For those interested, here's a pointer to the battle over sea kayak regulations being waged in the Auckland, New Zealand, area. http://www.kayaker.org.nz/#issues If the rule-makers win, will I have to become an Outlaw Paddler! I might start Neptune's Angels, and we'll be BAAAAD. Watch out power-boaters, the Somali pirates will have nothing on us. Is this an excuse to pimp my paddle-craft. What is the sea kayaking version of ape-hangers? I already use a Lendal modified crank, is that I sign I'm on the way. Do I cut the sleeves off a denim jacket, put a patch on the back, and get a bandana? I admit, a group of middle-aged kayakers out cruising doesn't seem as scary as a mob of hoods on Hogs, but it's a start. Send donations now! Cheers JKA aka "Baldy" John Kirk-Anderson Banks Peninsula New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
If, after a day of river paddling, you and your crew stop at a chip stand in the middle of nowhere for a post-paddle snack, and there happens to be a biker gang already there, and some of your crew are still wearing neoprene, don't expect it to end well -- The Great River Valley French Fry War. -----Original Message----- John Kirk-Anderson I admit, a group of middle-aged kayakers out cruising doesn't seem as scary as a mob of hoods on Hogs, but it's a start. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Funnily enough, one of our favoured bad-weather paddles makes use of the Puhoi River which is navigable from the sea up to a pub - just below a waterfall. This is not uncommon, here in NZ; something to do with a history of thirsty commercial boatmen and their on-shore counterparts needing refreshment. The rivers served as early highways for the collection of cattle & sheep and the pubs remain as a worthwhile legacy. Anyway this pub has been a favourite with bikers for many years - and the combination of black leather and black neoprene is no longer surprising. Haven't been any turf wars yet ;-) Know which one I'd rather roll... Best Regards Paul =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Hayward_____________________ (64)-(9)-479-2888 microMATION CONSULTANTS LTD________mob: 021-585-521 POB 101-257 NSMC, Auckland______________New Zealand -----Original Message----- From: Richard Culpeper If, after a day of river paddling, you and your crew stop at a chip stand in the middle of nowhere for a post-paddle snack, and there happens to be a biker gang already there, and some of your crew are still wearing neoprene, don't expect it to end well -- The Great River Valley French Fry War. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
G'Day Craig and Paul, The NSW Maritime Rules or the Code of Practice for sculls and rowing shells are not mandatory beyond following the minimal ColRegs requirements. However, the Code does come with a very strong recommendation, thus:- 4.1 NSW Maritime notes that although there is no specific legislative provision requiring rowers and paddlers to display the lights specified in Clause 3.1 above failure to comply with this Code may be viewed by the Courts as evidence of poor seamanship or negligence. Have to say that although its important from a legal perspective, theres a sense in which this clause is irrelevant. Suspect that anyone standing up in Sydney amongst a group of seamen and trying to explain that operating a small boat without fixed lights at night on the harbour was good seamanship, would be greeted with baffled incredulity. What the Code and the NSW Maritime Rules offer is the freedom, under ColRegs rules 1 and 2 and building on rule 25, to use more practical options than ColRegs specifies. These have been obtained after consultation with the local community and are most commonly used. The main stimulus for providing this freedom was a history of accidents in harbours and ports. Can't speak for the rest of Oz or for NZ, don't know anything about their legislation The NSW Maritime jurisdiction for recreational boating is all NSW navigable waters As mentioned earlier I'm not aware of any kayak, showing lights as per the code, that has been involved in a nightime collision in NSW navigable waters. As mentioned earlier the main reason for introducing the regulations was a history of accidents. I've contributed as much as I usefully can so going back to nursing a mild dose of flu. Hot whisky and lemon. Beautiful! Here's wishing you a pleasant weekend kayaking. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Can New Zealand and Australia, both signatory to the ColRegs, simply change the rules on a local basis with not even a nod to International treaties? I think I might use that as a club to beat them into some sort of submission. If they are changing the navigation rules for vessels that are already covered by the ColRegs and in waters that are already covered by the ColRegs then that might present an issue. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM, John Kirk-Anderson <jka_at_netaccess.co.nz>wrote: > For those interested, here's a pointer to the battle over sea kayak > regulations being waged in the Auckland, New Zealand, area. > http://www.kayaker.org.nz/#issues > > If the rule-makers win, will I have to become an Outlaw Paddler! > > I might start Neptune's Angels, and we'll be BAAAAD. Watch out > power-boaters, the Somali pirates will have nothing on us. > > Is this an excuse to pimp my paddle-craft. What is the sea kayaking version > of ape-hangers? I already use a Lendal modified crank, is that I sign I'm on > the way. Do I cut the sleeves off a denim jacket, put a patch on the back, > and get a bandana? > > I admit, a group of middle-aged kayakers out cruising doesn't seem as scary > as a mob of hoods on Hogs, but it's a start. > > Send donations now! > > Cheers > > JKA aka "Baldy" > > John Kirk-Anderson > Banks Peninsula > New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on this - but having listened to a lot of NZ bureaucrats expend a lot of words on this over the past 6 months - I conclude that we live in a world of laws layered one atop the other - just to amaze us. In NZ, as elsewhere, lying over everything are the International ColRegs - and no local laws should run against them. However, as far as I know, when a country 'signs-up' to such an international collections of rules, they are only 'in force' in that country's territory once that country's legislature has enacted them into local law. Then we have NZ's National laws which can add to or clarify the ColRegs. Note that the Int.ColRegs start out (Rule 1) by saying that this is allowed. Luckily, NZ hasn't any State level of regulation to worry about, but some of our Regional Councils have added a level of control - using bylaws. In my city, the Auckland Regional Council has imposed local controls on Jetskis, water-ski boats and now on the visibility of kayakers (when more than 200m from shore). I would not be astonished to hear that, in a similar sort of way, US Federal, State & City/Town laws exercise local control on boating within the US territorial waters. I haven't heard of any maritime-law frontal collisions between any 'lower' jurisdiction and a 'higher' one - I expect that this leads to political pie-on-the-face and is avoided as a career-threatening activity by bureaucrats. I can give an example of a substantive NZ national-level 'clarification' to the Int. ColRegs - perhaps on a par with the US changing the standard rules of 'keep to the starboard side of a channel' in some of its Territorial waters. (Which, of course, it is completely entitled to do.) NZ has chosen to add a distinction covering the rights of a 'vessel under oars' to the section regarding 'Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Other'. Such rights are not addressed in the International ColRegs. Such a vessel is neither mentioned in the General Definitions - nor in the 'Responsibilities between vessels' (Rule 18). It is, however, mentioned under the lighting regs (Rule 25) and so, at least in Rule 25, is seen as neither a sailing nor a power-driven vessel. Sloppy - very sloppy. Perhaps such craft are intended 'by default' to be included as a 'power-driven vessel', which is formally defined as 'means any vessel propelled by machinery'. As a Mech.Eng. (and not a lawyer), my definition of a machine is very clear and certainly includes oars, double-ended paddles and certainly ropes, pulleys, masts and sails - but what the hell do I know ? Let's leave aside my contention that only bad life-rafts and 'people up creeks without paddles' lack mechanical propulsion and guess that what was meant by 'machinery' was (in my words) the action of engines powered from stored mechanical, electrical, chemical (from gaseous, liquid or solid fuel) or nuclear energy. Phew! Please don't ask about solar or wind... Anyway, a 'vessel under oars should either fit in with 'machinery' or with 'sails' - or just be given its own category. Since it is unlikely to sink a tanker - it seems it was simply ignored in the ColRegs as being unworthy of consideration. So NZ did a (somewhat sloppy) clarification to our 'Rule 18' and, in the list of vessels to which a power-driven vessel must give way, added the words 'or a vessel under oars' to make it 'a sailing vessel or a vessel under oars'. I say sloppy, because we didn't define a 'vessel under oars' anywhere (does it really include kayaks?), nor did we specify the pecking order between 'oars' and sailboats. I haven't attempted to dig into the US interpretation of the Int.ColRegs (which, let us not forget, avoids the issue entirely), but it seems to take the view that a 'human-powered vessel' is just another power-driven vessel and should act like one. (Again, I am quite open to correction on this - it is just what I've been told.) I'm sure glad I don't write software the way most laws seem to get formulated ;-) Best Regards Paul =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Hayward_____________________ (64)-(9)-479-2888 microMATION CONSULTANTS LTD________mob: 021-585-521 POB 101-257 NSMC, Auckland______________New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > > Then we have NZ's National laws which can add to or clarify the ColRegs. > Note that the Int.ColRegs start out (Rule 1) by saying that this is > allowed. Interestingly enough, Rule 1 states that local Rules can be written for areas within harbors and rivers navigable by international vessels. No mention of near-shore waters where, we might assume, the International ColRegs are again in force. One might assume, then, that outside of a harbor or a navigable river the international ColRegs would prevail. Then we have this.... > > Luckily, NZ hasn't any State level of regulation to worry about, but some > of > our Regional Councils have added a level of control - using bylaws. In my > city, the Auckland Regional Council has imposed local controls on Jetskis, > water-ski boats and now on the visibility of kayakers (when more than 200m > from shore). Do they specify within harbors or navigable rivers? Seems that more than 200m from shore would actually be more likely to fall under the ColRegs. > > I would not be astonished to hear that, in a similar sort of way, US > Federal, State & City/Town laws exercise local control on boating within > the > US territorial waters. In non-navigable waters it's up for grabs. If a lake is within a city then that city feels perfectly free to enact some sort of hodge-podge of "rules". Otherwise a county or a state. Fortunately the Federal Government in the USA restricts itself to the ColRegs. As a Mech.Eng. (and not a lawyer), my definition of > a machine is very clear and certainly includes oars, double-ended paddles > and certainly ropes, pulleys, masts and sails - but what the hell do I > know? As an electronics engineer (origanally, at least) I agree. But then again I believe in imaginary numbers. > > Anyway, a 'vessel under oars should either fit in with 'machinery' or with > 'sails' - or just be given its own category. Since it is unlikely to sink a > tanker - it seems it was simply ignored in the ColRegs as being unworthy of > consideration. It does seem strange doesn't it? I figured that if it's not a sailboat then it must be a powerboat. Apparently in 1972 no one had any inkling of the pending popularity of kayaks. > So NZ did a (somewhat sloppy) clarification to our 'Rule 18' and, in the > list of vessels to which a power-driven vessel must give way, added the > words 'or a vessel under oars' to make it 'a sailing vessel or a vessel > under oars'. I say sloppy, because we didn't define a 'vessel under oars' > anywhere (does it really include kayaks?), nor did we specify the pecking > order between 'oars' and sailboats. Several states in the USA have done this. Oregon is one. But only upon waters not under control of the USCG. But Oregon says that sailboats give way to vessels under oars which is nonsense; it's much harder to stop in a sailboat than it is in a rowboat or kayak or canoe. > > I haven't attempted to dig into the US interpretation of the Int.ColRegs > (which, let us not forget, avoids the issue entirely), but it seems to take > the view that a 'human-powered vessel' is just another power-driven vessel > and should act like one. This has been my interpretation as well. Kayaks are clearly not sailboats, tugboats, fishing vessels (under the Rules) or any of the others. Therefore we have to pretend we are powerboats and behave appropriately. Changing the International ColRegs is not a simple matter and that's probably why we have such an apparently nonsensical set of Rules. Why address "vessels under oars" in one section and nowhere else? This is why I prefer to follow the strong flashlight rule and keep to waters other boats would fear to follow. So that leaves another question: Do these local rules (in OZ and in NZ) only apply to harbors or are they being enforced outside harbors as well. I'd also be curious as to whether following these local rules has completely eliminated collisions between kayaks and other vessels. It has been my experience that the average amateur boater is as likely to aim for a single white light as aim away from it. This is most especially true on waters with very dark shorelines. Maybe they think it's a harbor in a storm or something. But if they are aiming for you they will hit you much sooner than they (or you) expect; meaning at a higher speed than an approach speed. This is because a kayak is so much lower (and therefore nearer) than the lights they normal are accustomed to. I'm going kayaking. Back Monday evening. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Sunday, 28 June 2009 11:19 Craig Jungers < <mailto:pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> crjungers_at_gmail.com > wrote: >So that leaves another question: Do these local rules (in OZ and in NZ) only >apply to harbors or are they being enforced outside harbors as well. None of the local rules contradict Int.ColRegs - they just layer on top of them. The Int.ColRegs don't say that you can't add rules. So, you can add a rule and enforce it anywhere you can normally enforce any of your rules. I'm guessing, but I'd bet that there are local laws controlling water-ski lanes and slow-speed zones near beaches all over the US - which aren't in any 'harbour'. Same deal. Likewise, bringing a cargo of contraband onto a remote beach doesn't impact the Int.ColRegs - but some agency is going to take exception. > I'd also be curious as to whether following these local rules has completely eliminated collisions Of course not - what rules ever solve a problem completely ? What enforcement is ever 100% ? What is bugging us is that we have (now and historically) essentially zero incidents in which the low-visibility of kayaks is known to have caused a collision. We have a higher incidence of people hitting big islands than hitting kayaks - so this is a be-seen-to-be-doing-something bit of law-making, rather than something that can do measureable good. Best Regards Paul =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Hayward_____________________ (64)-(9)-479-2888 microMATION CONSULTANTS LTD________mob: 021-585-521 POB 101-257 NSMC, Auckland______________New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on this - but having listened to a lot of NZ bureaucrats expend a lot of words on this over the past 6 months - I conclude that we live in a world of laws layered one atop the other - just to amaze us. In NZ, as elsewhere, lying over everything are the International ColRegs - and no local laws should run against them. However, as far as I know, when a country 'signs-up' to such an international collections of rules, they are only 'in force' in that country's territory once that country's legislature has enacted them into local law. Then we have NZ's National laws which can add to or clarify the ColRegs. Note that the Int.ColRegs start out (Rule 1) by saying that this is allowed. Luckily, NZ hasn't any State level of regulation to worry about, but some of our Regional Councils have added a level of control - using bylaws. In my city, the Auckland Regional Council has imposed local controls on Jetskis, water-ski boats and now on the visibility of kayakers (when more than 200m from shore). I would not be astonished to hear that, in a similar sort of way, US Federal, State & City/Town laws exercise local control on boating within the US territorial waters. I haven't heard of any maritime-law frontal collisions between any 'lower' jurisdiction and a 'higher' one - I expect that this leads to political pie-on-the-face and is avoided as a career-threatening activity by bureaucrats. I can give an example of a substantive NZ national-level 'clarification' to the Int. ColRegs - perhaps on a par with the US changing the standard rules of 'keep to the starboard side of a channel' in some of its Territorial waters. (Which, of course, it is completely entitled to do.) NZ has chosen to add a distinction covering the rights of a 'vessel under oars' to the section regarding 'Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Other'. Such rights are not addressed in the International ColRegs. Such a vessel is neither mentioned in the General Definitions - nor in the 'Responsibilities between vessels' (Rule 18). It is, however, mentioned under the lighting regs (Rule 25) and so, at least in Rule 25, is seen as neither a sailing nor a power-driven vessel. Sloppy - very sloppy. Perhaps such craft are intended 'by default' to be included as a 'power-driven vessel', which is formally defined as 'means any vessel propelled by machinery'. As a Mech.Eng. (and not a lawyer), my definition of a machine is very clear and certainly includes oars, double-ended paddles and certainly ropes, pulleys, masts and sails - but what the hell do I know ? Let's leave aside my contention that only bad life-rafts and 'people up creeks without paddles' lack mechanical propulsion and guess that what was meant by 'machinery' was (in my words) the action of engines powered from stored mechanical, electrical, chemical (from gaseous, liquid or solid fuel) or nuclear energy. Phew! Please don't ask about solar or wind... Anyway, a 'vessel under oars should either fit in with 'machinery' or with 'sails' - or just be given its own category. Since it is unlikely to sink a tanker - it seems it was simply ignored in the ColRegs as being unworthy of consideration. So NZ did a (somewhat sloppy) clarification to our 'Rule 18' and, in the list of vessels to which a power-driven vessel must give way, added the words 'or a vessel under oars' to make it 'a sailing vessel or a vessel under oars'. I say sloppy, because we didn't define a 'vessel under oars' anywhere (does it really include kayaks?), nor did we specify the pecking order between 'oars' and sailboats. I haven't attempted to dig into the US interpretation of the Int.ColRegs (which, let us not forget, avoids the issue entirely), but it seems to take the view that a 'human-powered vessel' is just another power-driven vessel and should act like one. (Again, I am quite open to correction on this - it is just what I've been told.) I'm sure glad I don't write software the way most laws seem to get formulated ;-) Best Regards Paul =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Hayward_____________________ (64)-(9)-479-2888 microMATION CONSULTANTS LTD________mob: 021-585-521 POB 101-257 NSMC, Auckland______________New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on this - but having listened to a lot of NZ bureaucrats expend a lot of words on this over the past 6 months - I conclude that we live in a world of laws layered one atop the other - just to amaze us. In NZ, as elsewhere, lying over everything are the International ColRegs - and no local laws should run against them. However, as far as I know, when a country 'signs-up' to such an international collections of rules, they are only 'in force' in that country's territory once that country's legislature has enacted them into local law. Then we have NZ's National laws which can add to or clarify the ColRegs. Note that the Int.ColRegs start out (Rule 1) by saying that this is allowed. Luckily, NZ hasn't any State level of regulation to worry about, but some of our Regional Councils have added a level of control - using bylaws. In my city, the Auckland Regional Council has imposed local controls on Jetskis, water-ski boats and now on the visibility of kayakers (when more than 200m from shore). I would not be astonished to hear that, in a similar sort of way, US Federal, State & City/Town laws exercise local control on boating within the US territorial waters. I haven't heard of any maritime-law frontal collisions between any 'lower' jurisdiction and a 'higher' one - I expect that this leads to political pie-on-the-face and is avoided as a career-threatening activity by bureaucrats. I can give an example of a substantive NZ national-level 'clarification' to the Int. ColRegs - perhaps on a par with the US changing the standard rules of 'keep to the starboard side of a channel' in some of its Territorial waters. (Which, of course, it is completely entitled to do.) NZ has chosen to add a distinction covering the rights of a 'vessel under oars' to the section regarding 'Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Other'. Such rights are not addressed in the International ColRegs. Such a vessel is neither mentioned in the General Definitions - nor in the 'Responsibilities between vessels' (Rule 18). It is, however, mentioned under the lighting regs (Rule 25) and so, at least in Rule 25, is seen as neither a sailing nor a power-driven vessel. Sloppy - very sloppy. Perhaps such craft are intended 'by default' to be included as a 'power-driven vessel', which is formally defined as 'means any vessel propelled by machinery'. As a Mech.Eng. (and not a lawyer), my definition of a machine is very clear and certainly includes oars, double-ended paddles and certainly ropes, pulleys, masts and sails - but what the hell do I know ? Let's leave aside my contention that only bad life-rafts and 'people up creeks without paddles' lack mechanical propulsion and guess that what was meant by 'machinery' was (in my words) the action of engines powered from stored mechanical, electrical, chemical (from gaseous, liquid or solid fuel) or nuclear energy. Phew! Please don't ask about solar or wind... Anyway, a 'vessel under oars should either fit in with 'machinery' or with 'sails' - or just be given its own category. Since it is unlikely to sink a tanker - it seems it was simply ignored in the ColRegs as being unworthy of consideration. So NZ did a (somewhat sloppy) clarification to our 'Rule 18' and, in the list of vessels to which a power-driven vessel must give way, added the words 'or a vessel under oars' to make it 'a sailing vessel or a vessel under oars'. I say sloppy, because we didn't define a 'vessel under oars' anywhere (does it really include kayaks?), nor did we specify the pecking order between 'oars' and sailboats. I haven't attempted to dig into the US interpretation of the Int.ColRegs (which, let us not forget, avoids the issue entirely), but it seems to take the view that a 'human-powered vessel' is just another power-driven vessel and should act like one. (Again, I am quite open to correction on this - it is just what I've been told.) I'm sure glad I don't write software the way most laws seem to get formulated ;-) Best Regards Paul =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Hayward_____________________ (64)-(9)-479-2888 microMATION CONSULTANTS LTD________mob: 021-585-521 POB 101-257 NSMC, Auckland______________New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
John Kirk-Anderson wrote: I admit, a group of middle-aged kayakers out cruising doesn't seem as scary as a mob of hoods on Hogs, but it's a start. John, I'm too cheap to send a cash donation (but will gladly accept any) but I can donate a story. (Endless supply of those, it seems.) There is a whitewater slalom race on the Wolf River in Wisconsin called "The Last Ditch." It is late in the season. It used to be in October to catch the Fall colors at their peak. Often there would be icicles hanging from the bottom of the gates in the morning. One year it was relatively warm and the colors were perfect. The main road through that part of Wisconsin goes right past the race course. On Sunday a huge flock of bikers, all decked out in their leathers and such, stopped in to watch the races. I'm there on the shore, all 140 pounds of me, wearing a skirt and schlepping my boat back up to the start, when a bunch of the scary looking bikers came up. I wasn't sure if they were going to see if I really could float if they tossed me in, or engage in some other Neanderthal-type entertainment. But, not being able to run very fast, I stood there pretending that I was cold so my shivering would not be taken as fear. The Head Neanderthal came up to me, wide-eyed, and said "That looks really dangerous! Aren't you scared?" They were all like kids at the circus, totally awed and respectful. Good lesson in not telling a book by its cover. Jim Tibensky *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
James wrote: > The Head Neanderthal came up to me, wide-eyed, and said "That looks > really dangerous! Aren't you scared?" They were all like kids at the > circus, totally awed and respectful. > > Good lesson in not telling a book by its cover. They were probably orthodontists and lawyers, anyway. Steve -- Steve Cramer Athens, GA http://www.savvypaddler.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/ ***************************************************************************
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Culpeper" <culpeper_at_tbaytel.net> To: "'Paddlewise Paddlewise'" <paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net> biker gang already there, and some of your crew are still wearing neoprene, > don't expect it to end well -- The Great River Valley French Fry War. > Please tell! JKA John Kirk-Anderson Banks Peninsula New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Not much to tell. The bikers started making homophobic, hostile and obscene comments about the paddlers in neoprene, and then started throwing French fries at them, including poutine (fries with gravy and melted cheese curds). Being of sound mind and maturity, the paddlers pitched some back, and then left before the food fight had a chance to turn into a real fight. ----- Original Message ----- biker gang already there, and some of your crew are still wearing neoprene, > don't expect it to end well -- The Great River Valley French Fry War. > Please tell! JKA John Kirk-Anderson Banks Peninsula New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Richard Culpeper <culpeper_at_tbaytel.net>wrote: > Not much to tell. The bikers started making homophobic, hostile and > obscene > comments about the paddlers in neoprene, and then started throwing French > fries at them, including poutine (fries with gravy and melted cheese > curds). > Being of sound mind and maturity, the paddlers pitched some back, and then > left before the food fight had a chance to turn into a real fight. > I defused a fight once by explaining that getting into one with a guy who doesnt' smoke and can hold his arms chest-high for 4 straight hours wasn't all that bright. In addition, if he won I'd own his pickup truck in six months and if he lost all his friends would make fun of him for losing a fight with a grandpa. Pretty much a lose-lose situation. I bought him a beer instead. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Peter: You might be thinking of one of these for the Pittarak/Klepper, http://www.survivalsafety.com/ Regards, PeterR *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Peter: You might be thinking of one of these for the Pittarak/Klepper, http://www.survivalsafety.com/ Regards, PeterR *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Peter wrote >You might be thinking of one of these for the Pittarak/Klepper, http://www.survivalsafety.com/ <http://www.survivalsafety.com/> G'Day Peter, That's as cute as a bugs ear. A mini radome would look well alongside the two Klepper decktubes for the VHF antennae and the sailing rig:~) Water proofing would have to be the big issue for me. But I know you wouldn't have any problem fixing that part of the installation. Guess it comes down to which is in worse shape my long vision, near vision, or bank account:~) All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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 - 16:33:51 PDT