Re: [Paddlewise] Paddling Group Dynamics

Jackie Fenton wrote:
--snip--

> My
> first question would be why was it important to proceed with the
> paddle in
> spite of the adverse conditions.  My second concern would be that even
> though
> I might understand the decision of a skilled paddler to paddle alone
> in
> adverse conditions realizing the risks and trusting their own skill
> level,
> I'm not sure I could be convinced that another paddler would stick to
> such an
> agreement if I ended up in trouble.

--snip--

In reply to your second question, concerning the willingness of John's
companions to hold to the agreement and not rescue him, I suggest that
if you knew John, you would have not concerns on this matter.  The last
time he fell out of a boat some nearby fishermen rowed over to club him
with their oars, and a concerned citizen on shore called up the Ministry
of the Environment's spills hot-line.  He finally made it to shore and
flagged down a car, but the folks inside would not let him in.  He has
not been seen in public since, and has retreated to the internet.

More seriously, and in response to your first question, at this level of
paddling there are some pretty serious inherent risks.  If one is not
willing to take them, one should not start on the trip.  The area John
paddled through (one of the roughest parts of the North-West Passage) is
known for prolonged severe weather, bergy bits, extended exposed coasts,
and an extremely short paddling season (indeed, on a previous attempt,
George had to portage through the Torngats because of ice).  Would it be
possible for John and his gang to complete their journey without
paddling in rough water?  I doubt it.  They probably would not find
enough calm days to complete their journey in one season.  Why would
someone chose to venture into such an area?  One might as well ask why
would someone paddle class V wild water, or climb an 8,000m mountain?

The more specific question, why they would agree to not make rescue
attempts, arises out of the performance characteristics of their canoes
(Albanys with covers -- BTW, I paddle the same boat, and have used it in
both open ocean and heavy wild water and find it quite remarkable).
These boats are tremendously seaworthy.  The hitch is that conditions
severe enough to flip one of them would be severe enough to make rescue
impossible.  Therefore, knowing that these boats are capable of making
way in water in which rescue is not feasible, it becomes important to
know when to run for shore.  The pact should not be interpreted as a
willingness to let one's companions die, but rather a recognition that
the boats must run for shore well before flipping becomes a significant
possibility.

I think that it is important to keep the issue in perspective.  Most
canoeists are relatively unskilled (in both technique and experience)
and paddle low performance boats, so dumps are not uncommon, but because
they quite reasonably keep to paddling in mild conditions, rescues are
feasible -- thus canoe-over-canoe rescues are the norm for kids camps
and recreational canoeing instruction.  This simply does not apply to
highly experienced paddlers in high performance expedition canoes in
arctic waters.  Rescue in a blow in Hudson's Straight is not comparable
with rescue on a cottage country lake.  I think that it would be unwise
to confuse the one with the other.  Similarly, I wish that when folks
move into more serious waters, they would re-consider their rescue
alternatives.  (For example, the St. John's Boys School disaster could
easily have been avoided if the tip leaders had thought through the
rescue alternatives.  A great tragedy resulted in part from their
assuming that rescue was possible.)

Finally, would they hold to the agreement?  I expect that it would come
down to the conditions at the time.  If a rogue wave caught one of the
boats, so that a rescue attempt was possible, I expect that the decision
would be different than if general conditions had deteriorated to the
point that a boat flipped.  Therefore, I would not take their agreement
as an absolute rule against rescues, but rather a realization that in
some circumstances rescue is not feasible and should not be attempted.

I do, however, take your point about people not necessarily holding to
plan in the heat of the moment, for once I followed a swimmer down
something nasty to fish him out even though we had agreed that he would
be on his own if he messed up (we made it, but it took a day to find his
boat).  I suppose that I could fall out of my boat the next time I come
across John, just to see if he will rescue me.

But to be honest, knowing John and George, I seriously doubt if they
would ever get in over their heads to such a point that they would have
to take such drastic actions.  I look at their pact as part of a
responsible planning process which includes looking at a broad range of
very remote possibilities.  I applaud their foresight in looking at all
the risks, and in recognizing that they had darn well better avoid some
problems which once encountered have no viable solutions.

Now here's the kicker.  George and John have both spent a great deal of
time in regions of the north where, how shall we put it politely,
shortages of rations and inclement weather have led previous explorers
make what genteel society would consider to be unacceptable food
choices.  Dare I say it, cannibalism.  John, I would like to know if you
had any discussions on this subject.  More specifically, did you bring
Bill on the trip to act as a self-propelled larder?  Inquiring
minds........

Richard Culpeper
www.geocities.com/~culpeper

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************