Jump to content
I was kayaking about 5 days ago, and saw a family (mom, dad in one raft, two 12 yr old boys in another raft, and two high school aged girls in a third raft) floating from tree house bridge to the library in "single-chambered" rafts with 1 paddle in each raft. About 400 yards down the river the girls were pinned up against a log jam (aka body net) in the middle of the river holding on to the logs and about chest deep in water. I was fully puckered in that situation and I would consider myself an experienced white water kayaker. Luckily we got them off the logs and onto the raft, only to see that they didn't know how to paddle. I towed them back across the river with help from another boater. They could have easily died, as could have their brothers in the other raft (which I found deflated and wrapped around a tree under water about 200 yards upstream from the iron horse train bridge).
Bottom line is that not only is it a smart decision to ban commercial tubing from the river right now, REGARDLESS of what gear they are wearing, but it would be wise to put a reminder in the paper about it, AND make every store that is selling these flimsy rafts and tubes (wal-mart, sports authority, christy sports, etc) put a sign in front of these products reminding people of the high water situation. It is a miracle that no one died this weekend in the river. I know we want to be a "fun" tourist town for people to vacation to, but I would rather have people upset that they didn't get to float the river, than have them fly or drive back home minus one family member.
Never do I ask my father about any case or arrest or detail of any sort, and if I did he would never tell me. Which is the way it should be. However, if I ask him when this officer moved to town, or what gramnet is, I feel like that is something that any person could ask any other person. There is no conspiracy or dirt here, so stop thinking that primary source of information includes information that civilians shouldn't know. Maybe it's good to think that people are good at heart rather than spewing things they shouldn't to people whom it doesn't concern.
No Scott, Gramnet was long established in the community before Wiggins was, you seriously need to check your facts. My father is in the police force, so how is that for primary source? And if Gary Wall could admit his mistakes he would have submitted to a breathalizer rather than denying it and moving on. I think that if you are looking for someone who admits mistakes you should look for someone who does so.
First of all, Garret was not appointed to Gramnet until AFTER the election. Point. Secondly the only reason that there are internal affairs issues in Gramnet is because Garret Wiggins blew the whistle, talk about integrity, which by the way Gary Wall has none of. Thirdly, no one would open their mouth in the sheriffs office because they would be fired. The officer who was called to come pick our drunked, drugged up sheriff up when he was caught by CSP is no longer working for the sheriffs office becasue he would have been fired the next day had he not quit. Gary Wall has kept his office operating and without "internal Affairs" by intimidation. I hate to say it Scott, but that is not great management. While I am a Garret Wiggins supporter, I will gladly vote for Bosick over Gary if he makes it, becasue both of the republicans are trying to bring integrity and professionalism to an office which is deprived of those traits now.
You do have to believe that finding drugs and busting people you very well may know in this town would be a difficult thing. I have to admit that I have followed gramnet as much as I should and will certainly do my research before voting, so out of respect there I will make no arguments. However, both bosick and wiggins are far better than gary are. Gary is no different than a teenager with drug and alcohol problems. Just recently he spent three days ON COMPANY TIME AND WITH A COMPANY VEHICLE AND GAS traveling back and forth to craig everyday to watch a trial that was happening there, and that he was not involved in, but simply to sit on the DEFENSE side and watch. I think he is absolutely ridiculous. When the county and the city are on furlough he goes 300,000 over his budget and argues over it, plus asks for more money. Who does he think he is? Especially while he is driving drunk in an unmarked sheriff car with a gun. I'm sorry but he should have been locked up and impeached a long time ago. A monkey could do a better job.
freerider and wedel, you two are incredibly mistaken. Garret has a remarkable track record, then only reason Gary won is because he follows a strict "No enforcement" policy and people who are drug users and underage drinker's parents are in love with that idea. Gary wall is a complete failure as far as law enforcement is concerned, especially when he is their biggest issue. Gary is a professional victim, who will never go along with the other officials in this town, and cause nothing but headaches for everyone else.
scott wedel, The point of Charlie's article was not to list reasons to be a conservative or be a liberal. There are pros and cons to both sides and that battle is not one worth arguing over. His message was simply to say that if you consider yourself a young conservative, then maybe it is time to get in gear and start taking part in the political rat race. But you proved you're typical nasty liberal stereotype by immediately attacking him and saying that there are reasons to be a liberal but not for being a conservative. He was not attacking your side at all, nor was he trying to promote his. He was saying that the youth needs to take part, which is the only reason that the current president made it in the office. Without the college generation becoming so intrigued in the race, I think we would be in a different scenario. And finally when you are attacking someone's opinion and you say "Any elementary school or higher graduate should have sufficient education to see that Charlie MacArthur's fails to provide one single reason to be a conservative." proofread, it would be Charlie MacArthur fails, not MacArthur's fails. I'm just saying....
I want to know why at 9:37 am when the police knocked on the door and heard the shot it took them another hour and a half to go into the house. "Assemble the SWAT team." Seriously? Just got into the house, that's what you are trained to do. What if Rhonda would have died in that hour. It shouldn't have taken an hour and a half. I believe the police do a great job here, I have family on the force in town. But I think that police maybe got a little anxious to use the SWAT team and get all the toys out that they never get to play with, and it cost precious time for Rhonda. Weak performance.
andyjehn, you really speak from a very ignorant perspective when you talk about the traffic control that the officers are doing. I have a family member that is an officer and for such a sweet little town you wouldn't believe how many rude, loud, and in a hurry to get everywhere people there are in this town. Everyone that pulls up to an officer directing traffic is the most important person in the world to themselves and they NEED to get where they are going NOW. Cut them a break, they don't like all this as much as we don't and they have to deal with all the anger issues of the town.
You can't possibly believe that they published this article before they were able to contact the family. And it is a very small town, and nothing goes unnoticed for long. It isn't showing disrespect at all. It's not like they said why she crashed at it was all her fault or something. They simply said there was a crash that killed a person. There is no disrespect in that, just being honest and reporting. There is no need to argue this when a family has lost someone. I simply commented in the first place because in a situation like this where someone is lost, there is no need to open your mouth in the first place.
Last login: Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.