[Paddlewise] Paid Rescues?

Wes said:

<<<One of my favorites is Tasmanian Laurie Ford's home page>>> <snip>
<<< his proposal is that if someone calls for a rescue, via radio,
flares, ERPIB, or
whatever other means, their kayak is impounded once they've been
returned
to land until they pay a $2000 rescue fee>>><snip>
<<<Thoughts, anyone?>>>

Warning-Longish post:

(Yea, a few! But do move right along if not interested in my views and
thoughts.)

Laurie asks some very pertinent questions with respect to adventure and
the aftermath that can ensue, namely a rescue (or the need for some
source of outside assistance). It would appear that Laurie Ford's club
(Maatsuyker Canoe Club) doesn't advocate the use of EPIRBS. They feel
that a paddler or paddlers should be able to get themselves out of a
predicament, should one arise after some unforeseen problem happens.
Indeed, I would hazard a guess that part-and-parcel of their philosophy
includes the fact that you _should_ take into account the possibility of
something happening, and be able to deal with it yourself or within the
group.

Of course, we can all think of situations where given a bad enough
scenario, outside assistance may still be required. I think Laurie's
point, and the club's I imagine, stem from the presupposition that there
are a growing number of  novices, buying these rescue signal devices,
and then heading off ill prepared to deal with much of an emergency --
and then relying on a full scale rescue operation to get them out of
trouble after hitting a "panic button" that doesn't give rescue
authorities the specific nature of the emergency. A fine might
discourage these types of events from unfolding.

I heard recently of a group of British paddlers out in rental kayaks off
the north end of Vancouver Island. They all dumped in the heavy surf and
were badly shaken up. No injuries however, and all gear/boats were
recovered. Yet, a rescue call went in regardless. When the CG showed up,
they were kind of miffed, wondering where the emergency was. This is
perhaps an example of a different kind of problem.

If you read the NSW Sea Kayaker magazine from Australia (or the web-zine
for us surfers) you may have been privy to a huge debacle between Laurie
Ford and  Arunas Pilka (et al). Arunas was the chap who was attacked by
a saltwater croc in northern Australia, where his friends initiated a
major sea/air rescue. Laurie, in his inimitable style, took exception to
the blokes needing outside assistance, indicating in a letter to the
editor that Arunas should have been pumped up with antibiotics, while
someone else paddled for help (which may have been a day away if lucky,
due to other vessels that ply the waterways).

Arunas goes on to quote Dr David Lewis of the early seventies first solo
voyage to Antarctica in a 32' sloop: "No one...should embark on the open
coast...not prepared to get out of trouble by his own efforts. By
voluntarily challenging the elements he automatically assumes the
responsibility for his own safety..." (This is my personal philosophy,
BTW).

The replies to the editor came back like a tidal wave, wondering why one
would consider an unprovoked attack by a croc as stupidity by the
paddlers for not being prepared for something like that; for the fact
that if it hadn't been for the EPIRB (this was a remote area) and
assistance was delayed due to not having an EPIRB, then more severe
consequences could have resulted due to infection of the horrible, open
wounds; that Laurie was contradicting himself by saying that signaling
for help via an EPIRB was wrong, but that if this happened to one of
Laurie's chums, Laurie would have paddled a day or so to summon help
from some passing boat (which is still asking for outside assistance);
and that the group was under legal obligation of "Duty of Care" once
initiating first aid, therefore obligating to continue to seek the best
course of action and protocol so as not to be culpable of "breech of
standard" and "resultant harm" (a hot, humid, tropical environment
created increased risk of infection). All turned out well in the end,
but a huge rescue force was mobilized.

I think there is some credence to the notion that outside assistance
rendered by a vessel of opportunity is certainly more exonerating than
calling in the Coasties or the military. Much can also be done to secure
proactively, a source of help prior to commencement of the trip, in
terms of securing a liaison with a transportation agent or carrier. I
know for my return to Storm Island trip, I made arrangements for a
bail-out water taxi, with some agreed-ahead-of-time pricing, so that I
would not have to ask for "official" assistance should I need help due
to a dislocated shoulder or severe laceration due to seal landings, etc.
And I think Chris Duff's self-hire of a helicopter off the inhospitable
shores of New Zealand for boat repairs was a commendable use of
resources.

I was to attend the annual SAR conference this Monday, but have decided
not to attend. There is not much point. Though the local authorities
always lend a willing ear, ultimately the Federal Government here in
Canada, does what the heck they want - regardless of the citizenry input
from the users of the rescue resources. There will be a kayaker there
(representing commercial interests, mostly), who will have some words to
say regarding the increase in SAR activity with respect to the coast of
BC, at least. The issues up here in BC are clearly defined:

-Sea kayaking is a growth sport. On the sides of buses, on the front of
Lottery tickets, images of sea kayakers abound. More and more novices
are gaining entry into the sport from various venues, including
fishermen, seniors, teens, etc.

-The results are that popular destinations are crowding, such that more
remote areas are being accessed. Due to tourism allied with sea kayaking
pursuits, more inexperienced paddlers are gaining access to more remote
areas.

-There is an increase in rental facilities, B&B supplied paddling
adventures, etc. Not all those who supply to the need realize or are
committed to understanding the risks associated with paddling.

-Standards are being set within the industry, through rec centers, and
retail outlets, etc. The usual result is a standard that appeals to the
lowest common denominator.

-At this time, the number of incidents are low. Over the last three
years, kayak incidents account for 1.7% of total SAR events. however,
many incidents go unreported, after being resolved by local boaters or
shore-side assistance. Many of the paddlers out there are older (read
capable of mature judgment), wear their PFD's, don't drink and boat, and
usually live to tell their tale of misadventure rather than die.

-Generally, the level of skill development is still relatively low, and
it is assumed this will only persist to be a problem, given the
increasing number of entry level paddlers and decrease in the percieved
levels of risk..

-There are, however, a number of sea kayaking organizations providing
good training, as well as addressing some of the current issues and
trends. A clearly defined set of standards may ensue, with acceptance by
a wide range of regional localities, individuals, and clubs, etc. --
including a community standard of minimum gear and skill.

-Kayakers will continue to access SAR services using VHF radios, flares
and cell phones. EPIRBS tend to be unaffordable, or impractical for sea
kayakers.

-Community standards are usually much higher than those found in the
Safe Boating Guide. However, the requirement for a 15 m line should be
eliminated.  The standard s/b a tow line - which is normally used with
precautions, and should include a quick release system.

-There should be some type of information gathering system regarding
incidents and accidents from recreational and professional sea kayakers.
This information should be reciprocal  with the RCC and used to identify
trends and patterns in sea kayaking incidents. It should be linked
further afield.

Well, those are some of the things on my mind, in broad conection to the
thread. I would have liked to have shared at the conference if it would
make a difference. Also, I know the last time I spoke to the CG
officialdom, there was no hint of fining paddlers. The feeling was that
too many would delay calling for help until the bitter end, causing more
problems and more risk for SAR workers. In Canada, SAR is mostly
government funded, and there is little incentive to privatize at this
time or charge. I do however, see the above mentioned problems/issues
getting worse, before they get better. What the CG may be thinking in a
few years, is anybody's guess. I for one, am glad I didn't have to pay
for the Storm Island rescue. I just don't have the money. I give most of
it to the government in taxes.

BC'in Ya
Doug Lloyd (who is going paddling Monday instead with a visiting
Paddlewiser from Texas - yee haaa!)



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