with the onsite kiteboarding school to set up a shuttle. They are already using the launch but needed to upgrade to a huge 4x4 to safely launch/retrieve their boat.
I thought economically the boat ramp improvements make more sense for the community as it drives people in town and they would be more likely to spend some $$.
I think there is a much more workable plan here for the short term.
I wouldn’t propose launching a kite from here. The county only owns between the walls and when the nets are out I can imagine what kind of mess that would be.
This also skirts dealing with all the parties involved.
Just an option but something to think about. As pointed out, $8m buys a lot of jet skis and or shuttle boats.

View user's profile Send private message
bigjohn

Since 13 Mar 2012
385 Posts

Obsessed



PostFri Jun 08, 18 6:55 am     Reply with quote

Cannon wrote:
I was more thinking some local kid would set up a shuttle or the CGKA could partner with the onsite kiteboarding school to set up a shuttle. They are already using the launch but needed to upgrade to a huge 4x4 to safely launch/retrieve their boat.
I thought economically the boat ramp improvements make more sense for the community as it drives people in town and they would be more likely to spend some $$.
I think there is a much more workable plan here for the short term.
I wouldn’t propose launching a kite from here. The county only owns between the walls and when the nets are out I can imagine what kind of mess that would be.
This also skirts dealing with all the parties involved.
Just an option but something to think about. As pointed out, $8m buys a lot of jet skis and or shuttle boats.


Thumb's Up Lots of good ideas there.

$5 for a boat ride. Perhaps Rowena could be included. It could be like an uberboat.

_________________
mowing the river like Jack Nicklaus was comin to town.

View user's profile Send private message
wylieflyote

Since 30 Jun 2006
1257 Posts
Puget Sound & Wa. Coast
XTreme Poster



PostFri Jun 08, 18 7:29 am     Reply with quote

bigjohn wrote:
Cannon wrote:
I was more thinking some local kid would set up a shuttle or the CGKA could partner with the onsite kiteboarding school to set up a shuttle. They are already using the launch but needed to upgrade to a huge 4x4 to safely launch/retrieve their boat.
I thought economically the boat ramp improvements make more sense for the community as it drives people in town and they would be more likely to spend some $$.
I think there is a much more workable plan here for the short term.
I wouldn’t propose launching a kite from here. The county only owns between the walls and when the nets are out I can imagine what kind of mess that would be.
This also skirts dealing with all the parties involved.
Just an option but something to think about. As pointed out, $8m buys a lot of jet skis and or shuttle boats.


Thumb's Up Lots of good ideas there.

$5 for a boat ride. Perhaps Rowena could be included. It could be like an uberboat.



This was tried a few years ago, as well as Viento shuttle bus idea. It didn't float for very long.

_________________
CGKA Member
-------
Kip Wylie

View user's profile Send private message
Cannon

Since 13 Sep 2010
71 Posts

 



PostFri Jun 08, 18 9:37 am     Reply with quote

I believe Bigwinds still runs a shuttle for their SUPs. That is why it would be important to have an on-site partner with the CGKA to provide structure. Additionally, we are talking about economic investments for the community to capitalize on, not just for kiteboarders and SUPErs.
I don’t know the set up of the failed efforts you mention, but we need to consider options if the current situation changes.
And, Lyle just needs a better boat ramp, that thing is terrible.

View user's profile Send private message
D

Since 18 Apr 2015
50 Posts
Hood River
 

CGKA Member


PostFri Jun 08, 18 1:10 pm     Reply with quote

Isn't that boat ramp mainly tribal? I doubt they'd want kooks interfering with their fishery. Also, there are nets EVERYWHERE outside that ramp. It would be incredibly dangerous to go in and out of. I'd guess the Rowena ramp would have to be the go to ramp for shuttles.

View user's profile Send private message
bigjohn

Since 13 Mar 2012
385 Posts

Obsessed



PostFri Jun 08, 18 1:27 pm     Reply with quote

Cannon wrote:
I believe Bigwinds still runs a shuttle for their SUPs. That is why it would be important to have an on-site partner with the CGKA to provide structure. Additionally, we are talking about economic investments for the community to capitalize on, not just for kiteboarders and SUPErs.
I don’t know the set up of the failed efforts you mention, but we need to consider options if the current situation changes.
And, Lyle just needs a better boat ramp, that thing is terrible.


I think this is a very good idea, especially if we can work with an already established local entity as previously suggested.

The Lyle sandbar is a legal public access location which can be utilized by the public for recreational use. However, it is landlocked by entities that are choosing to control access to this public resource.

Ultimately it makes sense to me that access should be negotiated with considerations for all parties involved.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that negotiations require other parties to realize that we recreationalists have alternate options available. i.e. access via boat!

_________________
mowing the river like Jack Nicklaus was comin to town.

View user's profile Send private message
ldhr

Since 21 Jul 2009
1052 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster



PostFri Jun 08, 18 2:01 pm     Reply with quote

What piece of the puzzle does the Yakima tribe control?

My understanding is the main agencies involved are the Army Corps of Engineers (controls the water), BNSF (rail crossing), WDOT (parking, crossing, signage), Forest Service (controls the bar).

View user's profile Send private message
Cannon

Since 13 Sep 2010
71 Posts

 



PostFri Jun 08, 18 2:15 pm     Reply with quote

The Commissioner indicated they had it surveyed and the ramp is on county land between the walls and the road going in and out. The bar itself is public land overseen by the Forest Service. Let’s see if we can get the map to show the rest.

View user's profile Send private message
bigjohn

Since 13 Mar 2012
385 Posts

Obsessed



PostFri Jun 08, 18 2:48 pm     Reply with quote

Perhaps I had mis-understood Commissioner Sauter.

I was under the impression that the County owned the sand bar but the Forest Service owned land required for access to it.

I guess it makes sense to look at GIS... After all it's online at The County's website. Smile

http://imap.klickitatcounty.org/

Per GIS it would appear that all the land (above water) at the sandbar is owned by the Federal Government (I assume under control of the forest service). However, most of the area with plants is owned by the Railroad.

Per GIS the boat ramp is owned by Klickitat County.


   RR ownership at Lyle.png 
   US Govermnet owned land at Lyle.png 
   US Goverment owned land at Lyle -2.png 
   County owned boatramp.png 

_________________
mowing the river like Jack Nicklaus was comin to town.

View user's profile Send private message
astanton

Since 18 Jul 2013
13 Posts

 



PostSat Jun 09, 18 5:17 am    Doesn't RCW 4.24.210 help? Reply with quote

Wouldn't this WA state law address the railroad's primary objection to allowing the public to cross the tracks?

RCW 4.24.210
Liability of owners or others in possession of land and water areas for injuries to recreation users—Known dangerous artificial latent conditions—Other limitations.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) or (4) of this section, any public or private landowners, hydroelectric project owners, or others in lawful possession and control of any lands whether designated resource, rural, or urban, or water areas or channels and lands adjacent to such areas or channels, who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation, which term includes, but is not limited to, the cutting, gathering, and removing of firewood by private persons for their personal use without purchasing the firewood from the landowner, hunting, fishing, camping, picnicking, swimming, hiking, bicycling, skateboarding or other nonmotorized wheel-based activities, aviation activities including, but not limited to, the operation of airplanes, ultra-light airplanes, hang gliders, parachutes, and paragliders, rock climbing, the riding of horses or other animals, clam digging, pleasure driving of off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and other vehicles, boating, kayaking, canoeing, rafting, nature study, winter or water sports, viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites, without charging a fee of any kind therefor, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) or (4) of this section, any public or private landowner or others in lawful possession and control of any lands whether rural or urban, or water areas or channels and lands adjacent to such areas or channels, who offer or allow such land to be used for purposes of a fish or wildlife cooperative project, or allow access to such land for cleanup of litter or other solid waste, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to any volunteer group or to any other users.
(3) Any public or private landowner, or others in lawful possession and control of the land, may charge an administrative fee of up to twenty-five dollars for the cutting, gathering, and removing of firewood from the land.
(4)(a) Nothing in this section shall prevent the liability of a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted.
(i) A fixed anchor used in rock climbing and put in place by someone other than a landowner is not a known dangerous artificial latent condition and a landowner under subsection (1) of this section shall not be liable for unintentional injuries resulting from the condition or use of such an anchor.
(ii) Releasing water or flows and making waterways or channels available for kayaking, canoeing, or rafting purposes pursuant to and in substantial compliance with a hydroelectric license issued by the federal energy regulatory commission, and making adjacent lands available for purposes of allowing viewing of such activities, does not create a known dangerous artificial latent condition and hydroelectric project owners under subsection (1) of this section shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to the recreational users and observers resulting from such releases and activities.
(b) Nothing in RCW 4.24.200 and this section limits or expands in any way the doctrine of attractive nuisance.
(c) Usage by members of the public, volunteer groups, or other users is permissive and does not support any claim of adverse possession.
(5) For purposes of this section, the following are not fees:
(a) A license or permit issued for statewide use under authority of chapter 79A.05 RCW or Title 77 RCW;
(b) A pass or permit issued under RCW 79A.80.020, 79A.80.030, or 79A.80.040;
(c) A daily charge not to exceed twenty dollars per person, per day, for access to a publicly owned ORV sports park, as defined in RCW 46.09.310, or other public facility accessed by a highway, street, or nonhighway road for the purposes of off-road vehicle use; and
(d) Payments to landowners for public access from state, local, or nonprofit organizations established under department of fish and wildlife cooperative public access agreements if the landowner does not charge a fee to access the land subject to the cooperative agreement.
[ 2017 c 245 § 1; 2012 c 15 § 1. Prior: 2011 c 320 § 11; 2011 c 171 § 2; 2011 c 53 § 1; 2006 c 212 § 6; prior: 2003 c 39 § 2; 2003 c 16 § 2; 1997 c 26 § 1; 1992 c 52 § 1; prior: 1991 c 69 § 1; 1991 c 50 § 1; 1980 c 111 § 1; 1979 c 53 § 1; 1972 ex.s. c 153 § 17; 1969 ex.s. c 24 § 2; 1967 c 216 § 2.]
NOTES:
Findings—Intent—2011 c 320: See RCW 79A.80.005.
Effective date—2011 c 320: See note following RCW 79A.80.005.
Intent—2011 c 171: "This act is intended to reconcile and conform amendments made in chapter 161, Laws of 2010 with other legislation passed during the 2010 legislative sessions, as well as provide technical amendments to codified sections affected by chapter 161, Laws of 2010. Any statutory changes made by this act should be interpreted as technical in nature and not be interpreted to have any substantive policy or legal implications." [ 2011 c 171 § 1.]
Effective date—2011 c 171: "Except for section 129 of this act, this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect July 1, 2011." [ 2011 c 171 § 142.]
Finding—2003 c 16: "The legislature finds that some property owners in Washington are concerned about the possibility of liability arising when individuals are permitted to engage in potentially dangerous outdoor recreational activities, such as rock climbing. Although RCW 4.24.210 provides property owners with immunity from legal claims for any unintentional injuries suffered by certain individuals recreating on their land, the legislature finds that it is important to the promotion of rock climbing opportunities to specifically include rock climbing as one of the recreational activities that are included in RCW 4.24.210. By including rock climbing in RCW 4.24.210, the legislature intends merely to provide assurance to the owners of property suitable for this type of recreation, and does not intend to limit the application of RCW 4.24.210 to other types of recreation. By providing that a landowner shall not be liable for any unintentional injuries resulting from the condition or use of a fixed anchor used in rock climbing, the legislature recognizes that such fixed anchors are recreational equipment used by climbers for which a landowner has no duty of care." [ 2003 c 16 § 1.].

_________________
Aaron

View user's profile Send private message
ldhr

Since 21 Jul 2009
1052 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster



PostSun Jun 10, 18 5:24 pm     Reply with quote

I'm still wondering why the Yakima tribe has a say in the access to the bar via a tunnel or some other sort of railroad crossing.

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
343 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostMon Jun 11, 18 4:25 am    Re: Doesn't RCW 4.24.210 help? Reply with quote

astanton wrote:
(4)(a) Nothing in this section shall prevent the liability of a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted.


Recreational use statues like this one went a long way in giving landowners some protection from lawsuits. But the piece I quoted above, is this particular law's Achilles heel. That section guarantees lawyers still get involved when an injury occurs. And this part is open to wild interpretation by lawyers, civil trial jury's, and judges. Thus, landowners still have no protection from the expense and hassle of liability associated with allowing recreational use of their property.

Some here on this forum would likely say that this is good - that "someone must pay for injuries occurring on properties". My position is much the opposite. I believe that striking that clause, or even reversing it to state that there is no possible way to sue even a malicious landowner who allows recreational use of their property, would be preferable. A simple statement by the landowner indicating that permission was given for recreational activities to the injured party, or that permission for others to use the property for recreational use is regularly given, would stop a lawsuit from even being filed.

If my wishes were reality, much more recreational opprotunities would be availaible for us that enjoy the outdoors. The main cost associated with this would be that a few more lawyers would be living under overpasses.

_________________
MSN has temporarily removed commenting on our websites while we explore better ways for you to engage in discussion on the issues you care about.

View user's profile Send private message
Kmun

Since 05 Jul 2009
169 Posts

Stoked



PostMon Jun 11, 18 9:20 am    RR tressel free Reply with quote

Cannon wrote:
The RR at this time is not allowing an at grade crossing nor are they allowing any connection to their bridge to build a cat walk under the tracks. That initially just leaves over the tracks or under. Washdot says anything over or under also has to go over/under Hwy 14. Over is not an option because it would be huge to accommodate all users (ADA) and not compatible with the Scenic Act. That leaves tunneling under. A preliminary estimate, $8m. Again it will take time to come to a more sensible solution but that’s where we are.


Why in the world (especially with ADA constraints) would one add elevation differential via building up & over?

In other discussions when I first proposed a cat walk under the bridges it was easy to foresee legal property entanglements when connecting to existing bridge structure.

For many good reasons most of the cat walk surface area I envisioned was supported from below or fixed to the rock walls. Yes, the surface area of cat walk that could have been cabled from above is a "third rail" but frankly may have been a belt and "suspender" design solution. Take heart. Firstly, those additional cat walk loads are not cooked into original bridge engineering & yup, "that dog won't hunt". Two, we don't need their stink'n bridges.

1. What does it take to get costs estimates on a 6' wide curved, sloped (ADA) steel grating, painted rock-brown that loops down under & around grade to grade?

This solution will be less intrusive to the Gorge Scenic Act (above road grade) while gentle curve reflects organic elements that abound.

Visual inspiration here: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1152&bih=496&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=1aweW662N4Tv9AOY_6GIAQ&q=steel+cat+walk+ramp+loops+spirals&oq=steel+cat+walk+ramp+loops+spirals&gs_l=img.3...50287.52143.0.52615.5.5.0.0.0.0.108.485.3j2.5.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.0.0....0._yhiSVCfArQ

View user's profile Send private message
ldhr

Since 21 Jul 2009
1052 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster



PostMon Jun 11, 18 9:36 am     Reply with quote

we need some out-of-the-box thinking.

   turtle.jpg 
   jet pack.jpg 

View user's profile Send private message
knotwindy

Since 25 Sep 2011
382 Posts

Obsessed



PostMon Jun 11, 18 11:05 am     Reply with quote

I have no idea about the rules and laws that govern this but what about a floating option only anchored at both ends?

View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum