PaddleWise by thread

From: Joe Pylka <pylka_at_castle.net> subject: [Paddlewise] Fw: Anchor requirements for small craft Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:58:31 -0500 · This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:08 PDT

I got this today...   Kinda boneheaded for USCG....
Joe P.

-----Original Message-----
From: John G. Rako 
Date: Sunday, January 30, 2000 2:25 AM
Subject: Anchor requirements for small craft

>Please Respond to a proposal for a USGS anchor requlation by going to.
>http://dms.dot.gov/search/   enter 4447 for the docket number.
>
>Here's mine:
>Docket Management Facility
>U.S. Department of Transportation
>400 Seventh Street S.W.
>Washington, D.C. 20590-0001
>Regarding Docket Number USCG 1998-4447
>
>Speaking for the Delaware Valley Division of the American Canoe
>Association, I echo the many thoughtful comments by those opposed to the
>proposed ground tackle regulation. Any one-size-fits-all rule is bound
>to be inapplicable in many cases and counter-productive in many others.
>I emphasize the fact, as pointed out by others, that ground tackle in
>canoes, kayaks, rafts and other small craft may be deadly. The greatest
>danger is, of course, the risk of entanglement by anchor line. Running a
>close second are the consequences of inadvertent anchoring in rivers and
>other moving water. The craft then becomes deadly, not only to its
>passengers but becomes a dangerous obstruction to other craft. I know of
>one case where a light recreational fishing boat with a small outboard
>motor attempted to anchor in the Maumee River South of Toledo Ohio and
>became unstable in the current and capsized, killing its passengers. I
>also agree with comments by representatives of the National Park Service
>and canoe livery operators that canoes and kayaks, in particular,
>present a risk when transported over-land if they are carrying ground
>tackle.
>
>The proposed regulation is wrong-headed and dangerous and was
>ill-considered by those proposing it and supporting it who used as
>evidence only their own limited experience.
>
>John G. Rako, Ph.D.
>Safety Education and Instruction Chair, ACA Delaware Valley Division
>American Canoe Association Instructor Trainer
>American Red Cross Instructor Trainer
>
>===============================================================
>Here is the response by the fellow who alerted me:
>
>Docket Management Facility
>U.S. Department of Transportation
>400 Seventh Street S.W.
>Washington, D.C. 20590-0001
>Regarding Docket Number USCG 1998-4447
>
>I oppose the implementation of a federal requirement to require anchors
>on all vessels. The prudent mariner will always have appropriate ground
>tackle. However, I can not see a blanket federal ground tackle
>requirement saving lives. In fact, a federal requirement may cost lives.
>Lack of ground tackle is not a large cause of deaths. The data indicates
>only 14 of 8047 accidents may have been prevented by better anchors.
>Using USCG resources for implementation and enforcement of an anchor
>requirement will divert resources from more effective efforts i.e.
>drunken boaters. If it is decided to have an anchor requirement, as
>usual the devil is in the details.
>
>The abstract states, "that all recreational vessels in the United States
>carry proper anchoring gear and that the gear be in useable condition."
>How would a federal requirement define "proper anchoring gear?" For
>small boats on lakes, kayaks and canoes "proper" gear is NONE. Danforths
>are good in mud and sand, but bad in grass and near useless in rock.
>Plows, kedges, and North-Hills all have their strengths and weaknesses.
>How much chain? How much line? Answers to these questions are dictated
>by the local conditions, and are best answered by the responsible adult
>using the vessel.
>
>A regulation will inhibit innovation in the anchor business. When I
>first started boating the non-articulated plow (Simpson Lawrence Delta)
>did not exist. Another recent innovation (looking like a small back hoe
>bucket mounted on a shank) is marketed under the name "The Max." An
>anchor requirement is likely to lead to an anchor specification or
>certification. Even a well written specification can stifle new
>innovations.
>
>In our 27' sailboat we cruised the Chesapeake Bay and the Bahamas. We
>carried 3 ground tackle systems for different bottom conditions. We even
>have a small hook in the dinghy to prevent the undesired exit of a tide
>swept anchorage in the event of an outboard failure. Not having the
>proper ground tackle is often its own reward, and as the accident data
>indicates the usual price is embarrassment.
>Thanks,
>------------------------------------------------------------

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************