[Paddlewise] Group Dynamics (longish)

I think the "dangers" of my Labrador trip were less than the dangers in writing about it. :-)
 
The trip:
 
>From Kuujuuaq in northern Quebec north along the Ungava Bay coast, through Mclean Strait (a fascinating place with whirlpools big enough to put a boat in and amazing currents going both directions at the same time) and south to Nain. Approximately 1100 km if you don't wander off course. Most of this was on open water. The time was July. Our estimated time for the trip was 30 days. We were paddling 17' Royalex canoes with nylon spray covers.
 
I do not consider this an inherently  dangerous trip. The Inuit lived along these coasts without benefit of life jackets, wet suits, dry suits or EPIRBS. At almost every decent camp area we found evidence of their existence some of which were barely discernible due to time. Families moved from place to pace in Umiaks (Large open skin canoes). Kayaks were used primarily for hunting. Yes, there were dangers  but our experience suggested that they could be avoided. Our policy was designed to deal with that occasion when everything went wrong in spite of our efforts. 
 
There is no doubt conditions were severe. Westerly  winds would be cooled crossing the Torngat Mountains and then gravity would accelerate them down into the fjords. As they fanned out at the mouth of the fjords they would meet the incoming swell. The waves would steepen and break and the wind would whip the spray high into the air. At times it was impossible to make headway into the wind. We were wind bound  five times once for a period of three days. 
 
The people:
 
There were four of us with a combined paddling and boating experience of about ninety years. The trip leader, George Luste, has travelled extensively in the north and had done several trips along the coast of Labrador in canoes. His first attempt at this trip failed when they were stopped by ice and forced to cross the Torngat Mountains by paddling up Ablaviak Fjord and crossing over into Kangalaksiork Fjord.  
 
Tia Luste who has paddled all her life including long open water trips (North shore of Superior).
 
Bill Swift who had extensive whitewater experience and had been tripping since a child.
 
Myself.
 
Our decision;
 
We agreed that, given our level of skill and expertise, it was highly unlikely that anyone would come to grief but if they did, conditions would surely be extreme and any rescue attempt would probably be problematic. Therefor we applied the Royal Life Saving, Red Cross, and Saint John's Ambulance rule that no one would risk their lives effecting a rescue. The key word is "risk".  There was no agreement to "never" rescue anyone. The agreement was "not to risk life to rescue someone". There is a huge difference not often perceived by those who have not encountered severe conditions. 
 
Why?

First, this was not a military expedition. Our objective was voluntary. We were not compelled to take risks and so, the mission (if one can use that word) did not require a collective effort or ethic. In the military people are ordered to take risks they would not normally take and, were it not for the knowledge that ones buddies will come to your aid, such missions would be impossible. In the military the group is more important than the individual. If I remember correctly the Marine Corps has the following hierarchy; Corps, God, Country. (If you are interested in how the military gets people to do things they would not normally do I highly recommend Lt. Col. Lawrence Grossman's book "On Killing")
 
We had no such compulsion.
 
Second, the trip did not require that everyone survive in order to complete it. In other words, three, two or even one person could survive. No one was expected to commit suicide for the sake of another. Which is preferable, we asked, that no one survive or that as many a possible survive? We chose the latter. To refuse to risk one's life is not suicide as Tim Ingram seemed to think. To deliberately risk one's life, on the other hand, may be suicidal. Refusing to risk one's life may not be noble but it is not suicidal. 
 
Third, This decision did not mean that we would not offer help when it was needed. Each of us was expected to base a decision to help upon our experience.  While we did not have occasion to help anyone, we could have and would have if it were safe to do so. 
 
Fourth, The decision to risk one's life must be taken in a larger context. For instance, I would have been willing to risk my life to save my wife if she were on the trip because life without her is meaningless. As much as I liked Tia, Bill, and George, none of them is quite so important as my wife and to sacrifice my life for someone of lesser value is insupportable and a denial of self worth. (For a philosophical discussion of this view Ayn Rand's "On Selfishness" is worth reading. In our case, the group was important but not so important as the individual. Where the group supported and nurtured individual goals its actions are supported by the individual. Where the group is destructive or group behaviour is destructive to individual goals then the group recedes in importance. 
 
Was this trip risky. Yes, and no. Our policy was always one of conservative action. If any one member felt things were getting or would get out of hand we stopped or would not venture forward. This assured that we would always be taking the lowest acceptable risk in any action. On the other hand, the weather was highly unpredictable plus we were paddling along the coast and would be exposed to large breaking beam seas much of the time. The coastline was rugged with the Torngat Mountains rising almost straight out of the ocean in places. Landing was always a problem.  Rescue was highly problematic in any case.  
 
Having said all that, at no time during the trip even when conditions were at their worst did I feel threatened. Our skills were never taxed to their limits and our boats were suitable to the task. 
 
It is probably worth talking about the boats. Kayakers would have thought them too wide (36") and I was concerned about this. I did some stability studies that revealed that, given our load (872 lb. displacement) and our CG, the boats were close to being self righting if we loaded carefully.  For instance, if the paddlers did not move at all, the boats had positive righting moment up to 32 degrees. If the paddlers only leaned 10 degrees the boats had positive righting moment up to 85 degrees. This was primarily due to the low CG and high displacement although I would like to take credit for some design virtues. Even in the roughest conditions we took only small amounts of spray over the decks and not once did green water come aboard. At one point I stood up in four foot beam seas to observe the prospects of a landing site. (Bill was a little apprehensive as he knows I am clumsy). This was reassuring but you can bet we were careful not to find out how far we could push the boats.
 
Our attitude may not have been consistent with the romantic ideals of literature nor the selflessness of modern sociological and political 
philosophy. Nevertheless, it was consistent with our objectives.

Finally, Richard asked about emergency rations. I have a  policy on that too that I mentioned on Wavelength once. I always travel with at least one vegetarian. In this way there will be no arguments about who gets eaten first should we run out of regular food. One might ask if a vegetarian can be expected to keep his or her end of the bargain. In my experience they can. 


 


 

 

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