Philip wrote and attached a message on Canadian Coast Guard regs etc. The concern over additional government regulation of canoeing and kayaking is valid. It is the nature of government to be seen to have done something even if its actions are inappropriate or unrealistic. Most of us will recall the suggestion that we have a single unified safety standard for kayaks and canoes. The suggestion was well intended but, like most attempts to regiment people, it was inappropriate. The problem is that the call for greater safety through licensing and mandatory operator education is hard to counter. Who could possibly be against greater safety? Surely we don't want more people to drown. What could be wrong with making people learn proper safety practices? As more inexperienced people take to paddling there will be more accidents. Paddling seems benign but it really isn't because it is so easy to get into trouble. As the media focus on paddling related accidents grow more alarmist there will be the usual call for government to protect us from ourselves. You might want to think about the form such protection might take. Along with licensing and mandatory user education we might get mandatory stability requirements, mandatory volume requirements, no paddle zones, mandatory registration before going on a trip, construction standards, and so on. All these have happened in one form or another in other recreational activities but are we safer because of them? The MRCA (Manitoba Recreational Canoe Association) suggests a form letter to the government that Philip attached to his message. The letter states that paddling has an excellent safety record. Is this true? From the discussions on this mailing list one would have to say that the record is not all that good. It says that vessel registration is directly related to issues surrounding personal watercraft, power boat use and the use of alcohol. Is this true? It says that paddling organisations already have certification programs but are they wide spread and are they really doing the job? They most certainly aren't very uniform. It suggests that any proposed courses by government are geared to power boats but that assumes there will be no course geared to paddlers - an assumption of fact not based upon fact. It is presumptuous to suggest that an appropriate course won't be forthcoming with legislation. Finally the letter argues that such legislation will have a detrimental effect on small outfitters etc. Is this not inconsistent with supporting licensing personal watercraft when that is economically much more massive than paddling. Is the economic impact a valid argument if it isn't to be applied uniformly? Here I am playing devils' advocate. While I am not happy with the idea of licensing I have to wonder if the arguments being used to oppose it are valid and persuasive. This is a worthwhile subject for Paddlewise to discuss in detail. Cheers, John Winters Redwing Designs Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft http://home.ican.net/~735769/ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************Received on Thu May 14 1998 - 04:57:25 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:29:56 PDT