Both times I've run it have been in the 1300-1600 range (always took out before the screens so never got a gauge on those).  I considered it a solid medium. 

 

As said, SWAB had more consequences with the bridge rapid and debris below it but I still wouldn't want to to swim there today as you could be going swimming for a ways.  I consider it in the grayish area of IV+/V- at that level but mainly due to the continuous nature more than anything.

 

Sharks tooth is pretty easy overall, it's just the manky, pin potential that commands some respect.  Love the boogie that leads up to it however.

 

I pretty much agree with the rest of your assessments.

 

 

 

So It sounds like we're in general agreement. I was wondering how a flow above 1400 might affect the rating- sounds like you oth consider 1600 to still rate about the same.

 

Yeah, Jay B, I'd agree also that SAT is generally IV+. Maybe if you're in there on the high end of flows it'll take on a more Vish aspect. But let's keep this on topis: The Cascade.

 

Mr. Harms? What do you say?

I know Kennet and his friends have run it.

Chipper? You ever run it?

Franz- you wrote the original description in the database, so sooner or later when you find this thread, let's hear your input.

 

 

 

In talking to them it sounds like there have been at least six boating deaths on the river, and only one of them that they recall had anything to do with the old bridge wreckage. Assuming the AW information on the bridge removal page is right there are at least two other deaths that may have been a result of the wreckage, but may have been due to a unknown danger that is still there. It also bears noting that in the five years I have been working the area we have had no boating deaths there, but NPS has their own SAR groups, and we often never hear about their calls. 

 

I remember reading an account of a flush drowning on the run below SWB that definately did not involve the bridge debris.

 

I haven't seen the river from river level, though I would like to run it some day. I just think it is worth restating here that consequences determine ratings as much as difficulty.

 

Kyle

 

awesome Shelly-thanks for your input.

 

 

 

Yup. now more than ever people tend to forget that.

Another thing that makes the Cascade Class V in my opinion is that it is ever changing. What Monster was today might not be tomorrow.

 A swim in SWB is not unlikely for ANYONE and you better get the hell out and not swim ANY of Bridge Wreck. ...my point here is the Bridge Wreck rapid is still dangerous as is the rest of the river...

I think its important that we don't forget that many of us are Class V boaters. ...when you've run a lot of stuff and actually start to have fun and not be so gripped in tough water it doesn't mean that it isn't that hard. Class V does not have to be "gripping" water. The truth is there are a lot of dangerous places in the Cascade and it is pretty deep in there.

QUOTE]

 

Thanks, Franz.

I hope I don't appear to be a sand bagger after declaring that I think of it as mostly a class IV+ run with a few V's. And I've only run it twice, so it's not as though I'm overly familiar with it. I agree that access is also a key variable to factor in, in general when rating stuff.

 

 

 

The road is very close to the run, and a lot of our SARs in the drainage that are not boater related are a result of people going down to the river from the road with no climbing gear or experience and getting in trouble once they are down there. To call for help their friends then walk out and call us. One mentally ill woman was running around naked on that slope for a week before we drug her out of there alive. I don't doubt that it would be a bitch to get a incapacitated patient or even a person with a minor injury out of there, but help is not as far off as it might seem from river level.

 

That being said, NPS might have a more experienced and closer SRT team, but the local SRT team was simply not qualified to perform on water rescues on the Cascade the last time I spoke with their head honcho, and their response time to that area would be at least four hours if they could perform the rescue. Assuming the patient was on the right bank, there are a couple of Fire Depts in the area that would attempt the rope work into the gorge for extraction. Their response time would be 45 minutes to an hour.

 

If I am the one running the SAR (I am one of the six deputies that runs SARs for the county and are assigned up there full time) I would not allow our SRT to attempt a rescue on the Cascade. I say this not only because I have to look out for their safety, but because it gives the patient the best chance for survival. Once our SAR groups become involved in a technical rescue we cannot have anyone without state DEM card involved in the rescue, yet I have no doubt that any class V boater would be a more capable rescuer. That means that the patient's best chance for rescue on the Cascade River after the golden hour is still the original group they were boating with and not the first responders who will take over the scene.

 

Your closest place to call for help would be the trailer park three miles from Marblemount.

 

On a side note: Our SRT program is derived from our dive rescue group. None of its members were boaters the last time I checked, and the group was having difficulty raising interest in getting its members to learn to use IKs. Last summer there was a SAR in Snohomish county on a class II section of river. They knew the best way to search the area was to run the river. They had one FD member who could run the river, and were looking for a safety boater to follow him. Between Skagit and Snohomish counties' SAR, law enforcement, and fire departments there was nobody who could run the river with the original fireman. I offered to go, but even as a SAR deputy I was not allowed to participate since I did not have my DEM card (even off duty). The patient was located at river level almost a day later. If we could have run the river the patient would not have had to spend another night in the woods. When SAR came looking for me in BC a year ago there was a similar lack of SAR boaters. Those that have the ability are desparately needed. Look into volunteering with your local SAR group.

 

Kyle

I hope I don't appear to be a sand bagger after declaring that I think of it as mostly a class IV+ run with a few V's. And I've only run it twice, so it's not as though I'm overly familiar with it. I agree that access is also a key variable to factor in, in general when rating stuff.

 

First number: Difficulty of move.

Second number: Potential consequence of blowing the move.

Third number: Access, or lack thereof, to serious aid.

 

For instance: an easy 10 foot drop into a moving pool blocked by a strainer with only one micro eddy for a reasonable exit, located 2 blocks from a hospital might be rated as follows:

III / V / I

 

Or, a difficult line that ended in a calm pool, in the way outback might look like this:

V / II / V

 

I think a lot of people liked the idea but it never seemed to gain ground. I don't know if that's because the community didn't really care, or perhaps Corran was a bit too polarizing and some folks didn't want to adopt anything he proposed. Either way, it seems like a logical and good way to rate things, much like Chips idea.

 

On the other hand, I once heard the super skilled Mr. Addison say that, when looking at a rapid, he only saw it two ways: Run it or Walk it, depending on how he felt at the moment.

 

To me, both make sense: The rating system would be a nice way to pre-determine if one's skills/mindset/equipment/group are suited for a particular run. The Paddle or Portage options become your reality once there.

 

My Kind of woman. Any chance you could set me up with her?

 

Dude, I'm sorry that's just plain mean !

 

Chipper- I wish those of you who want to engage in a full blown discussion about the rating system itself would open that nasty can of worms on the thread I directed Dan towards. That's what the thread is for. This is specificly about the Cascade. If and when we hear from Mr. Harms ('cause I know you ran it, you dog!) and a few others, I'll launch a poll and we'll vote on it.

 

Dan- I agree, it's getting to the point that we're "Nuking it" as you said, but that's what Forums are for. While I respect your rapid rise in skill level these last few months, just remeber to co-develope your river running skills with your kayaking skills- they are two totally different things and most guys fresh on class V are lacking in their over all river running skills. Good river running skills involve the intellect (not implying anything about yours), as does this discussion. Don't like it? Don't participate. That's fine.

 

Kyle K-  I could tell you the most likely reasons why "The Addison Scale" fails to take hold, but that's not what I'm focussing on here in this thread. Suffice to say I agree with him that it comes down to "run it or portage it" (until you find yourself somewhere where running it is your only option! then one best be prepared to run it!). It's a case by case, day by day decision for me sometimes.

 

SWOPboater- I do largely agree with you and Ben. But the reason guidebooks exist (and partly why this site exists) is to help people find a grounded baseline of info. Lots of people use this site, for example, when they blow through the area, have little time, don't know anyone, and want beta. So talking to someone you know who's done the run isn't always an option for everyone.

 

Suffice to say, I like keeping the whole class V thing vague as well. A "+" or a "-" is all I need to help me tune it in from there. One Man's IV is another Man's V, like you said. Sometimes what was a IV the week before is a V for me. It's moving water. It's dynamic. We are human. Our bodies and minds are dynamic as well.

 

Those who are uncomfortable with diving head first into it should back it down a class.

 

Cascade:  IV+ (V)

            or:   IV-V

 

Those will most likely be the final choices, we'll have a poll up soon.

 

oh- and I almost forgot to address YOU, buddy!

Running the Cascade does take much longer, especially if YOU'RE on the trip!

 

But seriously, Leif- you included the flow you ran it in your comment, but you didn't specify a rating you'd apply to it. I promise your opinion (rating the Cascade) will remain free from my ridicule and scorn.

 

What do you say Leif? The low end in the Bennett book is 700 I think. What do you rate it at 600? IV(V)?

-------------
I smell bacon