PaddleWise by thread

From: <jfarrelly5_at_comcast.net>
subject: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:01:04 -0400
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Kruger" <kdruger_at_pacifier.com>
> > I don't think the best approach is to pre-educate him on re-entry
> > techniques. ......  he has to have a reason to know them:  he needs to
be
> motivated.  >Then he might take on the responsibility to learn some.
> >
> > If  I only had three minutes, I'd swim him (in his PFD) into the water
> fifty
> > feet off a safe beach, with the kayak in swamped, Cleopatra's Needle
> > position, and tell him,  "This is what will happen if you capsize.  Now
> > what?"
> > Dave Kruger
>
> I think Dave hit it square on the head. After spending 2 yrs trying to
> "safety motivate" my club I have given up.  There is a PhD Psychologist in
> this club who has told me repeatedly that people must learn things on
their
> own and rarely can be motivated by rhetoric or indoctrination.   I have
> become a huge fan of whaddya gonna do now?  I chuckle when I think of
Ronnie
> teaching  wet exit/recovery to a guy who didn't think he needed floatation
> in his kayak that lacked bulkheads.  After damn near sinking the kayak
> except for about 6 inches of the bow he quietly dragged it to the beach.
He
> never paddled with the club again.
>
> Jim et al
>


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 22:37:45 -0700
Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com> wrote:


>> The ACA has just released a report on "Understanding and Preventing
Canoe and Kayak Fatalities". http://www.acanet.org/CJintro.htm  [snip]

The ACA report details the safety issues involved and discusses the
variables that effect safety in small boats. I have not read through
the whole report yet, but it appears to be the most complete report yet
to investigate specifically the safety issues related to canoes and
kayaks.

As kayaking becomes more and more popular the chance that governments
will seek to regulate the sport will increase. The ACA report should
give those interested in seeing regulation handled in a reasonable way
some good information to work with. >>

I scanned the pamphlet and found that it implies by the use of lots of sea
kayaking photos that much of the text might apply to paddling such as we do.
Reading the text and scanning the tables and analysis, it seems the data
examined overwhelmingly dealt with canoes and WW kayaks.

The recommendations fall much short of advocating mandatory certification of
paddlers, though they do advocate increased efforts at education of the
public, and of authorities who deal with boaters of all stripes about the
special requirements of paddlers.

In short, the pamphlet is a good and bad thing.  I suspect it may result in
sea kayakers getting lumped in with WW boaters ("Hunh?  You mean a kayak is
not a kayak?"  said the state legislator as he voted for mandatory offside
roll expertise and Z-rescue capability for all sea kayakers.)

I'd be happier if the ACA drew clear distinctions among the types of
paddlecraft and their uses.  Self rescue is advocated, but what that means
for a WW boater is very different from what it means for sea kayakers.  I
really hate it when I see a "one size fits all" approach to regulation
coming ... and as a long-time professional organic chemist with buckets of
experience handling hazardous materials (safely), I've seen plenty of
regulations that do exactly that.

I hate to say it, but this ACA pamphlet may cause us a lot of trouble, and
not improve the safety of __sea kayakers__ much at all.  I think we are
getting stirred in with pleasure canoeists and WW boaters (both types), and
that makes for a rather lumpy, discordant stew.

I'd really like to hear from Scherrer and others who have active
instructional programs on this.

--
Dave Kruger
Astoria, OR

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Fernando Lopez Arbarello <paddle.maui_at_verizon.net>
subject: RE: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:54:29 -1000
After almost 20 years of experience in seakayaking and white water,
giving instruction, organizing trips and events of different kind, even
performing as a kayak guide for a local outfitter in Hawaii ... I have
dealt with lots of people and lots of situations. I didn't have the
chance to participate yet of any ACA or BCU course so I am not certified
... But ... As I am also a scuba diver, I know the pros and cons of
having to deal with a forced certification to be able to practice a
sport.

Not all the certifying instructors follow the serious certification
program they are supposed to, that meaning that being certified does not
necessary qualify you as capable.

Nevertheless, many tour operators are taking tourist to kayak trips
without any previous training or mayor explanation of the risks
involved, this meaning tourists not always know what they are exposing
to when taking the tour, much less can they evaluate if they will be
able to accomplish it or not.

Forcing prospecting paddlers to be certified in order to be able to buy
their equipment and practice their sport, I think is wrong and will
discourage many people and make the sport more expensive. You can get
started in kayaking by practicing with your friends or joining any local
association, even practicing by yourself in protected areas. But
requiring a basic certification to be able to rent equipment or take a
tour of any kind I think is not only a good idea to protect the paddler,
but will also stop the abuse of many operators. More demanding tours may
requirer more advanced certifications as in scuba diving.

My opinion ...

Best regards and aloha !

Fernando ./


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:09:17 -0400
On Thursday, April 17, 2003, at 01:37 AM, Dave Kruger wrote:

> Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> The ACA has just released a report on "Understanding and Preventing
> Canoe and Kayak Fatalities". http://www.acanet.org/CJintro.htm  [snip]
>
>
> In short, the pamphlet is a good and bad thing.  I suspect it may 
> result in
> sea kayakers getting lumped in with WW boaters ("Hunh?  You mean a 
> kayak is
> not a kayak?"  said the state legislator as he voted for mandatory 
> offside
> roll expertise and Z-rescue capability for all sea kayakers.)
>
> I'd be happier if the ACA drew clear distinctions among the types of
> paddlecraft and their uses.  Self rescue is advocated, but what that 
> means
> for a WW boater is very different from what it means for sea kayakers. 
>  I
> really hate it when I see a "one size fits all" approach to regulation
> coming ... and as a long-time professional organic chemist with 
> buckets of
> experience handling hazardous materials (safely), I've seen plenty of
> regulations that do exactly that.

I won't try to justify the ACA in grouping white water with sea 
kayaking, however at this point most accident statistics glom all 
canoeing and kayaking into one group. Even if it is not perfect, 
differentiating between canoes and kayaks is at least an improvement 
over existing record keeping.

The thing to remember is that the people doing the regulating will be 
less informed than the ACA. It is too much to hope that any regulation 
designed to protect casual paddlers who buy their boat at Walmart will 
not include sea kayaks, just because we know them to be "different". 
Any regulator will see "kayak" and assume they are all the same despite 
any differences we perceive. In the past 6 years there were 11 canoe 
and kayak related deaths in Connecticut, of these only one was a kayak 
on open "flat" water, the others were canoes or kayaks on whitewater. 
When it came time to propose legislation the total number was used to 
justify the legislation, not the individual numbers.

If we don't want to burdensome regulation on our sport, the best bet is 
to work to see that the casual paddler is safer. It is very unlikely 
that any mandatory certification would require learning a specific 
rescue technique. It would most like require you spend a few hours in a 
class room then pass a written test. While would do a little to improve 
safety, it would do very little. It would however make it more 
difficult to enter the sport. It would also create an enforcement 
issue. Most people would just not bother getting certified.

I would not criticize the ACA for grouping all kayaks together. Instead 
realize that this is the way they would be regulated regardless of how 
illogical it may seem to a skilled kayaker. With that in mind, we need 
to look for ways to educate the casual kayakers so they paddle more 
safely, without creating another bureaucracy which won't do much other 
than make it harder to kayak.

Nick Schade

Guillemot Kayaks
824 Thompson St
Glastonbury, CT 06033
USA
Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847
http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:09:16 -0700
"Nick Schade" <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com> wrote:

> I won't try to justify the ACA in grouping white water with sea
> kayaking, however at this point most accident statistics glom all
> canoeing and kayaking into one group. Even if it is not perfect,
> differentiating between canoes and kayaks is at least an improvement
> over existing record keeping. [snip]

> If we don't want to burdensome regulation on our sport, the best bet is
> to work to see that the casual paddler is safer. It is very unlikely
> that any mandatory certification would require learning a specific
> rescue technique. It would most like require you spend a few hours in a
> class room then pass a written test. [snip]

Yeah, I suspect you have it nailed, Nick.  If it were like hunter safety
requirements before use of firearms to hunt, I'd be a lot more inclined to
support the concept -- firearms can hurt others, more than they hurt the
person pulling the trigger.

The chance that a befuddled paddler (even on a WW river) will hurt someone
else with his/her craft is pretty slim -- so the rationale here is similar
to that for helmets for motorcycle riders (or, in Oregon, under-16 bicycle
riders):  using the headgear reduces expensive and debillitating head
injuries, reducing the overall cost of health care.  Which we all sort of
"share" whether protected by our own health insurance or not.  I don't like
being told I have to wear a helmet if I ride a mototcycle, but I do see the
stake we all have in making sure head injuries are minimized.

In my own speckled introduction to paddling, it was actually el stupido
mongo WW rafting on Class IV - V water (with no preparation) that could have
killed me at a young age.  That I did not Darwin out is a testament to luck
more than skill.  A little mandatory instruction on what the minimum safety
requirements for WW rating might have prevented me from my near-death
experiences.  (Yeah, there were two of them -- I learn slowly;  both are so
embarrassing I can't share them, even now, some 35 years later.  Ooof.)

--
Dave Kruger
Astoria, OR

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:22:10 -0400
On Thursday, April 17, 2003, at 10:09 AM, Dave Kruger wrote:

> "Nick Schade" <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com> wrote:
>
>> I won't try to justify the ACA in grouping white water with sea
>> kayaking, however at this point most accident statistics glom all
>> canoeing and kayaking into one group. Even if it is not perfect,
>> differentiating between canoes and kayaks is at least an improvement
>> over existing record keeping. [snip]
>
>> If we don't want to burdensome regulation on our sport, the best bet 
>> is
>> to work to see that the casual paddler is safer. It is very unlikely
>> that any mandatory certification would require learning a specific
>> rescue technique. It would most like require you spend a few hours in 
>> a
>> class room then pass a written test. [snip]
>
> Yeah, I suspect you have it nailed, Nick.  If it were like hunter 
> safety
> requirements before use of firearms to hunt, I'd be a lot more 
> inclined to
> support the concept -- firearms can hurt others, more than they hurt 
> the
> person pulling the trigger.
> <snip>
> In my own speckled introduction to paddling, it was actually el stupido
> mongo WW rafting on Class IV - V water (with no preparation) that 
> could have
> killed me at a young age.  That I did not Darwin out is a testament to 
> luck
> more than skill.  A little mandatory instruction on what the minimum 
> safety
> requirements for WW rating might have prevented me from my near-death
> experiences.  (Yeah, there were two of them -- I learn slowly;  both 
> are so
> embarrassing I can't share them, even now, some 35 years later.  Ooof.)

Personally I am not in favor of mandatory class/tests. While they may 
work, they would tend to be a blunt instrument. My main objection is 
for those who want to start the sport. Should it be necessary that my 8 
year old nephew attend a class and pass a course before I can let him 
try paddling? If I want to introduce some friends to the sport, should 
they have to attend a class and pass a test before I can put them in a 
boat and go for a paddle? Should everyone have to attend a class and 
pass a test before they can try kayaking to see if they like it? I 
would be more inclined to say "yes" if the class required getting out 
on the water, but actual paddling is not likely to be involved in any 
certification requirement.

Making a class optional does mean that someone can go to Walmart and 
put out to sea with no instruction at all. I agree that they should 
have some protection against the marketing of a large corporation, but 
is there way other than mandatory government regulated testing. In an 
effort to save a couple 100 lives a year nationwide, should we create a 
burden on the thousands who just want to try something fun and 
different? The sport they are trying is not that dangerous at the level 
most people want to participate. Maybe all we need to do is be better 
at getting the word out that there are some risks and there are a few 
simple things you can do to reduce the risks significantly. For example 
wearing a PFD.

Nick Schade

Guillemot Kayaks
824 Thompson St
Glastonbury, CT 06033
USA
Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847
http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Dave Gorjup <dgorjup_at_cox.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:54:58 -0400
<snipped a lot of discussion on kayak certification>

<sigh> What's next? Classes and certification for inner tubes and air 
mattresses. Where does this stuff stop?

We have more than enough laws trying to protect people from themselves. I 
certainly don't believe that more in this area will significantly reduce 
death and injury. As much as some would like to think, there is no way to 
make this sport/hobby significantly safer than it already is for those that 
make the effort to educate themselves. As for the others, well, Darwin 
rules..............

All of my outdoor hobbies, former and current, seem to be coming under some 
regulator's finger. I want it to stop.

Libertarian and responsible for self,
Dave G.
The other Poquoson, Va paddler

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:35:08 -0400
On Thursday, April 17, 2003, at 11:54 AM, Dave Gorjup wrote:

> <snipped a lot of discussion on kayak certification>
>
> <sigh> What's next? Classes and certification for inner tubes and air 
> mattresses. Where does this stuff stop?
>
> We have more than enough laws trying to protect people from 
> themselves. I certainly don't believe that more in this area will 
> significantly reduce death and injury. As much as some would like to 
> think, there is no way to make this sport/hobby significantly safer 
> than it already is for those that make the effort to educate 
> themselves. As for the others, well, Darwin rules..............
>
> All of my outdoor hobbies, former and current, seem to be coming under 
> some regulator's finger. I want it to stop.

Last year the bill proposed in Connecticut would have covered inner 
tubes and air mattresses. People told the sponsor it was stupid so this 
year he made the lower length limit 8'.

I want this all to stop also. Unfortunately, the fact that the whole 
concept strikes me as kind of stupid has not made it go away yet. So 
last week I organized a for our government boating safety official and 
the local Coast Guard guy in charge of recreational boating to talk to 
our local kayaking club. By doing so we have opened a line of 
communication with the people in charge of regulating us. We learned 
what their plans were, why they were thinking of doing what they want 
to do. It gave us an opportunity to tell our opinion of their ideas. 
And not being experts on paddling they are happy to listen to people 
who are.

If we are not willing to talk to the people who would regulate us, we 
will not have any right to complain when they do things we don't like. 
People are dying while paddling. Something can be done to keep that 
from happening. The government will come up with an idea they thinks 
makes sense and they will implement it. Maybe this seems like 
government interference, but we are happy to accept government 
interference when we want their help. If they do something ill advised 
it is probably because they were ill advised. If we give them good 
advice, they are happy to accept it. If we can convince them regulation 
is not required, they won't regulate.

The states are short on money. It is cheaper to add a section on 
paddling safety to existing boating safety classes and require people 
pay to take the class than it is to organize free, open-to-the-public 
safety seminars, print brochures, and create public service messages. 
But cheaper yet is to enlist committed paddlers to do that sort of 
thing for them. In Maine the Coast Guard has help organize retailers 
and commercial guides to create a basic safety brochure that can be 
given to new paddlers. This sort of effort may go a long way to holding 
off the regulatory urge, but it needs the cooperation of the existing 
kayaking community.

Nick Schade

Guillemot Kayaks
824 Thompson St
Glastonbury, CT 06033
USA
Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847
http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Geoff Jennings <geoff_at_sedakayak.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:22:02 -0700
> Last year the bill proposed in Connecticut would have covered inner
> tubes and air mattresses. People told the sponsor it was stupid so this
> year he made the lower length limit 8'.
 Interesting, so I'd have to take if for my touring boat or my surf boat,
but not my WW boat.

Strange.

=>

Geoff
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Erik Sprenne <sprenne_at_netnitco.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:50:55 -0500
Nick Schade wrote:
> last week I organized a {meeting} for our government boating
> safety official and the local Coast Guard guy in charge of
> recreational boating to talk to our local kayaking club. By
> doing so we have opened a line of communication with the
> people in charge of regulating us. We learned what their
> plans were, why they were thinking of doing what they want
> to do.  It gave us an opportunity to tell our opinion of their
> ideas. And not being experts on paddling they are happy to
> listen to people who are.
>
Take the regulators' comments with a grain of salt.  In '87, the Illinois
DNR tagged a canoe & kayak registration clause onto a bill that was
revised to address drunk powerboaters - which was passed by the
legislature before any paddlers found out about this bill.  The law was
then fought for almost a year, legislators introduced bills to nullify
the registration requirement, one of which passed the the house and
senate, only to be vetoed by the governor.  Why?  Because under the guise
of doing something good for boaters (registration dollars for boating
access, a means for recovering lost/stolen boats, etc.), the state was
most interested in both Federal funding (based on the number of
registered boats) and being able to enforce collection of sales tax on
boats that were otherwise out of the system.   Maybe the CT state
officials are truly willing to learn more about boating to make the
regulations 'fit', but in Illinois it came down to increased income for
the state coffers.


> If we are not willing to talk to the people who would
> regulate us, we will not have any right to complain
> when they do things we don't like.
>
Absolutely true.  So many people are willing to bitch and moan about
gov't regulations - either passed or proposed - but so few are willing to
contact legislators or gov't officials..... or even vote.


> People are dying while paddling. Something can be done to
> keep that from happening.
>
Can it?  Even with driver education and pretty stringent driving rules,
tens of thousands of people die every year on the nations highways. Would
regulating paddling by imposing education/certification courses really
reduce the number of paddling deaths per year?  Perhaps for some of the
ignorant/unknowing, but at what cost?  There will still be the experts
who die pushing the limits, the unfortunate who die beacause they were in
the wrong place at the wrong time, and those who die beacuse they think
the 'rules' don't apply to them.

And if a state is going to regulate people who buy boats, what about
people who buy bicycles, power tools, or snowmobiles - which also are
associated with people dying.....



> In Maine the Coast Guard has help organize retailers and
> commercial guides to create a basic safety brochure that
> can be given to new paddlers. This sort of effort may go a
> long way to holding off the regulatory urge, but it needs the
> cooperation of the existing kayaking community.
>
There are regulations in high-traffic paddling areas.  On the lower
Youghiogheny River in PA, the rafting outfitters have a mandatory 10 (?)
minute talk for their customers, ditto for rafting customers on a number
of WV rivers.  In MO, the National Park Service 'closes' the Current and
Jack's Fork Rivers when water levels are 'too high'.  Are these the best
possible regulations for all?  Probably not - but they do address local
situations - hopefully for the benefit of society as a whole.

Maybe the best thing to reach the novice paddler (who needs the most
education) would be for the ACA or the Coast Guard or the State
governments to put together a brochure on safe paddling (which should
cover safety topics for river, still water, and open water scenarios)
that *must* accompany every new boat sold.  In this way the information
is available to the new boat buyer, and experienced boat buyers are not
inconvenienced.

The ACA, in conjunction with the Coast Guard and the National Paddlesport
Safety System just came out with three separate safety videos geared to
whitewater kayakers, coastal kayakers, and whitewater rafters.  Maybe
State or Federal funding could be found to support the distribution of
one of these tapes with the purchase of a new boat?

There are no easy answers, but I agree with Nick that there *must* be
paddler input to get the best possible answer.

Play Hard,
Erik Sprenne
(at the southern end of Lake Michigan)

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: John Fereira <jaf30_at_cornell.edu>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:23:07 -0400
At 11:22 AM 4/17/03 -0400, Nick Schade wrote:
>On Thursday, April 17, 2003, at 10:09 AM, Dave Kruger wrote:
>
>>"Nick Schade" <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I won't try to justify the ACA in grouping white water with sea
>>>kayaking, however at this point most accident statistics glom all
>>>canoeing and kayaking into one group. Even if it is not perfect,
>>>differentiating between canoes and kayaks is at least an improvement
>>>over existing record keeping. [snip]
>>
>>>If we don't want to burdensome regulation on our sport, the best bet is
>>>to work to see that the casual paddler is safer. It is very unlikely
>>>that any mandatory certification would require learning a specific
>>>rescue technique. It would most like require you spend a few hours in a
>>>class room then pass a written test. [snip]
>>
>>Yeah, I suspect you have it nailed, Nick.  If it were like hunter safety
>>requirements before use of firearms to hunt, I'd be a lot more inclined to
>>support the concept -- firearms can hurt others, more than they hurt the
>>person pulling the trigger.
>><snip>
>>In my own speckled introduction to paddling, it was actually el stupido
>>mongo WW rafting on Class IV - V water (with no preparation) that could have
>>killed me at a young age.  That I did not Darwin out is a testament to luck
>>more than skill.  A little mandatory instruction on what the minimum safety
>>requirements for WW rating might have prevented me from my near-death
>>experiences.  (Yeah, there were two of them -- I learn slowly;  both are so
>>embarrassing I can't share them, even now, some 35 years later.  Ooof.)
>
>Personally I am not in favor of mandatory class/tests. While they may 
>work, they would tend to be a blunt instrument. My main objection is for 
>those who want to start the sport. Should it be necessary that my 8 year 
>old nephew attend a class and pass a course before I can let him try 
>paddling? If I want to introduce some friends to the sport, should they 
>have to attend a class and pass a test before I can put them in a boat and 
>go for a paddle? Should everyone have to attend a class and pass a test 
>before they can try kayaking to see if they like it? I would be more 
>inclined to say "yes" if the class required getting out on the water, but 
>actual paddling is not likely to be involved in any certification requirement.

Mandatory certification classes would likely drive many budding kayak shops 
out of business.  I know that at my friends shop the vast majority of his 
business came from his rentals.  On the other hand, an outfitter that sends 
complete beginners out in kayaks should have at least some moral 
responsibility for providing a safe introduction to the sport.  For 
example, since the water is still quite cold her he hasn't started offering 
rentals to the general public even though the air temperature was 80 
degrees a few days ago.  Even though all of his kayaks are closed cockpit 
he won't send anyone out with a sprayskirt unless he knows they've done a 
wet exit.  If the lake is real rough he'll strongly encourage beginners to 
stay in the inlet.


>Maybe all we need to do is be better at getting the word out that there 
>are some risks and there are a few simple things you can do to reduce the 
>risks significantly. For example wearing a PFD.

I haven't had a chance to read the report yet but I wondered if helmets 
would become manadatory for whitewater paddling.  I remember when 
California adopted the manadatory helmet law for motorcycles.  There was 
this guy that bought a helmet then glued a long haired wig on it.  He got 
pulled over a bunch of times and then removed the helmet as the patrolman 
was getting out of his car.  Some were not amused.


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:10:46 -0700
Nick Schade wrote (re:  the overweight new paddler in a recreational kayak
with flotation in only one end):

<<What is the easiest thing to teach a casual
paddler so he or she can deal with a capsize...A casual paddler will not
take
the time to practice sophisticated self rescue techniques...If you had his
attention at a demo for 3 minutes, what would you show the guy that could
potentially save his life? >>

I don't think the best approach is to pre-educate him on re-entry
techniques.  Before any of those techniques will seem important, he has to
have a reason to know them:  he needs to be motivated.  Then he might take
on the responsibility to learn some.

If  I only had three minutes, I'd swim him (in his PFD) into the water fifty
feet off a safe beach, with the kayak in swamped, Cleopatra's Needle
position, and tell him,  "This is what will happen if you capsize.  Now
what?"

Once he has floundered back to shore, then he might want to know more, and
he might be asking you questions.  That would be the time to hand him Deep
Trouble (or, a precis of similar case histories), and a few pages on ways to
self-rescue.  He might even want you to get in the water to demonstrate some
of the techniques.  At the very least, chances are he'll be trying to keep
close to shore while he paddles around that day ... and that might be just
enough to save his bacon.

If the experience of floundering back to shore does not motivate him, then
I'd say we'd best document the refusal to learn how to rescue himself,  let
him go a long ways offshore ... and try to claim salvage rights on the boat
[grin].

BTW, good use of a "teachable moment" Nick.  You've certainly got the PW
gray matter going!

--
Dave Kruger
Astoria, OR

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:35:24 -0400
On Friday, April 18, 2003, at 12:10 AM, Dave Kruger wrote:

> I don't think the best approach is to pre-educate him on re-entry
> techniques.  Before any of those techniques will seem important, he 
> has to
> have a reason to know them:  he needs to be motivated.  Then he might 
> take
> on the responsibility to learn some.
>
> If  I only had three minutes, I'd swim him (in his PFD) into the water 
> fifty
> feet off a safe beach, with the kayak in swamped, Cleopatra's Needle
> position, and tell him,  "This is what will happen if you capsize.  Now
> what?"

The reason I chose 3 minutes is after thinking about one of the things 
Al Johnson from the Coast Guard said. He suggested clubs host public 
demonstrations and activities which would be telegenic enough to 
attract the news media. If we could get a short segment on the local 
evening news it would reach a huge audience. With that in mind I am 
trying to think of what would be the best thing to try to get on that 
news spot.

Obviously this precludes getting everyone watching the TV out on the 
water dealing with a flooded boat, but maybe a little footage of a fat 
fisherman dealing with a boat stern-to-the-sky would be enough to make 
people more interested in learning a little about safety.

Nick Schade

Guillemot Kayaks
824 Thompson St
Glastonbury, CT 06033
USA
Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847
http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: <Rcgibbert_at_aol.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:19:27 EDT
In a message dated 4/17/2003 10:40:10 AM Central Daylight Time, 
nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com writes:


> The goal of any regulation would be to protect those people who 
> otherwise would not have a clue. I think it is worthwhile that these 
> people get the information they need, I am just not convinced that 
> mandatory training is a reasonable way to do it.
> 

My first thought about mandatory instruction is the fear of it replacing 
instruction more suitable to the paddling discipline one pursues. The paddler 
might say, *I've taken a class already.*

My second thought is how little a mandatory class would affect the mortality 
rate of the casual paddler. A mile or so from where I live a young man 
decided to take a night paddle in a canoe stored in the yard he was visiting. 
He launched and half way across a bay in the Puget Sound area a squall arose. 
We get few quick and sudden storms here. Only a single very large thunderclap 
and a downpour of  less than a minutes duration. When I heard it I looked at 
the clock, it was about 10pm. Whether or not that had anything to do with the 
capsize and subsequent drowning can never be known. The timing was 
suspicious, however. His body was recovered 3 days later.

My point is, most people are not going to resist the allure of an Autumn's 
evening paddle because of a failure to take a govt approved safety class. Had 
requirements been in place here for such it would not have had any effect 
whatsoever on this particular case, a casual neophyte paddler making a 
spontaneous decision. Laws for the sake of being seen as doing something for 
safety are indulgent and counter productive.

Rob G
Gig Harbor, WA


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: <KiAyker_at_aol.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA Critical Judgment report
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 19:13:56 EDT
> Maybe all we need to do is be better 
> at getting the word out that there are some risks and there are a few 
> simple things you can do to reduce the risks significantly. For example 
> wearing a PFD.
> 

   Don't get me started here!!!!!

Scott
So.Cal.

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:33 PDT