Hank wrote; >Could you imagine the legal problems if someone who was certified died? He >was certified as competent -- sue the ba***rds! Dunno if a cerfificate of >completion would produce the same effect, but there would still be >questions. I doubt if anyone could sue anyone. Getting a certificate only says you got the certificate. It doesn't say you are smart. Dave wrote; >(SNIP about US) >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 Enforcement doesn't have to be comprehensive. If you are the only one to get caught and your boat and equipment are confiscated you will be mildly upset. One should not confuse effective enforcement with the effect of selective enforcement. Rich wrote; >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. I don't think the concern is over racing in organised races. There have always been exemptions for that. I have yet to see a sprint racer wearing a life jacket or even having the minimum safety gear. There is an interesting dynamic here. When it was suggested that one need not wear a life jacket all the time it was violently opposed. Now when the government (Canadian) suggests you should have mandatory safety instruction it is opposed. Is this consistent? Chuck wrote; >A former BWCAW ranger whom I know says don't mess with the Canadian >rangers; they will confiscate your equipment on the spot if you don't >have enough cash to pay the fine. You're not protected by the U.S. >constitution when you are in Canada -- do you want the hassle of going >to court in another country to recover your property? How true and it is remarkable how many Americans think they are exempt from Canadian law just because they are Americans. I have a good friend in the OPP who told me about an American who was caught speeding and threatened to call his Congressman. I also get stamped return envelopes from Americans with US postage affixed. Just because there is no wall doesn't mean Canada is not a separate country with its own laws and own priorities. *************************************************************************** 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 Fri, May 15, 1998 at 06:55:57AM -0400, John Winters wrote: > >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. > > I don't think the concern is over racing in organised races. There have > always been exemptions for that. I chose that example because it's exceptionally glaring. I could fill the page with others; including, say, the morning and afternoon practice and instructional sessions that will happen at (to pick just *one*) the Madawasku Kanu Centre in Barry's Bay, Ontario today. > When it was suggested that one need not wear a life jacket > all the time it was violently opposed. Now when the government (Canadian) > suggests you should have mandatory safety instruction it is opposed. Is > this consistent? I think so. I don't have a major problem with mandatory safety instruction; I have a major problem with stupid safety instruction and stupid safety rules. The proposed Canadian regulations were clearly written by someone, or multiple someones, without the slightest clue about whitewater. (Since they do not specifically state that they are addressing only ocean paddling, I can only presume that, by their own words, they intend to address all canoeing and kayaking.) As far as the wearing-a-PFD all the time issue goes, yes, I firmly believe every boater should wear one at all times. But that's a far cry from insisting that government regulations should be passed in order to enforce this by law. ---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/ ***************************************************************************
On Fri, 15 May 1998 07:31:05 -0400, you wrote: >I think so. I don't have a major problem with mandatory safety instruction; >I have a major problem with stupid safety instruction and stupid safety >rules. The proposed Canadian regulations were clearly written by someone, >or multiple someones, without the slightest clue about whitewater. I can offer some information in this regard as I was recently talking to a person at the Cdn Coast Guard office about the small boat advisory council (currently being restructured) which (I think) had input into the new Regulations. Apparently the person who was to represent paddle sports wasn't able to attend m/any meetings, so that perspective may not have been presented. Too bad, methinks. >As far as the wearing-a-PFD all the time issue goes, yes, I firmly >believe every boater should wear one at all times. But that's a far cry >from insisting that government regulations should be passed in order >to enforce this by law. Certainly, for white water paddlers and sailors, that makes sense. I am not certain that I would not like to have the choice about wearing one when I am paddling my local canal (very flat calm water) or lake. If someone was to say, "but what if something unexpected happens on the river or lake" I'd counter with "but what if something happens while I am swimming." Life is a choice about acceptable levels of risk. In Ontario the rules regarding bicycle helmets changed in the last year or so, to make it mandatory for someone under age 16 to wear one, but for older riders there is a choice. I would accept a similar rule for PFDs. BTW, in this morning's newspaper is a report that a private member's bill is making an unopposed journey through the Ontario legislature. The bill would enact legislation to fine and suspend a boater's motor vehicle driver's license if that person is convicted of operating a boat while impaired (drunk operation of a boat). This seems like a good idea to me. BTW, the water was wonderful for swimming today, May 16, in a lake in the Ottawa Valley. It is the earliest I can recall such nice weather/water. :-) -- cheers, Stephen stephen.bird_at_superaje.com *************************************************************************** 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: --snip-- > I don't think the concern is over racing in organised races. There have > always been exemptions for that. I have yet to see a sprint racer wearing a > life jacket or even having the minimum safety gear. There is an interesting > dynamic here. When it was suggested that one need not wear a life jacket > all the time it was violently opposed. Now when the government (Canadian) > suggests you should have mandatory safety instruction it is opposed. Is > this consistent? > --snip-- Safety at organized sprint races is pretty good due to chase boats and due to races only taking place in calm conditions. It get's a little slack in training, though, for although most clubs have kids closely supervised and wearing pfds, adults are usually given more leeway. As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong), the only fatality at a sprint race in Ontario was when a young spectator was hit by a train -- I doubt if a pfd would have helped. Again, as far as I know, the only fatality at a ww race (unsanctioned) in Ontario was when a rafter drowned after getting very drunk and drifing into a sweeper on the Beaver River Rat Race. (Similarly, the only drowning on the Ottawa at Beachburg in recent years was alcohol caused.) Is there a contradiction in talking pfds but opposing regulations? No, I don't think there is. On my part the concern is that regulations may not fit my needs and wishes (which in my case include being able to decide when to and when not to wear a pfd). My best example is ww rescue pfds. The best ones are made in the US. It costs a fair bit to have them approved for Canada, which is a relatively small market, so manufacturers usually don't bother. When I run a ww course (in Canada) I have the choice of going with the best equipment for the job, or going with something which meets regulations. I put safety over regulations. This is not a new problem. In the 60s, when I was learning to paddle ww wilderness rivers, I had to wear keyhole pfds, which were approved, rather than vest pfds, which were not approved -- thank heavens I never had to swim a rapid in one of them. It even extends to other boating regulations, such as my local river, the thames, being closed to paddling whenever it gets high enough to be floatable (closed at class III). Yes, I expect that this might save the life of a person who is stupid enough to drop into a river with no training, but I think that protecting stupid people from themselves in this case goes too far in its limitation of my wish to paddle. I expect that most regulations will be geared at the general public, who have had little or no training and who only occasionally go out on the water while at the cottage or while fishing. I expect that regulations, if consistently enforced, would help save their lives. However, the reguations would not help save my life or help me save the life of someone in my care, and based on past regulations, I expect that in some circumstances the regulations would actually hinder my group's safety. If the recreational paddling regulations were formed by someone such as ORCA, and the ww regulations formed by someone such as the OWWA, and the sprint regulations formed by someone such as OSCRA, then I would not be concerned, but they are not. Finally, let's look at the cause of fatalities. In Ontario, half of all boating fatalities are caused by alcohol (sorry, but we don't have figures broken down between motor and non-motor craft). If the government wants to save lives, the first place to start would be to implement and consistently enforce 0% alcohol tolerance for boaters. If there is a problem with boating fatalities, let's deal with it by addressing the single-most dangerous problem out there. Let's not avoid the issue by piddling about with regulations which will make little difference in the number of lives saved, which will hinder the development of safety gear, and which will hinder serious paddlers' enjoyment. Richard 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/ ***************************************************************************
Richard wrote; (SNIP) > >Is there a contradiction in talking pfds but opposing regulations? No, I don't >think there is. On my part the concern is that regulations may not fit my >needs and wishes (which in my case include being able to decide when to and >when not to wear a pfd). (Large SNIP) But aren't you assuming the regulations won't fit before they are written? If the regulations did fit, would you still oppose them? It seems to me that one either should contribute to the process constructively and, failing that, complain bitterly if the regs are bad but support them if they are good. Opposing them out of hand sounds a trifle arbitrary. 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: --snip-- > But aren't you assuming the regulations won't fit before they are written? Yes, I am assuming that the regulations won't fit. They never have fit in the past, do not fit at the present, and there is no indication that they will in the future. Furthermore, waiting until they are written means risking being stuck with bad regulations. Specifically, I strongly oppose the insistence upon Canadian approved pfds to the exclusion of superior non-Canadian approved pfds. I strongly oppose the closure of rivers to paddling for anything other than ecological reasons. I oppose the insistence upon heaving lines in ww boats without first requiring instruction in their safe storage and use. I oppose the insistence upon ebuggerances such as bailing buckets for squirt boats. Note that all of these regulations already exist and are not being repealed. > If the regulations did fit, would you still oppose them? No. If the regulations did fit, then I would support them. If the regulations were simply neutral, then I would not oppose them. I neither arbitrarily oppose regulations, nor wish to have regulations for the sake of having regulations. I am very concerned that regulations are neither adequately addressing what is by far the leading cause of death, alcohol, nor promoting the most effective approach to safe paddling, instruction. > It seems to me that one either should contribute to the process > constructively and, failing that, complain bitterly if the regs are bad but > support them if they are good. Opposing them out of hand sounds a trifle > arbitrary. My opposition is not arbitrary. It is based on both being informed and having contributed to the process for quite a few years. I agree that constructive participation is important. I agree that jumping up and down prematurely is not appropriate. Richard 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:49 PDT