[Worm Drowner]

http://www.news-herald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11836361&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=21849&rfi=6

Personally, I don't think they need to do anything. If you're too f(reaking) stupid to stay out of the water when the river is at flood stage, well.......that's Darwinism in action.

 

[fishing pole]

$29, 200!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could have done that study for $25,000. What a waste of money.
Another case of lawyers seeking the gold.

 

[ashtonmj]

...being someone that actually works in the same line of business (a direct competitor with URS) no YOU couldnt have done it for under 25 grand and I am kinda surprised they did at that price.

The fact of the matter is Worm Drowner is right. The lawsuits are a case of people not owning up and taking account for their own actions, (unfortunately) tragic, or not. Of course a dam creates water movement like that they word it though like it is the fault of the dams design. All spillways natural or not create that kind of water current. I wonder if they had life jackets on because I bet they didnt. Maybe they should have portaged the dam instead of going over it. But should it be explained on a sign. Common sense is absent in society today because lawyers can get you money for a lack of it. Go look at the dam by the Cleveland Zoo on Tinkers Creek. It is fenced in has warning signs all over it and kids die yearly. Yet they are constantly still jumping off of it and swimming at it. Signs don't stop people from arrogant actions.

In my professional opinion I think URS is a little off base on what to do too, they are looking at it from an engineers prospective and not a biological (difference of ideologies between compaines one would say) and could create some poor conditions with their solution albeit rediculously safe.

Seperating fish habitat? what load of baloney is that...why can't they just say it creates a nice place for steelhead fishing by slowing the fish down and creating habitat that wouldnt have existed with the dam there?

 

[RiverRunner]

WD-Thanks for posting the article.I agree Darwinism at its finest.I found a few thing interesting in the article.

"Defendants were aware of the treacherousness of the lowhead dam, yet failed to warn of or remedy the life taking danger," the suit states."

There is a sign hanging from the Rt. 84 bridge upstream from the dam warning of the danger.

"The main function of the dam is recreational."

I was under the impression that the dam was built for creating a water supply for the city of Willoughby,but was never used for this.

Ashtonmj-The seperating fish habitat is in reference to the ideal spawning habitat that exists upstream of the dam, and is the main reason the ODNR oposses the dam removal.It was'nt clearly stated in the article.

Regards,
Ed

 

[fish4wall]

what gets me the family of the man that committed suicide...he killed himself.
i know it sound bad but he did. if he didnt do it there he would have done it some how some way.
if he shot himself would the family sue the gun manufacture?
then the 2 guys in the boat...man how dumb can you be.....
i think there should be a law for money hungry lawyers.....STOP BEING SUE HAPPY!!!!! if i was a lawyer i would slap them all in the head.
maybe our courtrooms wouldnt be so full if they would stop this.
im sure or taxes would go down.
i think they need to leave the park alone its fine the way it is.
just my 2cents
fish4wall