[Paddlewise] Kayak Evolution (Humor)

Those of you following the recent "Evolution Kayaks" thread may be interested in a recent trial which could shed some light on the issues being discussed.  This was the famous Scopes-Seal Trial.  Mr. John Scopes IV had designed a paddling craft based on the shape of the elephant seal and was marketing it as a "sea kayak for those who spend their free time on the sea based on those who spend their life in the sea".  TAKING (Trade Association for Kayaking's Interesting and Novel Gear) filed a lawsuit demanding that Mr. Scopes desist from calling his craft a kayak since it was "so radical a design that it could no longer be considered a kayak".  Some insiders suggested that since  the design did meet the group's "interesting and novel" criteria it was only the prima facie issue and it was the lapse of Mr Scopes association dues some 2 years before the craft's introduction that was real reason the for the lawsuit.

Mr. Scopes's defense team was headed by Clarence Darrow Dewy, a noted advertising lawyer with the famous firm of Dewy,Cheatem, and Howell.  Mr. Dewey is also famous for his agnostic view that Frank Lloyd Wright was simply a mythical creation used to justify the work of a group of designers who were too cheap to include any ornamental details in their projects.  The TAKING team was headed by William Jennings Bryan Thorsen, a Danish born lawyer now dividing his time between Greenland and the Sonoma Valley.  He is most well known for his "Cross of Ivory" speech in defense of the use of marine mammal ivory and bone by native peoples for their works of art.

Although the complete trial transcript is too long to include here I will try to list the main arguments and counter arguments as presented during the trail. To save some space Clarence Darrow Dewey will be abbreviated as CDD and William Jennings Bryan Thorsen as WJBT.

WJBT argued that kayaks were created for hunting purposes and since form does follow function the hunting function behind the creation of kayaks would limit the variation of the form parameters of any design which could be deemed a kayak even if the current intended use was for some other purpose than hunting. (If your eyes glazed over reading that sentence then you had the same reaction as the jury). CDD countered with the argument that there was no legal precedent that form followed function and that the real test of function was functioning. The judge denied CDD's request for a temporary move of the court to Barrow Alaska for a demonstration of seal hunting by Mr Scopes in his design.  Mr. Scopes was heard to emit what was generally described as a gasp when the request was made and a long sigh of relief when it was denied.

CDD argued that the archaeological evidence obtained from various museum basements by Harvey Golden and others showed a clear "evolution" in kayak design over time.  WJBT argued that the sudden disappearance of kayaks in the mid 20th century in the Arctic regions and their reappearance later in century was clear evidence that there was no missing link required to prove the "evolution theory".  CDD countered with the explanation that the astronomical impact of Mr. Evinrude's outboard motor was the simple reason for this species gap and that enough kayaks did survive, although primarily in non-paddling use, that a line of evolution did exist.

CDD pointed out that the current river kayaks are much more radical in design than that of Mr Scopes and yet TAKING is actively promoting events with these boats as "kayaking contests" and "kayaking symposiums".  WJBT argued that these newest river designs were simply a piecemeal conglomeration of various kayak and surfboard parts and left over plastic pieces from some 1960's "Organic Furniture" designs.  These he argued were "no more kayaks than Piltdown Man was a man". TAKING had wanted these to be called Funny Little Plastic Wave Surfing, Hole Jumping, Spinning, Tumbling Thingees.  However, just as no one asks for a facial tissue, but instead requests a Kleenex, TAKING had been forced to refer to these as kayaks since that is how the general public knows them.  He furthered argued that even the manufacturers of these FLPWSHJSTTs often refer to them as creek boats and play boats instead of creek kayaks and play kayaks.

I wish I could tell you the final verdict of the trial.  Unfortunately a mistrial was declared when on the first weekend of deliberation the entire jury was observed at a local lake test paddling their new kayaks, with new paddles, and new paddling apparel.  It is  interesting to note that each juror had 2 new kayaks, one of Mr. Scopes design and one skin-on-frame design.  Why can't I ever get picked for a jury like that.

A complete transcript of the trial and line drawings of Mr Scopes's design are available for a nominal $5.00 fee at

www.ineedanewpaddle.com


PS - For our international subscribers and those who slept through significant portions of their American History courses information on the historical background of this satire is available at

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/bryan_wm_cross_of_gold.html


Mark J. Arnold











 









Mark Arnold
mjamja_at_earthlink.net
Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************