RE: [Paddlewise] BCU Issues/A Question and Answer with Craig and Rob!

From: Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:33:23 +1300
Hang in there Craig - being accused of Paranoia is no reason to stop
thinking that your risk-assessment has been incorrect... that's what sank
the Titanic.

I am sensitized - after our recent (New Zealand) brush with 'helpful'
regulators - to the ease with which political animals will seize upon
anything that makes them look constructive - makes them look like they are
earning their keep.

How widespread is the _legal_ (not insurance-induced) requirement for ACA
certification for kayak instructors in the US ? 

Over on the ConnYak forum, they are currently debating the pending bill
(Massachusetts) that makes it a legal requirement for instructors to make
students practice wet-exits before they go into water deeper than 5'. I'm
not sure that I need to go into the merits of governments micro-managing
kayak instruction to this level, but does anyone have stats on how many
students currently die during beginners' instruction ?

The main relevance to Craig & Rob's debate is that the proposed bill also
has a legal requirement for instructors to be ACA certified...

"Anyone who holds himself out as a kayak instructor for hire shall obtain
and maintain: (i) first aid training approved by the department of public
health; (ii) cardiopulmonary resuscitation training approved by the
department of public health; and (iii) kayak instructor certification from
the American Canoe Association, or equivalent water training."

Yes - the last 4 words give some hope that real-world skills are an
acceptable alternative (albeit a bit hard to prove) - but is it paranoid to
say "for how long". Anyway, I see it as an obvious point on a trend-line
towards tighter Governmental control on our sport.

We can like it, lump it, or discuss ways to minimise the attractiveness of
it to the political animals out there who are looking for something to do
with their idle hands...

Oh and this season our local outfitters are having a very serious re-think
about how to stay in business - if they can't prove that customers are 'safe
to rent to'. One of the biggest said to me (two weeks ago) "I can't rent to
people, but I can sell exactly the same gear to them - where's the logic in
that ?"

Put that to some regulators - would they see it as a door to open, or a door
to close ? I don't _think_ I'm paranoid ;-)

(The initial ConnYak posting is here if you want to look at the thread.)
	http://www.connyak.org/cgi-bin/BBS.pl/noframes/read/75072 

Best Regards
Paul Hayward, 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/
***************************************************************************
Received on Wed Oct 21 2009 - 19:33:39 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:38 PDT