Let's fix the problem

[Sore Back]

How many times have we learned of disasters on the Tillamook bay bar? Way to many. Over the years people have told me "It can be fixed" and I have to believe them. By dredging both the bar and middle grounds would allow enough water during ebb conditions into the entrance to contain swell surge to a minimum except under severe storm conditions. Over the years millions of dollars have been spent conducting studies which always indicate "dredging not necessary". I am not a marine engineer however a wave modeling software printout will show us "depth reduces swell breaks".

I believe if all of us ifish folks were to E-mail our U.S.Senators asking for them to support dredging Tillamook bay's bar, we could make a difference.

Gordon Smith (R)
oregon@gsmith.senate.gov

Ron Wyden (D)
senator@wyden.senate.gov

I hope I haven't offended anyone by this request, I just get sick to my stomach every time this happens.

Sincerely,

Sore Back

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

We should wait to see what the cause of this accident was before we attempt to find solutions.

Lets wait for the Coast Guard investigation to be completed
:depressed:

[1pump]

Nothing wrong with good intentions, but you'd have to fight every environmental group and bunny-hugger on the west coast for years before dredging. :hoboy:
Did the capsizing this morning happen on an ebb tide? I didn't check. :whazzup:

[BrionLutz]

Sore Back,

Over the years people have told me "It can be fixed" and I have to believe them. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Don't. They are wrong. Folks have been trying to keep the ocean in check and failing for some time, particularly on US coast lines.

The "fixes" create more problems and you are literally tossing billion$ into the ocean for little or no effect.

This is particuarly true in the Pacific Northwest due to the violent nature of Pacific Ocean in this latitude.

Daily Wave Heights World Map (http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag148.html)

If you look at today's, June 14, our area has 21 to 10 foot waves rolling. That's a huge sea, toss in tidal effect and inlets are going to be dangerous, the most dangerous in the world.

Best approach is to stand back, let the inlet take it's natural form and then work with what you have.

Anyone heading into 15 foot break seas in anything but a Coast Guard roll-over rig is not being safe.

Nothing will really change the Pacific NW inlets.

Specifically to Tillamook, probably what would work to save lives is upping the length limit on boats the CG can prevent from going out the inlet.

They park the rollover boats there, they have a warning system in place. I love to ocean fish at Tillamook but I don't go out unless the CG says OK and then I wear my life jacket.

It will be interesting to see how many folks on the Taki Too were wearing their life jackets.

Brion

[Nanook]

Not a time for fingers, nor am I pointing any.

I agree Brion. Those boats should have never attempted it, period.

:sick:

[Mr. Carp]

Like I said in the other post, sometimes there isn't a boat made that is big enough for a specific condition the ocean can throw at you.

I don't believe that dredging would help, but I think we need to get some better enforcement of some kind going wether it be for PDF's or boat sizes.

Currently though, I think our thoughts need to be with the families and not over solving the problem at this time.

[BrionLutz]

Soreback,

This from the Coast Guard:

None of those found dead had life vests on, he said <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Probably the fix for the problem is making life jackets mandatory for all boats going into the ocean. I'd have no problem with CG and state rules making life jackets mandatory all the time. Kind of like seatbelts on cars.

Brion

[Mr. Carp]

I think it might even be better to make it mandatory while the boat is under way.

[DipSeaDiver]

Sorry guys, but I agree with Sore Back. Dredging will help. Everything we do, from a new overpass to a sewage treatment plant, effects something. Often the good outweighs the bad. I certainly think that's the case in this instance.

I'll write the letters.

Oops, I was logged on as my wife. These are MY words.

Skein

[ 06-15-2003, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: DipSeaDiver ]

[Scaup]

The dredging situation on Oregon's bar's is going to get worse as it currently stands. The FY 04 Army Corps budget eliminates dredging at almost all of Oregon's bars. I posted a link to the article in February, this time I'll post the article. It is entirely appropriate to write your congressmen if this is an issue that you feel strongly about.


EUGENE (AP) -- Port managers are upset with a Bush administration proposal that would halt federal dredging next year for most coastal ports, including those at Florence, Reedsport and five other Oregon communities.

Without the annual removal of sand by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the entrance to the river channels will grow treacherous and eventually unnavigable, the managers said.

In Florence, Siuslaw Port Manager Tom Kartrude said the absence of dredging dollars in Bush's 2004 budget proposal is devastating.

"A safe bar and navigable channel are critical to the fishing fleet," Kartrude said in a press release. "Commercial fishing is an important industry in the community, and the fleet is part of the waterfront character that draws tourism to the area."

It's not the first time the White House has threatened to cut smaller ports out of the corps' dredging program. The Bush administration tried to eliminate the work this year for ports in Brookings, Gold Beach, Bandon and Depoe Bay, but Congress restored the money in the fiscal 2003 budget.

The corps' civil works budget for fiscal 2004 cuts off funding for any port that logs less than 1 billion ton-miles a year. One ton-mile equals 1 ton of cargo shipped for a distance of one mile in port.

That would mean no dredging next year for Florence, Reedsport, Bandon, Brookings, Gold Beach, Port Orford and Tillamook. Reduced federal dredging support would be available for Coos Bay and the Port of Yaquina at Newport.

In ports such as Florence and Bandon that have attracted larger, private yachts and sailboats, the lack of dredging is a very serious concern. Kartrude said the Siuslaw is authorized for a channel 16 feet deep up to the turning basin at river mile 5.5. Changes in the channel depth could "restrict the large coastal cruisers or sailboats that have deep keels," Kartrude said.

The cuts sound much firmer than they did last year, said Penny Ryerson, the coastal manager of the Port of Umpqua in Reedsport.

"The president and Congress all say they want to see economic development and family-wage jobs," Ryerson said "How are we going to do that if they take our dredging away from us?"

The community's port was one of the key reasons that American Bridge Company is building a steel fabrication plant on Bolon Island between Gardiner and Reedsport. The plant, to open later this year, will use the channel to ship out pre-built structural steel components.

Funding has been trailing off in recent years, while jetty repairs and other maintenance work mount, said Kartrude of the Siuslaw port.

"Often when the dredge gets here, they get here just in time," he said. "The bars are getting very, very dangerous."

As the sand builds up, ocean swells turn into breaking waves in the channels. The surf reduces helm and throttle control of incoming and outgoing vessels, Kartrude said.

"At the same time, the force of the waves is pushing you off course," he said. "We've had boats slide down the face of a wave and hit the rocks on the side of the jetty."

After two years without dredging, the channel would effectively be plugged, he said.

In addition to lack of dredging, funds for survey and testing work would disappear, Kartrude said.

Changes in rainfall could do two things: Heavy rainfall could transport sediment down the tributaries and flush it out. Light rainfall could carry sediment down the tributaries but not carry enough hydraulic strength to flush it out the mouth of the river.

"We just don't know," Kartrude said.

But when the Corps' equipment dredges the channels, they also survey the river. The Corps obtains the federal permits required, samples sediment, determines specifications for the project, dredges the channel, and documents changes.

As the budget stands now, "the survey work and all the permitting fees are eliminated," Kartrude said.

[BrionLutz]

cotr,

Are Jettys far less expensive and last a whole lot longer than dredging? (or make dredging more effective?) <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Channels created with jetties require dredging to stay open. So when a jetty is built, the regular dredging is a requirement to keep it working.

The problems with the natural channels is that they change all the time but it is probably cheaper to pay for updates on marking the channel than for building and maintaining the jetties and the constant dredging they require.

A tale of two channels.

Barnegat Light Channel - the 2nd most dangerous inlet in the US after Columbia Bar. Jetties, constant dredging, still very dangerous.

Little Egg Inlet - natural inlet, changes after every storm but requires no dredging, no jetties, not very dangerous...and has super fishing.

These are are on either end of Long Beach Island, NJ.

It takes more land (or more correctly less land development) for the natural inlets because they wander but they tend to be safer and don't need big infusions of dollars to keep them working.

Be fascinating to look at historical records on the shape of the Tillmook Bay channel prior to the jetties which were built in the late 1940's.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

corrirod,

Now you're stretching Brion if you don't believe the channel is safer now vs. then. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And that "stretch" of yours is based on...? &lt;grin&gt;.

Jetties weren't put in until after 1948. Probably hard to get good comparable stats due to changes in boat technology, loss of fishing industry, etc. However, we can say that there was always a natural channel and that fishing was the major industry until the early 1900's when timber took over and killed off the salmon industry.

There would be no way for the coasties to keep up with moving the channel markers to keep everyone safe if we didn't have dredged channels.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Pretty easy actually especially with modern sonar technolgy not to mention plain old aerial surveying. Way cheaper than dredging, jettie maintenance etc.

It would require removing the jetties so the channel could re-establish itself.

Should be a pre-1948 aerial shot of the inlet...love to see it.

Brion

[TheRogue]

Hey Jen..

In your word block, can you add:

&lt;grin&gt;

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

TR

[TheRogue]

And as for the dredging thing, being born and raised on the Oregon Coast, I can tell you WITH CERTAINTY that a well dredged and maintained channel with jetties is a much safer place than one that doesn't get regular dredging. Pretty simple, shallow water makes bigger rollers, deeper channels don't.

Problem is, this administration has made it quite clear that it will NOT support any dredging $$ for the NW coastal communities. Maybe that way terrorists can't sail a big boat into T-bay and blow up a nuke? :rolleyes: Anyway, the reality is likely that channels will get worse before they get better.

As for tearing out the jetties and just following the channel around "like the good old days", well that's about as likely as Ifish returning to the pre-Brian Lutz "good old days" &lt;grin&gt;

TR

[BrionLutz]

TheRogue,

And as for the dredging thing, being born and raised on the Oregon Coast, I can tell you WITH CERTAINTY that a well dredged and maintained channel with jetties is a much safer place than one that doesn't get regular dredging. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well...I'm not sure being born on the Oregon Coast qualifies one as an expert on jetties and the unique hydrodynamics that go with them.

Probably best to look at the history and science on jetties, inlets etc.

We do know that the Tillamook harbour was working fine prior to the jetties, dredging etc.

I doubt Tillamook city or county or even the state can afford the costs of dredging without Federal tax dollars. So unless the rest of the country agrees to pay for it, an inlet that requires constant dredging might shoal up and become totally useless if the budget funding is not there.

It might cheaper in the long run to remove the jetty and let the natural channel re-establish itself. It's an easier budget pitch for a nice Army Corps construction project (restoring the natural channel) vs. having to beg for funding each year to maintain the manufactured inlet.

We can look at the historical data for what the Tillamook Inlet would be like if we restored it.

I'm sure the fishing would be better.

Brion

[TheRogue]

And you'll get the money for ripping the jetties out, in the same big pot you'll get the money for tearing out the Snake River dams??

Rather spend the money on dredging and maintenace, thank you. It will last a lot longer.

AS for being born and raised on the coast, well, it doesn't make a person an expert. However, when you see the breakers in the middle of the bar get smaller for the first few months after dredging, and then gradually build back up as it fills in....sometimes you really can apply some common sense to a situation.

TR

[Keta]

TR,
You're wrong. The all knowing/all seeing Boron Klutz knows all and tells all :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:depressed: All of Oregons harbors are in need of dredging :depressed:

[ 06-15-2003, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Born to be Wild]

In your word block, can you add...

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Woody]

Brion, are you a lawyer? Or do you just play one on Ifish? It's clear you enjoy debating and arguing. It's getting very tedious.

I've been reading your posts here for a while now, and your political slant is obvious. It's to the point now that when I see your name come up, I just skip right past your post. I already know everything you have to say; "Tear out the jetties and dams, stop the loggers, Bush lied, there are no WMD, Humans (read republicans and the corporations they own) are the cause of all that is wrong with world, let the cougars/bears/wolves/sea lions live where they want and kill what they want, blah, blah, blah."

Please don't quote me and argue every last detail of my post, it's very irritating and I'll just ignore it anyway. &lt;grin&gt;

[Beer Waggin]

Oh Mr. Putz ( graemlins/stupid.gif )-

Specifically to Tillamook, probably what would work to save lives is upping the length limit on boats the CG can prevent from going out the inlet.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It's not the length of boat that matters, but rather the classification.

They park the rollover boats there, they have a warning system in place. I love to ocean fish at Tillamook but I don't go out unless the CG says OK and then I wear my life jacket. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The CG did say it was ok for them to go out. Many on this board have also crossed the bar when the CG said it was ok, only to find themselves in deep do-do after committing.

Jetties weren't put in until after 1948. Probably hard to get good comparable stats due to changes in boat technology, loss of fishing industry, etc. However, we can say that there was always a natural channel and that fishing was the major industry until the early 1900's when timber took over and killed off the salmon industry.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ya, your right, the timber industry killed off the salmon. :hoboy: Heaven for bid you should consider the handfull of other things that contributed to the demise of the salmon industry. I'd list them for you, but I'm sure you already know what they are.

I doubt Tillamook city or county or even the state can afford the costs of dredging without Federal tax dollars. So unless the rest of the country agrees to pay for it, an inlet that requires constant dredging might shoal up and become totally useless if the budget funding is not there.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And that would do what to the salmon industry?

I'm with Woody! &lt;grin&gt;

[BrionLutz]

Woody,

It's clear you enjoy debating and arguing. It's getting very tedious. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually I think a conversation about the inlets is a great one. Thanks to Soreback for bringing it up.

What was the Tillamook Channel like prior to 1948 and the jetties? It supported a pretty healthy fishing industry so we know that it was used a lot.

Would we be better off letting the natural channel re-establish itselt?

Would it be safer?

Would it be cheaper to maintain?

All interesting stuff.

If you don't find it interesting, then feel free to pass it over. However, suggesting folks on a conversational message board website not participate seems counterproductive. Like someone going fishing and complaining about it vs. enjoying it.

Brion

[Mr. Carp]

Brion, I am not here to start disagreeing with you again because it is a no win situation for anyone involved, but I do believe that TR might be a little more knowledgeable then someone who has just moved here. You always bring up stuff from the east coast, so you must be from back there.

I am not saying that just because you were born here, it makes you more knowledgeable about the ocean, but I think you can have a better understanding of certain bays if you grew up on one.

Keta and NorRivDave: :cheers:

[BrionLutz]

NorRivDave,

The CG only prevents boats 27 feet and under from using Tillamook Inlet when the warning is up.

Commercial boats, the charter boats for example, typically over 27 feet are allowed out at their own discreation.

Technically, the CG does not have any legal right to prevent anyone from going out during a restricted access warning period.

Ya, your right, the timber industry killed off the salmon. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Correct in the coast range during the initial cuts. Tillamook area was founded on fishing and agriculture. A big fishing port with canneries etc. That all disappeared as timber took over in the early 1900's as the clear cutting by the timber industry killed off the salmon streams.

And that would do what to the salmon industry? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If the current jetty based channel filled up with sand? Probably wouldn't affect the salmon industry much since it's mainly sport fishing based industry. Most sport boats would be able to make it out to sea when the weather is right which is no different than it is today.

We often sit and wait for the CG to open the channel so we can go fishing outside.

There would still be a channel. Nothing is going to hold back the water. It might cut around the current jetties or just cut a channel through the jetties.

Be interesting to see what a study of the inlet would suggest.

Brion

[corkyking]

As long as people go "down to the sea in ships" some will, unfortunately, lose their lives.
We can ask the Coast Guard to do a better job (they used to pay more attention to mariner's difficulties) than they do now with all they have had added to their plate.
We could make it mandatory to wear survival suits while on small boats.
We could dredge out all the harbors and channels.
Change the number of people allowed on charter boats.
We could do everything (I'm all for it since Oregon has the highest unemployment rate in the country) nothing we do will prevent that "sneaker wave", the accident or the foolish decision that will continue to claim lives every year no matter what we do.
You prepare your boat, gear, and yourself the best that you can and hope that it is enough. The sea is utterly unforgiving of mistakes or ignorance and that's the way it is.
All that said, I'm sorry for the troubles of those who lost family and friends.

"When anyone asks me how I can best describe my experience in nearly forty years at sea, I merely say, uneventful. Of course there have been winter gales, and storms and fog and the like. But in all my experience, I have never been in any accident... or any sort worth speaking about. I have seen but one vessel in distress in all my years at sea. I never saw a wreck and never have been wrecked nor was I ever in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort."
E. J. Smith, 1907, Captain, RMS Titanic

[Mr. Carp]

Woody: Don't even bother asking Brion what he does because when I asked him in another post, he got all defensive and forbid to answer. Several other members asked him to respond as well and he wouldn't do it. If you notice, he hasn't added a post to the "What do you do?" thread.

[BrionLutz]

Scaup,

Without the annual removal of sand by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the entrance to the river channels will grow treacherous and eventually unnavigable, the managers said. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Early explorers, settlers and the original fishing industry used it OK prior to the jetties etc. so a bit of hyperbole in the "managers" assesment regarding "unnavigable".

As far as being "treacherous", always was and always will be. No amount of dredging is going to prevent 15 foot breakers. Pacific NW ocean is one of big waves.

It would be interesting to have an Oregon state college do a study to project what Tillamook Inlet would be like if we removed the jetty system and let the natural channel re-establish itself.

Would the natural inlet be more/less/as dangerous as the current inlet?

Brion

[corrirod]

Early explorers, settlers and the original fishing industry used it OK prior to the jetties etc. so a bit of hyperbole in the "managers" assesment regarding "unnavigable" <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Now you're stretching Brion if you don't believe the channel is safer now vs. then.

I believe dredging helps a problem that has no perfect solution. Now is it worth the money? I'm not sure. Would it have saved this boat? Most likely not.

To not dredge at all though is just asking for trouble. If for no other reason than to know exactly where the main channel is to establish navigation guides. There would be no way for the coasties to keep up with moving the channel markers to keep everyone safe if we didn't have dredged channels. You would have to have The Corps monitoring/surveying the channel location daily, especially after huge storms.

Sounds easier to dredge to me. :shrug:

[RvW]

Are Jettys far less expensive and last a whole lot longer than dredging? (or make dredging more effective?) I have an old friend in Reedsport who told me Winchester bay was the worst until Jettys were built. Is this an option here.

I was sadened by the news, and didnt hear of it until my Mom called in a panic. I share the same name as the captain who lost his life. Thoughts and prayers to those effected by this tragedy. Heartbreaking indeed.

[ 06-15-2003, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[Scaup]

Brion, there are numerous rivers on the Oregon coast without jetties or dredging. The Nestucca, Alsea, Siletz, and Necanicum just to name a few. I recommmend you try crossing any of them for a study of how navigable an Oregon River bar is without jetties or dredging. Those rivers will provide you a 100% natural experience crossing into the ocean.

If Oregon had a series of barrier islands like the New Jersey coast providing protected bays that collect the silt, such as Little Egg Inlet, then we could probably get away without dredging. Unfortunately last time I checked there are no barrier islands off the Oregon coast. Our rivers dump straight into the ocean. The entrance to San Fransisco Bay and the Straights of Juan de Fuca don't need dredging either. But that does not provide a valid model for the Oregon coast.

And yes, people did cross the bars prior to dredging and and jetties. But the number of vessels crossing them was far fewer and the loss of life was much higher. There is a reason the Columbia River Bar is called the graveyard of the Pacific. Most of those shipwrecks happened prior to the construction of jetties and dredging.

[ 06-16-2003, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Scaup ]

[Miss B Haven]

BrionLutz said "Commercial boats, the charter boats for example, typically over 27 feet are allowed out at their own discreation.

Technically, the CG does not have any legal right to prevent anyone from going out during a restricted access warning period.

Brion- neither one of these statements are true. The CG can close the bar completeley or they can restrict to a size and Charters (Uninspected Commercial Passneger boats for hire is what "charters are to the CG) fall under the same rules as Sport boats.

Just try to go out past the CG boat when the bar is closed and se what happens if you think they can't stop you! :shocked:

The CG can not stop commercial fishing boats, but charters... yes!

[Fish Hawg]

Miss B Haven you are 100% correct we have seen 60+' commercial fishing boats stoped at Neah Bay by the CG because the wind was blowing 45-65 knots 15-25'swells but the CG could not stop them they still went out :hoboy: but came right back

[BrionLutz]

Miss B Haven,

Brion- neither one of these statements are true. The CG can close the bar completeley or they can restrict to a size and Charters (Uninspected Commercial Passneger boats for hire is what "charters are to the CG) fall under the same rules as Sport boats. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually both are correct. Ask the CG.

They can ask you not to go out but they actually cannot legally prevent you from going out. They do put on a nice show of discouraging folks and I always stay in if they say don't go out.

On the day the Taki Too went out, sport boats were restricted.

A couple nits, "commercial" is not the same as "sport" under CG regs. For one thing, Commercial charter captains must have CG licenses and for that reason must obey CG decisions.

Had CG told Taki Too not to go out vs warning them, then CG could have revoked captains license and that's the end of the commercial charter.

Example of Taki Too going out when sport boats were "prevented" from going out is another example.

Specific to Taki Too and Soreback's question, the "problem" at this point seems to be twofold.

1. Those drowned were not wearing life preservers.

2. Captain turned North and put the boat sideways to huge breaking waves. Turned too early perhaps.

Since there is no money for dredging, funding a study to see how channel would look in it's orginal 1948 condition that didn't require dredging or jetties would be interesting.

Brion

[FishaholicAZ]

Hey all... I am not trying to side with anyone here but I think that what Brion is trying to say is that it would be interesting to see what and how the bar would act if it was in its natural state. I don't know that you could really compare the Silets or them other coastal rivers dumping into the big blue the same way you could Tillamook bay. After all, its a bay with five rivers emptying into the sea instead of one. It may actually be a life saver or a safer place if there was no jetties or dredging but I think that going that route may be a little impracticle now. Since they have been dredging for over 50 years.
However it would be an interesting study. For now though, I think that the easiest way to keep it safe is dredging.
What about extending the jetties?... Just a thought.

As for the decline in salmon in Tillamook prior to the jetties being built and after, I would have to say that logging played a major role if bot the major role there. If you do any hiking in the headwaters in and around the rivers up there you can still see the scarrs from the logging. I would have to agree with Brion on that one.

Fish on...
Romeo

[blast and cast]

brion, actually your are wrong. I did call the coast guard and the state marine board and talked with Paul the oregon boating law administrator and I quote

If the coast guard has set a restriction on a "bar" (lets say to 27 foot and over) and you in your 20 boat cross the bar you can 1) be fined up to $5,000 for negligent boat operation and/or 2) if you were stopped and told not to go and still did you can be fined up to a max of $10,000 for gross negligence. Both of these are civil penalties, not criminal.

[RvW]

Originally posted by FishaholicAZ:
Hey all... I am not trying to side with anyone here but I think that what Brion is trying to say is that it would be interesting to see what and how the bar would act if it was in its natural state. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Uhh, wasnt it in a "natural state" at one time or another?
Hmm, I wonder what encouraged the engineers to build Jetties and dredge??

Id guess it was more dangerous in its natural state?...but only if I had to guess.

Hows the weather down there "aholic"? Az doesnt have any water of thier own does it? (save for the colorada aquaducts) is there fish in them concrete rivers?

[Nanook]

The boats should have never attempted to go out in those conditions. :depressed: &lt;nogrin&gt;

[skein]

Hey Brion,

You lose. They're gonna dredge. Wanna take a bet?

Skein

[BrionLutz]

Scaup,

...there are numerous rivers on the Oregon coast without jetties or dredging. The Nestucca, Alsea, Siletz, and Necanicum just to name a few. I recommmend you try crossing any of them for a study of how navigable an Oregon River bar is without jetties or dredging. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Didn't see them on CNN with fatalities such as we just saw with Tillamook so one might argue they are safer than Tillamook. The CG did note that Tillamook is one of the most dangerous.

Question would be would it be any worse if it was a natural inlet?

But the number of vessels crossing them was far fewer and the loss of life was much higher. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually probably a lot more since the salmon industry was booming. The pix show a lot more boats.

There is a reason the Columbia River Bar is called the graveyard of the Pacific. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There's also a reason it's called the Pacific Ocean even though it is less pacific than the Atlantic &lt;grin&gt;.

If you look at the wave height update link I posted in this thread, you'll see that the Pacific Northwest is an area of typically large 10-20 foot waves. No jettie or dredging is going to change that.

Specifically regarding Tillamook, the Army Corps said today that Tillamook did not qualify for dredging since its depth has remained stable. I think they said as long as it's at least 15 feet it's OK.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Blast and Cast,

If the coast guard has set a restriction on a "bar" (lets say to 27 foot and over) and you in your 20 boat cross the bar you can 1) be fined up to $5,000 for negligent boat operation and/or 2) if you were stopped and told not to go and still did you can be fined up to a max of $10,000 for gross negligence. Both of these are civil penalties, not criminal. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Both only apply if something happens to you, that is if you ignore the warning and get in trouble and create problems...like having to get rescued.

In this case there was a restriction on sport boats but the charter boats went out. I think someone was saying that the restriction also applied to the charter boats but it does not.

Brion

[fishnxtc]

It's a close race between Kingfisher85 and Brion Lutz on who post the most in their first 6 months on Ifish graemlins/stupid.gif Maybe there needs to be I'm always right section started on Ifish. Oh I forgot we already have one and it is every thread Brion is on :laugh: .........Chris &lt;annoying&gt;

[ 06-16-2003, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: fishnxtc ]

[Fshklr]

To funny XTC :laugh: . I also thought there was a trend there! :shrug: :sleep:

[Mr. Carp]

Fishnxtc: :laugh: :cheers:

Did you guys go down to the estuary this weekend and do any good?

I guess since the quota is near, maybe time to start hitting the rivers again/

[Nanook]

...and the most quotes. &lt;rolleyeswaybackyonder.com&gt;

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/060919112.jpg graemlins/applause.gif

[Born to be Wild]

posted 06-16-2003 08:59 PM

Scaup,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...there are numerous rivers on the Oregon coast without jetties or dredging. The Nestucca, Alsea, Siletz, and Necanicum just to name a few. I recommmend you try crossing any of them for a study of how navigable an Oregon River bar is without jetties or dredging.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply from Lutz:
Didn't see them on CNN with fatalities such as we just saw with Tillamook so one might argue they are safer than Tillamook. The CG did note that Tillamook is one of the most dangerous. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">:hoboy: graemlins/1zhelp.gif

Brion I think you have been eating too many wild natural mushrooms. Why don't you learn something about Oregon (now that you live here) before you argue with everybody!

Of course you didn't see them on CNN with fatalities such as we just saw with Tillamook because they are not jettyized and not dredged and are so shallow that they are dangerous even on a good day. That is why you didn't see them on CNN Brion because even the average &lt;person&gt; knows better than to cross those bars unless it is as flat as a lake or you're very suicidal.

"so one might argue they are safer than Tillamook". :laugh: :hoboy: graemlins/1zhelp.gif graemlins/dork.gif

Go ahead and argue Brion. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. &lt;Frown&gt;

[ 06-17-2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Mr. Carp]

DepoeBayDan, I thin you have just stated what has been on many members minds. graemlins/applause.gif

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Of course you didn't see them on CNN with fatalities such as we just saw with Tillamook because they are not jettyized and not dredged and are so shallow that they are dangerous even on a good day.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The CG classifies the jettied and dredged Tillamook inlet as the 2nd most dangerous in Oregon. The non-jetty, non-dredged inlets you mention do not have that rating.

Thanks for making my point that the natural channels are likely to be no more dangerous than the modified ones and, of course, do not require huge sums to build and maintain, the fishing is better and fewer people getting killed.

That is why you didn't see them on CNN Brion because even the average moron knows better than to cross those bars unless it is as flat as a lake or you're very suicidal.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You already made my point that the non-jetty, non-dredged inlets can be safer.
Brion

[ 06-17-2003, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Fishplay]

In case anyone has forgotten the intended purpose of this thread I shall quote it below.

How many times have we learned of disasters on the Tillamook bay bar? Way to many. Over the years people have told me "It can be fixed" and I have to believe them. By dredging both the bar and middle grounds would allow enough water during ebb conditions into the entrance to contain swell surge to a minimum except under severe storm conditions. Over the years millions of dollars have been spent conducting studies which always indicate "dredging not necessary". I am not a marine engineer however a wave modeling software printout will show us "depth reduces swell breaks".

I believe if all of us ifish folks were to E-mail our U.S.Senators asking for them to support dredging Tillamook bay's bar, we could make a difference.

Gordon Smith (R)
oregon@gsmith.senate.gov

Ron Wyden (D)
senator@wyden.senate.gov

I hope I haven't offended anyone by this request, I just get sick to my stomach every time this happens.

Sincerely,

Sore Back <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Thank You Soreback for your good intentions and purposeful post.

[ 06-17-2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[blast and cast]

again, sorry to disagree with you brion, but if you cross the bar and the restrictions apply to you even if you do not get in trouble you can/will be cited.

Regarding your logic that a natural bar is "safer" based on accidents is flawed. The bar is safer by your thoughts because less people are injured or less coast guard calls are recorded. The reason the natural bars have less injuries is because NO ONE crosses them because they are unsafe. On a good day go watch the two bars near tillamook, you have netarts to the south and nehalem to the north, both natural, you will see maybe 5 boats cross on a good day, based on your logic this makes them safer?

In regards to your "if it was natural we would not have to maintain" comments. Prior to the completion of the south jetty in the mid 1970's the corps dredged tillamook every year. Once the jetty was done there was a scouring effect caused by the funneling of water out the jetties, hence why the corps has said the channel at tillamook does not need to be dredge (I disagree but....). Following your thoughts, and based on history, if we remove the jetties (a very costly option) we now would have to dredge to maintain a proper channel.

BTW- where did you come up with the fact that jetties affect the fishing in a bad way? My family has fished and lived in Tillamook since 1974 and I can tell you that the jetties have had nothing (in my opinion) to do with the fishing cycle.

Next time you travel down 101 take a look at all the major fishing ports- astoria, tillamook, depot bay, newport, winchester, coos bay, etc. they all have jetties, coniencidence??

[Mr. Carp]

This thread has turned from productive to pointless with arrogant posts. Very Sad :hoboy: :sleep:

[BrionLutz]

blast and cast,

Regarding your logic that a natural bar is "safer" based on accidents is flawed. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not sure about safer, perhaps just as dangerous is the more correct description. The ocean demands respect and inlets are the trickiest part, kind of like landings and takeoffs for planes, due to the physics of waves, tides, sand, rivers/bays coming together.

Soreback thought the answer was dredging the Tillamook Inlet. Since dredging and jetty system has always been problematic and still results in the 2nd most dangerous inlet on the West Coast, I'm suggesting we might want to look at the historical record prior to 1948 and to look at the current factors and see if the restored natural inlet would be at least as safe as the jetty/dredged inlet.

Regarding the need for continued dredging, the jetties were begun in 1948 and caused a lot of problems.

<a href="http://gisweb.co.tillamook.or.us/library/reports/SedimentAccumulationInTillBay.pdf" target="_blank">The inlet connecting the Bay with the ocean has been controlled by the construction of jetties, the primary significance of which is that the north jetty caused extensive erosion of Bayocean Spit, leading to its breaching in 1952 and the transport of over one million cubic meters of sand into the Bay during the four years the breach
remained open.</a>

Regarding your view that the inlet needs dredging. The Army Corps of Engineers said that inlet was 15 feet deep and did not require dredging.

My family has fished and lived in Tillamook since 1974 and I can tell you that the jetties have had nothing (in my opinion) to do with the fishing cycle. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Since you weren't there prior to the jetties, I'm not sure what you are using for a basis for comparison. Logging killing the salmon habitat, overfishing, agriculture, development are the main determinants for the "fish cycle".

I was refering to the fact that fishing is typically better around natural inlets, lots more places to fish and for the fish to hang out. Tillamook is fairly typical of jetty inlet. You've got fishing on one side in a narrow area and that's about it. Very similar to Barnegat Light inlet, the 2nd most dangerous inlet in US after Columbia Bar. Little Egg inlet is huge and lots of fishing areas. An interesting point is that fishing inside the inlet is much better also...kind of the "Let a thousand Ghost Holes bloom" factor.

As you see above, the jetty system pumped a million cubic feet of sand into the bay. That must have profoundly changed the bay, filling in a lot of fishing spots.

Jetty systms are like the dams...built in a day and age when we had building fever and not a good knowledge of the consequences of what we were doing.

The million$ poured into Tillamook jetty system and the huge problems are typical...and we still have a very dangerous inlet.

We've learned that we've done a lot of damage to the estuary systems and that if we back off and let the natural channels work we end up with a no less dangerous inlet, much lower costs and it's way better for fishing and other wildlife.

I'd bet Tillamook Bay would be fantastic with the natural inlet restored and the jetty sand out of the bay.

Brion

[Killertraylor]

TH:

"well that's about as likely as Ifish returning to the pre-Brian Lutz "good old days" &lt;grin&gt;"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Miss B Haven]

[ 06-17-2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Miss B Haven ]

[BrionLutz]

Rojo,

may some of the nah-sayers should try running a bigger boat sometime, it is a diffeent ball game than a 18/20 footer <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not sure being a boat operator, much less a big or small boat operator, has much to with engineering factors affecting inlets.

Biggest I've run through a breaking inlet is a 63' Buddy Davis with 2,000HP. Smallest a 17' Whaler with 90HP. Physics and technique are the same, assuming a planing hull, but the big boat requires a bit more mental horizon than the smaller boat. Following sea is actually more dangerous and difficult than a head sea.

Scariest was bringing in a 48 foot sailboat in 20 foot rollers in a following sea...not even breaking and it was a challenge.

None of which makes me, or anyone else, an expert on inlet construction dynamics. That's why it would be interesting to see what scientists tell us the inlet would be like if it was restored.

Brion

[Nanook]

http://www.gwslair.freeserve.co.uk/spammer.gif &lt;ZZZzzzzz&gt;

[Miss B Haven]

Brion- You have NO CLUE what you are talking about! graemlins/dork.gif The only thing worse than no info is bad info. :mad:

[ 06-17-2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Miss B Haven ]

[rojo]

tks Mel I second that. I first ran a boat over that bar in 1953 fishing with my dad, and can say that today is sure better.....Roger...PS...may some of the nah-sayers should try running a bigger boat sometime, it is a diffeent ball game than a 18/20 footer