Robert Treuer and Andy Magness, Grand Forks, column: Swimming in the Red River? Why not?
October 20, 2012 at 7:05 pm in Grand Forks Herald
Why is swimming in the Red River illegal?
We have heard some reasons that we think are weak, and we’d like to address them. Continue Reading
Where are you two from?
Like or Dislike:
14 
14
both Robert and I are from Grand Forks. I have lived, swum, and boated all around the world, however. Why do you ask?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
12
I don’t know what you two got in your heads but that river is dangerous. I hope you don’t encourage diving. That channel is not clear. If you want to take the risk go right ahead but I don’t want my five boys thinking it’s a safe place to swim.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
32
devilschild, have you been in the river? Do you have evidence that it is dangerous? You can teach your boys what you’d like, but why do you want to stop other people from risking* their own lives?
*not really. That’s the point.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
20 
31
Maybe you could take responsibility for teaching your kids?
Hot debate. What do you think?
30 
17
Too bad there’s no “delete” button….
I wanna that one back. I realize that line of argument will not persuade anyone with completely legitimate concerns for the safety of their children.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
I asked my boys (all five college students at UND) if they would like to swim in the Red River and they declined. They have swam in the Red Lake River many times. There is a nice sandy bottom spot by my grandparents house. The Red River just doesn’t appeal to anyone in my family.
Like or Dislike:
17 
10
This is what public pools are for.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
27
Kevin – public pools are great. They offer a safe and supervised way for people of all swimming abilities to enjoy the water. Nothing against public pools. But this logic would also support closing down all the beaches in Southern California, etc – they certainly have public pools to, right? And if you think the beaches are closed when there are no lifeguards, you’re wrong – they are open 24/7, except in extreme weather events. If you don’t want to swim in the river – don’t do it. we aren’t arguing that people should swim in it, only that they should be allowed to swim in it. Do you have any reasons that the ordinance should remain in effect that weren’t addressed in the piece? if so i’d love to hear them. Otherwise, i’m not sure what your comment is meant to suggest, other than that you personally don’t care if it’s illegal because you don’t want to swim in the river or know anyone who does.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
34
I wonder if it would be feasible to just insert an exception for adults that hold a lifeguard certification, from the Red Cross or the YMCA, for example? To allow at leat those of us who are qualified and who feel strongly about it to swim?
Like or Dislike:
11 
18
Repealing the ordinance won’t cost anything except the time required to discuss and vote on it, and it would increase the quality of life for all of us who choose to swim in it. On a hot summer day, I know of nothing quite as satisfying and invigorating as a swim in the river.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
14
Why would someone want to swim in water that looks like Nestle’s Quik?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
18
Gene – that is not the question really. I want to swim in the river. The swimmers who came from all over the country to swim 27 miles in it last summer thought it was great too. if you don’t want to then don’t. I’m sure there are many things that you see value in doing that i wouldn’t – but that doesn’t mean that i should be able to limit you from doing those things, particularly if what you are doing doesn’t pose any risk to me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
14
Is this a city ordinance or a state law? If the former, swim in it outside the city limits.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
9
It’s city ordinance, but it doesn’t make sense to have this arbitrary law.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
20 
32
The ordinance:
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11792
Section 9-0307
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
“It’s city ordinance, but it doesn’t make sense to have this arbitrary law.”
There are many laws that don’t make sense. Seat belt and helmet laws to name a couple. I wouldn’t look for them to be changed anytime soon either.
Does a speed limit law make any sense?
“Hell, I’m a good driver, I should be able to drive as fast as I want! Just because some people aren’t safe to drive 150 MPH shouldn’t limit my right to do it.”
Or one could say, “Hell, I’m a good swimer, I should be able to swim anywhere I want! Just because others aren’t good enough to swim in the river and not drown shouldn’t limit my right to do it.”
Are you starting to get the picture?
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Gene – again, this doesn’t address any of the points the piece makes, nor answer the over-arching question as to whether there are sound reasons for the ordinances. The river banks within city limits are part of the greenway, not privately owned, and present many access opportunities not present outside of city limits where almost all access would require getting permission from private land owners. Is there a reason you think the ordinances make sense? If so, what is it?
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
13
The difference between swimming in the river and swimming at the pools is life guards and the ability to find the body of someone who has drowned within a reasonable amount of time. Reality boys…it can take weeks to find a drowining victim. It is expensive. And cat fish eat the eye balls of the dead. Finding a dead body that has been in the river for a while ain’t pretty. Join the fire dept’s rescue team. Go out on a few calls and report back to us.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
23
You’re talking to a bunch of reactionaries here, Andy. Everybody is for more liberty and fewer regulations UNLESS it involves changes in the status quo and in how things have always been done. Don’t date rock the boat. People rail against laws that restrict “freedom” all the time on these boards, but when faced with a good example of excessive rulemaking, they take the predictably conservative approach to do nothing to change how things are done. Good luck with your project. It sounds like a winner to me.
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
16
Not sure where what I posted was reactionary. I commented on the quality of the water, and asked what body had made it illegal.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
You know something realist….I am really tired of you. Reactionary….not hardly….but that is what you come up with to be rude to people. Excessive rule making…there is a reason swimming is against the law in the Red River. One too many people drowned. I hope the next one isn’t some innocent kid who thinks it’s a safe place to swim.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
22
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
18
Realist I don’t feel that I am opposing progress. I don’t need to go backwards and learn the same lesson twice. I trust our ancestors and our city officials on this one.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
14
I feel like Realist has a good point, even if he didn’t choose the best words to make it.
When risky activities are pushed out of public view, they are more dangerous. I think we all know that, boys being boys; shoot, men being men, a certain amount of us are going to do risky things regardless of whether they’re legal. But regulation of such activities brings them out in the open and makes them safer.
What if the people interested in swimming pay for it through a swimming permit? That way, their names will be on file and they will contribute to the extra workload for administration. If a licensed, certified adult will take take responsibility, they would be allowed to supervise children. I’m sure there are plenty of responsible adult swimmers in this community that would be willing to teach kids how to swim, and that would gladly pay for the opportunity. This would make it safer, with more responsible adults spending time down by the river, where it is largely unsupervised now.
Like or Dislike:
9 
14
I presume the ordinance was passed due to some tragedy. And as for advising swimming outside the city limits, that’s the realistic thing to do. The city will not overturn the law.
Like or Dislike:
13 
7
I like looking at the trees and the beavers. Shielded on many stretches from visible signs of modern civilization, I feel like I’m doing something timeless that people before me did.
Also, in my experience, the public pools allow lap-swimming only at certain times, and I’ve had to dodge kids and deal with eye-burning chlorine. Yes, the river’s dirty, but dirt don’t hurt.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
21
Geeeze….Tough crowd once again….Ok…How about this? “Beavers” Now you’re talking either the tropics or man made pools if you’re looking to see Beavers……You wont view many in the muddy Red.
Speaking of the Muddy Red…..Anyone who thinks this Red River looks murkey. Compared to the Red River down south in TX this river looks much more inviting than that does. That’s a really muddy looking Red. In fact it’s mostly a brown river. I don’t know where either Red River got their names, but it couldn’t have been because sombody thought they looked that color….
Like or Dislike:
8 
11
Next Up:
Water Skiing.
I’ve wanted to ski the Red for thirty years.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
15
Who said you can’t? Go for it. Do it now before you get any older. If this is on your bucket list you should do it. Keep you mouth shut though. I don’t want you to get Giardia. If you are interested I could give you a list of the symptoms. It’s not fatal but you will literally feel like crap.
Like or Dislike:
13 
12
I don’t think any of the towns north of GF have this ordinance, go up to one of them and swim. I’m sure they’d love to have you visit their towns.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
3
That sounds like a pretty reactionary comment to me.
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
I’m pretty sure I saw someone do this once. I think it can be done. Watch out for deadheads. Good luck.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
Yuck!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
11 
10
Fascinating thread here, definitely lots of emotion. Nothing presented, however, goes beyond the original piece though – all of the criticisms i’ve read here have been considered carefully by Robert and I and others before bringing this forward.
I completely understand that people who have no interest in swimming in the river or have been told their whole lives that it is a terrible idea are going to be opposed to changing the ordinance, perhaps mainly because they don’t see the point. I get that. Even many of supporters of our efforts have regaled me with the horror stories they were told about the river growing up. The cultural stories that have been perpetuated about the river for someone’s entire life are hard to overcome – even when they are incorrect.
But it is a process, and this was the first step.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
14
Keep up the effort. See my comment above.
Like or Dislike:
11 
13
As a member of the group that believes in personal freedoms and personal responsibility, i say Go for it.
But i also say when a person who chooses to go for a swim comes up missing you and your loved ones conduct the search for the body.
You cant have personal freedom without being willing to take responsibility for the results of your actions.
Its just like wearing a seatbelt, its a wonderful idea that can save your life. I wear mine all the time but i dont believe there should be a law mandating it.
We have taken Darwinism out of the equation and its starting to pollute the gene pool.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
4
I agree with the Capt, go swim in the river, it helps with natural selection.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
This is a great forum and exactly what is needed in regards to removing the ordinance that prohibits swimming in the Red.
I too have fished, boated, and paddled the Red since I was a boy. This did not qualify me to understand the risks associated with swimming in the river. Doing some very simple research, prior to my first swim, allowed me to understand water flow, water quality, hazards, and regulations (although I missed the EGF ordinance). The real shock for me was the lack of current and the ease, discovered once I entered the water, of navigation while swimming in the river. Not only was I flat out wrong in my beliefs but so was everyone else I discussed the subject with.
I suppose you could argue this as a political movement, and I would love to discuss that, but the truth is it is more about healtth and wellness and proper management of the resources within the Greenway.
Politically;
1. I would take great pride in providing for my own rescue and support when taking risk. Please undrstand that I then would not be responsible for helping you when you take your risks. Fair trade and a solid argument against goverment and taxes, I do not buy into this level of liberitarianism (Is this a word?).
2. I will and do take full responsibilty for my kids safety (as much as possible) and am also very willing to help with yours. Send them to the GroundUp Adventures summer camp and we will teach them to handle the risk of swimming or navigating the river.
3. I do not agree that swimming in the Red is as hazardous as driving with or without a seat belt, although I have no data on this, and therefore I do not see the point. There is obvoius desire to repeal this law the question is if there is enough????
I do believe that all questions regarding safety and quality are valid given the history and culture in our area regarding the river. I also know that the unfounded statements of fear are completely baseless.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
14
Far as I know, the ENTIRE argument against swimming in the Red has to do with “undercurrents”…at least that is what I was warned about every time someone drowned in the river.
The dams on the river were particularly hazardous in terms of underwater turbulence. That’s been resolved for years; by dumping boulders on the downstream side of the dams. Even so, I don’t recommend you swim where you could be washed over the dam.
Opening the Red to increased recreation sounds like a good idea to me.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
13
Schurkey – I agree, swimming near the dam would be a bad idea, there is a greater risk at this point although the current is still very small and one doesn’t get ‘swept’ into the boulders unless you get very close. But all the same, there is greater risk and it can be avoided as mentioned by prohibiting swimming near this obstruction. And as for the undercurrents elsewhere? they simply don’t exist, not in any meaningful way. ALL of the local swimmers we had participate in END-WET began their first swims in the river fearing the ‘undercurrents’ they’d been warned about all of their lives. They were ALL surprised to find that they are the things of fiction. As for drownings? they happen in all/any bodies of water. As the piece mentions, to my knowledge ALL of the drowning have involved either inebriated swimmers or suicides. It certainly must be unpleasant to pull a body from the river, or out of a motor vehicle after an accident, or off the pavement after a motorcycle crash – but the logic behind using drownings to support the ordinance would apply equally well to ordinances banning bicycling, motorcycling, ice fishing, or even driving in the winter (every year there is a story about someone breaking down or running out of gas and freezing to death). As for Bob’s analogy above (driving 150 mph) – it is problematic because driving high speeds presents a risk to other people, not just the person driving at high speeds.
Gene – as far as i’m concerned, you haven’t been particularly reactionary.
Devil’s child – for the record, there is no Giardia in the Red River. Despite appearances (high total suspended solids, or TSS), it is very clean in terms of total dissolved solids (TDS) and therefore safe to swim in, even if you ‘open your mouth’. Your comment about your kids not wanting to swim in the river has little bearing on the discussion.
Like or Dislike:
15 
12
Knoxjimbo politely commented “Maybe you could take responsibility for teaching your kids.” And I replied that they aren’t interested in swimming in the Red River.
Like or Dislike:
14 
5
Devilschild – correct. however other comments you made suggested that lifting the ordinance would is a bad idea because of the danger it poses to ‘innocent children’. I think what knoxjimbo was implying is that perhaps parents who don’t want their kids swimming in the river because of perceived dangers should be responsible for educating them and keeping them from swimming in the river. Again, this was addressed in the original piece. I don’t expect an ordinance banning fast food just because i don’t want my kids eating it. I am in charge of my children – i get to make sure to instill them with values that i think are appropriate. My kids ask all the time why they don’t get soda when their friends do – its a battle i have to fight, but i’m happy to do it because i believe in it. If a parent has strong beliefs about swimming in the river then they should be willing to fight this battle with their own kids, if and when it becomes an issue. Jimbo – did i get that right?
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
13
RIght on.
Like or Dislike:
13 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
22
Devilschild, I don’t think Andy was trying to “regulate” you, rather he was saying that it’s your business and not his what you teach your kids and what they choose to do.
It’s much safer to choose to swim in the river than it is to drive in this town, based on what I’ve read in the Herald. Gene (above) has also commented that he would “presume the ordinance was passed due to some tragedy”–implying that there is a lack of information on how many people have died and how long ago this may have been. Devilschild, you’ve referred repeatedly to deaths you say are not related to suicide or alcohol, but you haven’t given any specifics. Regarding liability, if I get hit by a car while crossing the street, is it the city’s fault because walking is legal? Driving is considered “safe” and is legal for those who are marginally qualified, but we have crashes in the paper nearly every day.
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
Devilschild – first of all, i’m not trying to regulate anyone. I am suggesting that the conversation would be more fruitful if either A) reasons against swimming in the red were different from the ones presented because we’ve already considered those or B) you provide evidence why our position that the aforementioned reasons are weak ones is a bad position. We address liability in the letter. It is our position that the city does would NOT actually be liable if someone was hurt swimming in the river if they removed the ordinance. If we are wrong, then we will have to face that fact. I don’t think we are wrong though (again, swimming is allowed in many municipal rivers, many of which present more risks than the red). As for your snowmobile comment, riding snowmobiles on the river is NOT ILLEGAL! The city allows it without promoting it or condoning it – so your argument is actually problematic there. Finally, i do hope you are sincere in your position about trusting city officials to make the best decision so that if in fact they do decide that the ordinance ought to be reconsidered, then you will be at peace will all of us swimmin’ fools.
One last thought – the river is what it is. truth be told, it isn’t a great place to swim like a beach is. But it is fantastic for actually swimming in. And taking my boys paddle boarding in. And when we paddle board, they love love love to jump off the board and swim between them and push me off and have good old fashioned swimming hole type of fun. And why not? If you haven’t swum in it – fair enough. I have – it’s awesome. It’s clean, you don’t come out looking like the swamp thing, and it doesn’t taste bad. If you are doubtful, be doubtful. but i’ve done it. I’ve tasted it, swum in it for miles, battled the non-existent undercurrents for hours. The urban legends of the fearsome and deadly Red will die a hard death to be sure…. but it is their time to go. You can continue to believe them if you want, but i’ll tell you this – everyone ‘brave’ enough to come out for a swim with me on a nice summer day – one by one, they are going to change their minds. Even you DC…. (-:
Like or Dislike:
14 
10
Ok Rosemary’s grown baby…….It’s perfectly understandable that you might be freaked about the prospect of river swimming holes being maternal and all. Humans have been swimming in water ways since the beginning of human existence. Maybe swimming in river environments isn’t for everyone, and hopefully those who fear it don’t try it, but that doesn’t mean everyone else should have to be banned.
We’re becoming such a safety conscience society that people are becoming wusses and boring. I’ve always believed the old adage that “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” River swimming might not be for everyone, but take a chill and let those who can go ahead. No reason to breath Hell fire on it….
Like or Dislike:
20 
8
Rosemary’s grown baby?
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
If you’re the Devils Child, then by movie fame that either makes you Rosmary’s Baby or Damian (I’m sure there’s others, but can’t think of any right now other than Spawn maybe, but I don’t think that had an earth mother)
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
I accept your heart-felt apology. You can get up off your knees now Pete.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
It’s amazing what get’s liked or dislike isn’t it? Our little nonsense is actually liked. You’d think they’d save that for something that actually meant something…
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
I lived on Lincoln when I wa a kid. There used to be rope swings in at least two places near my place. Back then we hear all the big scares too. Perhaps the most dangerous at the time was that the river was getting polluted because of all the industrial dumping and strong chemical run offs from fields. But when you’re a kid you don’t think much about that.
I know from swimming across the rier in a few places that when the water was flowing fairly well that one side was generally deeper and swifter than the other side. I think thats something that really freaks out swimmers who really aren’t that strong and/or confident. I literally was jumping into deep water at the age of three (When I broke away from supervision….They finally had to harness me like a dog…I was fast..Like a marsupial) so by my teens I was basically fearless when it came to water.
Having said that though I’d be weary about jumping in by a boat launch anyway. A dark water with dark heads can’t bee seen very well on a sunny day from a boat. Maybe that in itself is the biggest concern. Without a designated area sharing a river with boats could be dangerous…..You can always dive deep, but in murky water you really can’t be sure what you might come up to…
Like or Dislike:
15 
9
There’s one more aspect of this topic that may explain, historically, why swimming in the river was not encouraged and was not done. The banks of the Red can be very unstable. The water undercuts the bank and it can collapse easily. Parents used to warn kids against getting too close to the river, not because of the water necessarily, but because of the danger of the bank giving way. So that probably kept the river out of bounds for swimming as well.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
Realist – good point. people walking near the edge of the ‘cliffs’ should be cautions for those very reasons. And i agree, there are ‘risks’ – sharing the river with boats, jumping into water with little visibility, etc. So we should educate people on these risk and discourage the risky behavior – jumping into water with no visibility, swimming alone, boat traffic, etc. Lets treat the river like we treat other things with associated risks (particularly purely personal ones) – education, not ignorance and prohibition.
Like or Dislike:
13 
10
I think that’s mostly when everything is soft and muddy because eventually that will fall in before it drys. Granted there might be some of that, but I spent a lot of time along the river banks as a kid and never seen too much problem with that.
There is a problem in some places where at least one side will have a very muddy bottom that you have a tough time getting out of because you can sink up to your knees or better. My experience was in curves where one side did have a much faster current that the other side seemed pile in the mud more.
I just remembered something…If you’re really into swimming and are thinking of competing you can’t get a much better work out than swimming against the current. Our bodies aren’t designed to swim against the current very well so you swim and swim and really don’t get too far. On the other hand you can turn north and feel like a world class athelete swimming so fast.
Like or Dislike:
11 
11
I’m still waiting to hear examples of people who went swimming in the river for pleasure and drown. I’m thinking it would be easier to find examples of people who went swimming in area hotel pools and drown. I know someone who competed in the 27 mile race and thoroughly enjoyed it. Not for me but if Andy and his ilk want to swim in the river—let them.
Like or Dislike:
15 
7
Me too Vince. But did you hear, my neighbor knows 12 people who swam in the river and were granted super powers. Thats gotta be a check mark in the ‘get rid of the ordinance’ column, right?
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
Two commenters have mentioned with total confidence that this idea will never see the light of day. What makes you so sure? 4 out of 7 council members are required to amend or repeal the ordinance. As far as i can tell, no council members have weighed in on this forum. Should you be so sure you’re right and that a majority of them will share your fears/concerns? Besides, you know what they say – if you tell a man it can’t be done, you better be ready to sit back and watch it happen!
Like or Dislike:
16 
7
If you can get either the GF or EGF city council to look at this I won’t get in your way. That is not my style. I enjoy the boat traffic on the Red. I guess I never thought someone would push to overturn the swimming ordinance. Good luck with this and thank you for giving us an interesting topic to discuss.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
19
take your car out of town find a bridge walk through the ditch and into the river. You can do this without any issues. No one will hassle you.
Like or Dislike:
12 
11
Ok….After all is said and done on this….This isn’t really an issue that will have an effect on very many people in the first place….I mean how many people do you think will actually want to swim in the Red even if the ban was lifted? My guess is that most people who oppose this are those who worry that if the ban was lifted then their kids might figure that’s a green light to jump in. Otherwise I really don’t se this as opening some flood gate that will suddenly have a lot of people swimming in the Red.
Like I mentioned previously there’s a lot of places on the Red where you sink into deep mud on one side and have less mud but a pretty strong current (At times) on the other side. So unless there was a swimming hole created with a groomed entry point like the boat launch areas I really don’t see many people even hitting the Red.
Another thing about a designated swimming hole…..When you swim just anywhere on the Red you basically need a old pair of shoes or something on your feet. Floods drag up all kinds of nasty items on the bottom. You never know what you might discover when you touch bottom. You definately want your tetanus shots up to date if you go in there.
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
Tundra said, “I don’t know where either Red River got their names, but it couldn’t have been because somebody thought they looked that color….”
TB, actually they did think it looked red. The history is tied to the name of Mn. Red Lake which gets its name from the Tamarac, aka larch, tree swamps in its watershed. The Tamarac’s reddish bark gives water a red tinge. If you’ve fished Upper Red Lake out of the town of Washkish, n. of Bemidgi 60 mi., you know what I mean. The water is actually red. That water flows down the Red Lake River to GF/EGF. Before agriculture caused plowed fields to erode into the RR/RLRs it also appeared red in GGF. Notice the RR isn’t called that until Wahpeton where the Ottertail R.& Bois De Sioux R. converge. The Bois de Sioux doesn’t have tamammrac in its watershed south to Lake Traverse on the SD Mn. border so it ran clear to Wahpeton in pre settlement days. On the other hand the Ottertail River comes from way over by Fergus Falls and has many Tamarac swamps in his shed. Notice there is a Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 50 mi east of Fargo which drains to the RR. “RUBY on the RED” would be a good nickname for GF/EGF.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
That might work for the Red up here, but the Red down south looks like milk coco from a more clay soil source. It really looks muddy in texture as if you’d come out muddy if you went in
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
That’s because the clay has been plowed. Before settlement it would have been red because of the Tamarac swamps east of Fargo.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
It doesn’t look red anymore in Gf either because land is plowed. When it got its name there were only fur traders here so they saw red from the Tamarac swamps to the east.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Having come late to the conversation I haven’t seen any evidence of any actual ref. to how clean the RR is in terms of pathogens. Here in MSP the Minnesota River has an agricultural watershed like the RR. It is not swimmable accd. to the DNR. The pathogens that run off of feedlots over the Mn. R. watershed, about half the size of the RR, is so significant the river is unswimmable & fish consumption is considered a health hazard too.
What needs to be done for both rivers is to enforce the pollution laws that are violated by so many farm ops.
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
I know years ago. The DNR cautioned people about eating fish from the red, but they at least got industrial waste to quit being dumped raw into the Red. So last I heard the fish are ok.
There’s herbicide run off, but I just hear that those of us living in rural states already have that in our lungs and body tissue anyway. The chemicals evaporate into clouds an humidity and we either breath it or wear or….and eventually drink it…..It’s always something.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Hmmm I think you are wrong about the mn river water shed being smaller than the red to gf. The minnesota starts at big stone heads down to mankato and that turns north to the twin cities. Cottonwood, rush river, and highland creek are some of it’s watersheds.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
The RR watershed includes a huge area of the Sheyenne R way west of even Devils Lake. The Ottertail R. way east to Fergus Falls & the RLR all the way to Upper & Lower Red Lake north of Bemidji & the Bois De Sioux into SD. This doesn’t even include the tributaries of the RR watershed to the north of GGF. The amount of ranch land in the RR watershed is also much larger than the Mn. R. You would be surprised to see the amount of hilly land in the RR watershed once you get out of the flat areas along the Mn./ND. border & much of it also tiled. The pathogen count in the RR could even be higher than in the MN. R.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Here is one MN DNR fishing pamphlet that touts the good quality of the water in the Red River of the North: http://bit.ly/XP3QtL
Here is a USGS report that includes pesticides and suspended sediment in the Red River of the North: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5065/
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
Those say nothing about pathogens.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Must be the last sentence there is an objection to. The rest is just objective geography. Of course some people do think the world is flat.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
And don’t forget about the miles and miles of man made drainage ditches created for drainage of drain tile in agricultural fields.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
I would be more worried about pesticides and fungicides used in the red river valley. And let’s not forget about the nasty chemicals used on sugarbeets.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
All the water quality reports i’ve seen indicate that it is safe for swimming and for consuming fish from. We’ve had to dig up this information in the past to be given permission to hold events that require swimming in the river within city limits. We’ve also tested this in practice as Robert has probably spent upwards of 100 hours swimming in the river with no ill effects. My kids have swum in the river, both my wife an I have, as well as all the competitors during END-WET last year. It may have been polluted in the past (as it sounds like) but as of the turn of the century things seem to have been pretty good in terms of water quality.
one important comment on the creation of a swimming ‘hole’ of sorts. This is something i DON’T think the city would go for, although i’m not positive. There may be more of a liability issue (i think) if the city ‘creates’ something like a swimming hole and therefore actively encourages swimming. I wouldn’t be against that at all, but it is a much longer shot that simply revising the ordinance.
And Tundra is right – there really would be little change – there isn’t a great place to pleasure swim in the river. it’s muddy and the banks are awkward – it is hard to get out most places, even the ramps, without gunky feet. Honestly there wouldn’t be a very noticeable change for most folks – with the exception that when they drove across Demers bridge and saw me and a couple of my swimming buddies cruising by and called the cops the cops would say, “yeah, thats not against the rules any more”.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
Your own experience cannot be considered a scientific test of the RR’s safety.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
Read the first 2 sentences of his post:
“All the water quality reports i’ve seen indicate that it is safe for swimming and for consuming fish from. We’ve had to dig up this information in the past to be given permission to hold events that require swimming in the river within city limits.”
He’s not basing his opinion only on his own experience–he’s done some research.
Do you have any information specific to the Red River that states it’s unsafe/unsanitary to swim in it?
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
Just the three legged frogs we found along the Grand Marais.
Like or Dislike:
8 
7
He doesn’t site any specific reports. I read some that do seem to say there is an issue with possible pathogens from the watershed of 46,000 sq. mi. which is a territory 1/2 the size of Mn. All the reports mention the fecal coliform which isn’t a problem itself but may indicate the presence of other dangerous pathogens. These reports are from Riverkeepers, the RR Water Commission & NDSU.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
I didn’t make up the story about the three legged frogs. This happened people. There was an article on this in the GF Herald. A science class and their teacher were the focus of the article. There were photos in the paper of the frogs.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Now you did it….You cranked up the Spear machine. Once he starts he’s like the energized bunny….he goes and goes.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
You’d be more worried about farm chemicals than feedlot runoff from millions of acres? One gulp of water & feedlot runoff can be fatal if it contains certain pathogens while farm chemicals are injested on a regular basis, not good but not as potentially fatal as pathogens would be in the short term..
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Bacteria and Pathogens
Some waterborne bacteria, viruses, and protozoa cause human illnesses ranging from typhoid and
dysentery to minor respiratory and skin diseases. These organisms may enter waters through a number of
pathways, including inadequately treated sewage, storm water drains, septic systems, runoff from livestock
pens, and sewage dumped over-board from watercraft. Because it is impossible to test waters for every
possible disease-causing organism, measurements are usually taken of indicator bacteria that are found in the
stomachs and intestines of humans and other mammals. The presence of indicator bacteria suggests that a
water-body may be contaminated with untreated sewage and that other, more dangerous, organisms may be
present.
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
Bacteria (fecal coliform) is a major pollutant providing evidence of possible fecal contamination that
may cause illness if the water is ingested. Bacteria commonly enter surface waters in the form of
inadequately treated sewage, fecal material from wildlife, and runoff from pastures, feedlots, and urban
areas.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Wow, lot’s of comments on this one by familiar players. Here’s one reason I wouldn’t swim in the Red. As a child, I used to go fishing below with my brother (say….’56 or ’57) some distance from the Riverside dam. Recreational fishing only. There used to be an Old Dutch potato chip factory that allowed effluent straight from the plant flow right into the river. It was VERY smelly…almost gag reflex. The water looked and smelled very dirty. As a child that river used to scare me. AND, like so many waterways in North America…..the river is used as a place for treated sewage to flow into. Even if I happened to be young enough to swim in the Red…..I would not. Just sayin…..
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
My understanding was that they made companies (ACS in particular) stop dumping raw sewage way back in the 70′s when people were still concerned about pollution. I think the warning about not eating fish from the Red had something to do with it……Most likely Canada put pressure on too. Anyway factory sewage really hasn’t been an issue for a long time
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
That’s true plus city sewage lagoons & storm sewer separation from sewer lines has been important. Also parking lot holding ponds & rain gardens have helped. The problem I’m talking about is the 1000s of feedlots in the RR basin that are raw sewage & make their way to the river.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Overall, the Red is much cleaner than it was even in the 1930s when cities and towns did not have sewage systems. My father, who grew up on a farm along the Red, said that in the winter farmers would rake the debris in the barns down to the ice so that “In the spring, up the river to Winnipeg it would go.” Dommer’s Boathouse in Moorhead had an area fenced off for diving and swimming, and they also rented canoes. It’s the dissolved particulates (clays) that make the river look dirty. If you haul a jar of water out of the Red and let it rest for a day or two, the sediments will sink to the bottom and you’ll be left with mostly clear H2O. If we treated the river as a recreational source, it could be improved so that anyone canoeing on it would not be facing, as a friend of mine said this summer, “the log lottery.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Now we’re getting somewhere! Rotate correctly identified a couple of the sources that i had looked at regarding water quality. And i do understand that personal experience doesn’t equal scientific studies, but as a scientist myself i also know that personal experience should be considered. Ie if 100 people swim in the river where water quality reports are interpreted (note the use of the word ‘interpreted’) to indicate a significant chance of illness and there are no illnesses reported, then this event would be at least worth considering (perhaps the indications of potential pathogens aren’t actually indicating pathogen presence in this case?). So if i extend my own experience to include the experience of the 25 other swimmers that spent many hours in the river this last summer, we’ve at least moved beyond n=1.
But for me this is beside the point – I believe that making informed decisions is important – were the ordinance to be lifted, water quality information should be made more accessible (its not easy to do a quick search and find anything meaningful about the water quality – it requires some data mining and reading some longer documents and a fair bit of deciphering of language, at least this was my experience). And people should be made aware that there might be a potential issue with water quality. Again, we’re not lobbying to MANDATE swimming in the river or anything.
And there are many rivers around the nation with water quality worse than that of the Red that don’t it necessary to prohibit swimming as a possible recreational use. I’m just not sure how lifting the ordinance, if it is coupled with proper educational initiatives (signage at potential access points, a balanced report in the paper discussing the change and that it doesn’t mean that there still aren’t potential risks involved with choosing to swim) will cause an adverse reaction to any particular group, other than perhaps the fact that people entrenched in their previously held ideas about the river might find challenges to those ideas uncomfortable.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
I agree with you Andy. I grew up on the RR & it pains me to see how it has been treated by the whole 46,000 sq. mi. WS. I wish I had more confidence in its quality & hope & believe some day the MN. R., that I now live on, can also be cleaner & swimmable without any questions. I hope you see the need to do both convince people to use the river but also to encourage enforcement of anti-pollution laws especially by the feedlot & dairy industries. I had Grandparents with a farm outside of GF on the Turtle R. so I know something about that industry.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Spearman – absolutely. the river should be viewed and treated as a valuable recreational resource, not a drain. Perhaps increased non motorized recreation (not just swimming – one of our other projects is to develop a boat house that provides easy access/availability of canoes, kayaks, and Stand up paddle boards, and instruction in their safe use) will begin to encourage people to look at the river in a different way and bring more attention to these issues.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
The root of all of these problems lies in one place.
LAWYERS.
When we were younger we took a lot more chances and learned from bad experiences.
Todays youth dont get that opportunity, we are over regulated and over governed not by the local/state governments but by the laws and restrictions they HAVE to put in place to keep from being sued by the LAWYERS.
The govt can ill afford to spend our tax dollars for payouts to lawyers and the families they represent because someone didnt put up a sign or by not outlawing it they somehow approved of it.
If the city allowed swimming in the red river, they would be sued by the first family of a kid that drowned for allowing people to swim in the river.
Am i the only one who cringes every time they watch a funny commercial with something stupid like a car driving off a cliff and see the warning to “DO NOT ATTEMPT” across the bottom of the screen?
Same thing here, we are a litigious society that will sue over any little thing to get a buck and the Ambulance chasing Lawyers make it so easy.
You wanted to know why swimming in the river is outlawed?
There you go, one word.
LAWYERS.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
So true Cap. Remember when that poor snowmobiler raced down the river unaware of the dam and drowned in the ice cold river? His family wanted signs put up warning people of the dam. The city wouldn’t do it because of what you just stated. In the end his family spent $5000 on signs and put them up themselves.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Take that one step further….there’s warning on things like fan belts that says something like “Do not attempt to put on car while it’s running”. You know that warning is there because some fool actually did that and sued the company for not warning idiots well enough.
One of my favorites was a fool in NY who while drunk needed to relieve himself so he climbed a fence that was marked no “trespassing,” and “dangerous” to relieve himself by the train tracks from the subway system. He ended up touching the hot track and got fried pretty bad, but unfortunately lived. He successfully sued because even though the place was fenced in and marked it just wasn’t enough to assure a drunken idiot would be prevented from injuring himself……
You’re right….Ambulance chasers really have helped to screw a lot of things up
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Oh hog wash. That’s like saying guns kill people. Lawyers don’t initiate law suits—people initiate law suits……… and hire a lawyer. A lawyer gets paid for what he’s hired to do—-just like any other job.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
Lawyers are just people. some are good, some are bad. But, there ARE also laws that protect the city, etc against certain types of lawsuits. I’m not a lawyer, but somehow it is legal to cross country ski and city groomed trails with city provided equipment for free and the city doesn’t seem to be worried about potential litigation, even though truth be told lots of the equipment is old and needs to be replaced and there is potential for injury when it fails. Also, there ARE groomed snowmobile trails, and ice fishing is allowed on the river as far as i know. fear of litigation is always going to be thrown out as reason for not doing things, but truth be told, it’s rarely enough to stop something from being done, if there is enough momentum. But we’ll have to wait and see – we’ll be digging into the legal aspects soon.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
My comment concerned snowmobile trails on the river. At times they groom across the river below the dam to connect the trail between GF/EGF. If it isn’t safe the walk bridge gets used. That is it. Yes we have groomed trails but they follow along the river…not on it. I just want to clarify that. I have been all over those trails with my family. It’s the same for Crookston, Red Lake Falls, Thief River Falls, Oslo, Pembina….the trails are not on the river. They won’t groom a trail on the river because then they are advocating that it is a safe place to ride. The river is never safe, especially for a rookie. You ride at your own risk down there. You have to know the river and it’s quirks in order to use it for winter recreation. That said…one winter when it was pretty cold we crossed paths with a 4 X 4 pickup on the Red Lake River. And that river gets slushy in spots. You got to know that one to.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Ok DC…I’ll give you a picture of a extreme high point followed by what could have been a extreme low point on the Red. I experienced what’s generally a once in a life time experience by being along the Red when the earth literally started shaking. Scared the hell out of me because I thought that somehow we were having an earthquake. I started running up the dike when I heard a lot of crunching going on and crash sounds. I turned around to see the ice breaking up an crunching into each other. Ice would rise up in spots and crash down. The coolest thing I’ve ever witnessed and I was by myself with not even a camera for stills (I was 14 and a long time before cell phones)
So what do you do after something like that. I went across the dike and called a few friends down to check it out. So naturally being a bunch of dumb ass boys we started daring each other to jump on to some of the bigger chunks close to shore. Only I always had to one up my buddies and started walking across to adjoining blocks and then back. That worked a couple times, but then went one block further and said, “Whoa! That feels soft I better get….” That water was brisk, and climbing back on was tough…especially since my buddies were laughing too hard to come over for an assist right away………
Nothing more eye opening than a dunk in the river at water just above freezing and the air temp maybe fifty…..Oh but my genius went further. In my wisdom of living fourteen years I figured if I walked around in the sun I’d dry off before I went back home so nobody would have to know. After about fourth five minutes I finally went home mostly wet and sick for a few days…..Good times
If there’s a moral it’s just that dumb ass boys will always find a way to push the envelope regardless of the rules.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
I’m glad you made it home Pete. My boys have had their share of accidents. Two of them are allergic to the glue on Bandaids. We found that out the hard way. That wasn’t any fun at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“But, there ARE also laws that protect the city”
Laws like No Swimming in the Red River allowed.
Thats exactly my point.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Vince, are you telling me that i am delusional in what i think are approx 30 ads a night inviting me to sue drug companies etc?
So, Lawyers dont pursue clients?
Right.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
There are bad apples in every profession. Those attorneys that invite you to sue drug companies are in it for the big bucks because that’s what they get when they win cases against pharmaceutical companies and they know it. And yes—I would consider them bad apples. You don’t see those attorneys advertising to try to get you as a client to settle your divorce case because they’re not interested in helping you fight over pots and pans. I just don’t see them placing numerous ads on a daily basis that state “If a loved one has drown in the river, contact us— we’ll protect your rights and get you the settlement you deserve”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0