I thought this might be of interest to all if not already known. Best Regards, Philip
attached mail follows:
http://kohlrabi.cs.umanitoba.ca/mrca/CoastGuard.html *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
John Winters wrote: > > Philip wrote and attached a message on Canadian Coast Guard regs etc. [big snip; see below for comment on Philip's post] > 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. In the States, I suspect that this is a moot issue. I do not think the public is about to fund such a mandate. Licensing requires enforcement to be effective, and I do not see folks here as willing to up the budget for the USCG to go check *paddle-driven boats* to see if they are licensed. (In some states, paddle-driven craft are licensed by the *state,* not the Federal government.) Where I paddle, there is a *substantial* USCG presence, owing to the difficult sea conditions on the Columbia River bar and in the adjacent ocean. Even so, one NEVER sees a USCG patrol vessel, except on/near the bar, a place only the demented would take a sea kayak (MAX did, however!). Now and then, there is a County Sheriff Marine Patrol officer at the local boat ramp, checking for PFD's, whistles, and (on power boats) fire extinguishers, etc. FWIW, places I have paddled on the coast of BC had essentially NO Canadian CG presence -- no patrols, and nobody at launch points to enforce PFD requirements (etc.). Is it plausible Canadian citizens will agree to increase funding of the CCG to allow enforcement? I wonder. On a related subject: can someone verify the interpretations in Philip's message? If the 15 meter "throw bag" rule is truly to be enforced, I think I'll go buy stock in one of the firms which makes these things. I'd like to see an "official" interpretation of the rules before I went out and acquired any gear. Any Canadian Coast Guard folks on the list who can help out? Thanks. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, May 14, 1998 at 12:52:32AM -0600, Philip Wylie wrote: > I thought this might be of interest to all if not already known. Yes, it's of interest -- it's also pretty brain-damaged when read from the viewpoint of a whitewater paddler. Someone might want to tell these idiots that none of the boats which raced in the Canadian National Slalom Team Trials came even close to meeting these specifications. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk_at_gsp.org *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Below is the link to Canadian Coast Guard web page describing proposed regulations from August 97. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/backgrou/1997/hq36e1.htm Brian Gilman *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:49 PDT