in the news http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_13507983 *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
As of September 1 2009, the Australian state of South Australia (SA) has made it illegal (punishable by a fine of up to $1250) to operate a kayak - "canoe, kayak or other similar small human-powered vessel (other than a rowboat)" in "unprotected waters". These are defined as being beyond 3 nm from most of the sea coast and beyond 5nm anywhere within two very large bays. Just for comparison, SA is about twice the size of California, but with a population about 25% bigger than Maine. Some of you may have been following Freya Hoffmeister's progress (she is currently repeating Paul Caffyn's great round-Australia paddle of 1981 - all 15,000 km of it). She is currently about 80% complete. As she enters SA waters, This will certainly affect her - as well, of course, any resident SA paddlers. I can foresee a revival of the sailing canoe in these areas ;-) (Better to be a sail boat that sometimes paddles ?) A (possibly well-informed) comment on Freya's site said : "This is not new legislation, as such. it is a new regulation, added to existing legislation, which required of kayakers only that they wear an approved type PFD. It has already passed through the parliamentary process, very quietly. in other words, they sneaked it in while nobody was paying attention. At this point, I can't tell you on what evidence the regulation was founded, or what kayaking body, if any, was consulted. We will find out, in time." This sounds like exactly what happened in my area of New Zealand - where we are fighting to overturn some silly laws on kayaker visibility that were also added to a law revision at the last minute - and with bugger-all consultation. Moral of the story: Look to your local legislatures and their ideas of how to protect you from yourself... 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/ ***************************************************************************
> unprotected waters - beyond 3 nm from most of the sea coast... I stand corrected - it's worse - only 2 nautical miles. The regs defined unprotected waters in two places - and I picked the wrong definition. I believe that France considered doing this once - but the European Union stopped it. Any other jurisdictions out there where you can't paddle to your off-shore islands or across your favourite bay ? 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/ ***************************************************************************
http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/lz/c/r/harbors%20and%20navigation%20regulat ions%202009/current/2009.226.un.pdf Part five para 13. DL > unprotected waters - beyond 3 nm from most of the sea coast... I stand corrected - it's worse - only 2 nautical miles. The regs defined unprotected waters in two places - and I picked the wrong definition. I believe that France considered doing this once - but the European Union stopped it. Any other jurisdictions out there where you can't paddle to your off-shore islands or across your favourite bay ? 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/ ***************************************************************************
Oh, I don't think the Antipodes have a lock on nautical idiocy... Here in the US we have NASBLA, compounded by a general trend of state legislators to forget how to think about what they are legislating. If they are handed something already done and it sounds like a good idea, they're liable to enact it. In the case of National Association of Safe Boating Law Administrators, this winds up promulgating serious errors all over the country. Case in point: (See http://www.nasbla.net/pdf/Model%20Acts/new/EPIRB-PLB-VHF%20Radio%2092105.pdf for this one...) This act was approved by the membership of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators on Sept. 21, 2005. Originally requested of NASBLA by the National Boating Safety Advisory Council at its October 2004 meeting, the model was developed by the NASBLA Boats & Associated Equipment Committee after reviewing legislation adopted in Hawaii in 2003. The provisions of this NASBLA model act require recreational vessels more than one mile off shore to be equipped with a properly functioning Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB), Personal Locator Beacon (PLB), or VHF-FM radio. The model exempts certain watercraft when closely accompanied by a vessel in compliance with the act. 9 (b) Canoes, kayaks, personal watercraft and training sailboats shall be exempt from this act 10 when closely accompanied by at least one vessel that complies with Section 4 of this act. 1 Section 4. [EPIRB-PLB-VHF-FM Radio Requirement.] No person shall operate any vessel 2 described in Section 3(2) of this act unless the vessel is equipped with a properly functioning 3 fixed mount or handheld marine VHF-FM radio (156-162 MHZ band) [within 20 miles of 4 shore], emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB), or personal locator beacon (PLB) ******************* NASBLA has essentially no experience with self-powered craft but has enough chutzpah to assume it can legislate for us. Fortunately there are people out there with better judgement who have to deal with this. Otherwise one recommendation of theirs a few years ago would have required all of us to keep on board Anchors -- and use them. Joe P. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Here is what I think is happening. Bureaucrats and politicians live for the ability to point to a problem and say, "See... I did this or that to address this or that problem... so re-elect me (or re-appoint me)." It doesn't matter if the "solution" actually doesn't solve anything. What matters is that it appears to do something. I've called this the "paper solution" for a long time now; ever since I was a new airplane pilot watching the rules invented by bureaucrats and politicians to keep small plans away from large ones. It has been a long, hard struggle and, from some of the accident reports, the solution is still not at hand. Simply because pilot error still rears its ugly head and bureaucrats keep coming up with more technology to "solve" it. This was also driven home to me when I worked for a U.S. Government agency that has, itself, managed to cross the line between legal and illegal (at least on a world-stage level) several times. There were rule books (they liked to call them "policies" and "tradecraft" but they were rules, plain and simple) that boiled down to the fact that no matter what you did, if it went wrong they could find a rule to hang you with. Apparently lying to Congress was inexplicably left out. Go figure. It's like the doctor who sees a patient who presents with an arm broken in two places. "Stay out of those places!" is the obvious solution. Bureaucrats and politicians see nothing funny in this. What I find especially interesting are two factors: 1. The nearshore waters are generally more dangerous than the outer waters from the standpoint of hard pointy things hidden in the water, confused waves, etc. There are exceptions, of course, but I would prefer to be 2nm out than .25nm out from the standpoint of avoiding dangers. So forcing kayaks to stay inside 2nm might actually put them in more danger than simply ignoring them. 2. The 3nm limit was historically the "national border" for a long time. In the 60s this was more-or-less unofficially extended to 12nm and then several countries (including the USA) declared 200nm to be the limit of its "legal authority". Difficult to enforce ths when International Law still recognizes 3nm (when an ocean-going ship gets to within 3nm they have to assume they have entered into a country and must abide by the applicable rules of that country). International treaties mean little to petty bureaucrats. At any rate, one could make a case that once you get beyond 3nm (or 12nm) out then the country you left has no more authority over you. This, of course, is unlikely to work. The deep-seated urge to "do something" is impossible to control. As a case in point, the state of Washington in the USA has an "iniative" system whereby a citizen may come up with an idea for a law, go out and collect enough valid signatures, and then get it included on the state-wide ballot. Inevitably someone learns how to do this well enough so that they become the "go to" person for getting them done. Sooner or later they change from a public watchdog to a bureaucrat and run amok with power. I have instituted the "Craig Jungers system of term limits". This system is simplicity itself: if they are in office, vote against them. If everyone did this we would eventually get politicians who would no longer focus on simply being re-elected and actually do something (gasp!) useful. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Jungers said on October 2009 > Here is what I think is happening Craig - it seems I see things much as you do. The history of solving big problems with new laws has now been reduced to attempting to solve minor issues with the same approach - simply because old habits die hard. Your comments on aviation safety ring very true. We (in NZ) have been interested in the recent NY mid-air crash of a small fixed-wing with a chopper - because it was a kiwi piloting the chopper. (Yes, we are, laughably, a small enough community for such an event to achieve national prominence... a bit of a 'did our boy FU' response ;-) At the risk of prejudicing somebody's right to an unbiased trial, it sounds like proper standards were in place, proper rules & protocols were followed, but an air-traffic controller was having a quick private phone call with a friend about some pressing private matter. I have struggled with society's need for no-cellphone-while-driving laws and I can foresee a sudden spate of no-cellphone-while-air-traffic-controlling laws... Are we promoting human intelligence and awareness here - or attempting to move towards being completely mindless automata ? I find interesting the subject of geographical 'limits' to authority (and I suppose I'd better get back onto a kayak topic ;-). Today I had an after-meeting coffee with our Harbourmaster and asked him about his Harbour limits. This had come up in Paddlewise discussions some months back. He said that the trend around the country was for the regional authorities to extend the 'Harbour Limits' to include all maritime territory they were responsible for - salt & fresh. He even advanced the example of one RA - one without a significant port - which has given the Harbourmaster in the adjacent region jurisdiction over all its waters. Seems that our Authority was getting tired of needing to explain to residents who had phoned up to complain about maritime problems (eg: about jetskis exceeding near-to-shore speed limits) that the beach in question was 'outside the Harbourmaster's jurisdiction'. So they took the easy way out (as politicians) and made the Harbourmaster's boundaries coincide with their political boundaries - right out to 12nm. Now all the problems are his ;-) Anyone else see any evidence of zonal creep ? Are you made aware that you paddle within & without Harbour zones ? 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/ ***************************************************************************
> Case in point: > (See > http://www.nasbla.net/pdf/Model%20Acts/new/EPIRB-PLB-VHF%20Radio%2092105.pdf > for this one...) As proposed regulations go, I don't see anything particularly onerous or egregious about this one. I think most of us who venture more than a mile from shore already have a marine radio. My wife and I each have one, though we use them almost entirely for weather forecasts. They are common enough among sea kayakers that our club, the Inland Sea Kayakers (ISK), has distributed waterproof reference cards that describe proper calling procedures. At one point the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources was going to distribute the cards (which have kayaking safety rules and recommendations on the reverse side) to every registered kayak owner in the state, though for some reason not all kayakers received them (I got one, my wife did not). Note also that under this model regulation only one kayak per group would have to be so equipped. The proposed Australian and New Zealand rules are much worse. Chuck Holst __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4501 (20091012) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.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/ ***************************************************************************
Paul Hayward wrote: Moral of the story: Look to your local legislatures and their ideas of how to protect you from yourself... We paddlers in Illinois recently went through an Alice-in-Wonderland experience with such a silly set of regulations. It is a very long story which I hope I can summarize accurately. We have a lot of low-head dams here and people drown at them every now and again. A kayaker went over one such dam in 2006. Two brothers who tried to rescue him and the paddler all drowned. The Illinois legislature passed a resolution charging the Dept. of Natural Resources to devise rules for dam safety. Most of the dams in the Chicagoland area have portage ramps built on their sides so a paddler can walk safely around the dams. In their wisdom, the DNR proposed rules which made it illegal to approach within 300 feet of a dam. All the portage ramps are less than 200 feet long. So, it would be illegal to use the safety ramps, meaning no one could take long paddling trips on rivers with dams. The DNR had some hearings. I went to one and almost everyone there said the ramps were perfectly safe. I talked about how I had timed the river going over the dam in Geneva, Illinois. [I teach at the Geneva Kayak Center which is literally right at the top of the ramp around the dam, so I am very familiar with this dam.] I timed the current going over the dam at flood stage, when the river was the highest it had been in a hundred years. From the bottom of the ramp to the edge of the dam, it takes just over a minute. That means the flood current is exactly 1.25 miles per hour. Not exactly a killer flow. If someone missed the bottom of the ramp, they would have a minute to regroup before getting to the dam. Among other things this silly rules set required was signs and lights posted above the dam on private property. The signs would have to be purchased by the property owners from the DNR. We paddlers, and the property owners above the dams, organized a fierce letter and email-writing campaign and got the legislature to refuse to approve the regulations as written. A quirk in the law means the issue is dead. But it was close. And none of our comments at the hearings were able to convince the risk-averse DNR (they own the dams and, so, are liable for any claims resulting from accidents) to change the rules to at least allow the use of the existing safety ramps. 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/ ***************************************************************************
My condolences to all affected kayakers - and to everyone else living in a state where the basic "right to be left alone" is being violated. I live in the Netherlands, which may well be the most liberal country in the world; yet still I wonder how much taxmoney I spend on government-interference that I would gladly do without. About the situation in France: I studied their sea laws about 10 years ago, before I made my first trip to Corsica. I thought their laws were ludicrous: You're supposed to carry enough safety equipment to sink a yacht, let alone a kayak. Most of that equipment is meant to attract outside help; there is hardly any requirement for equipment or skill that might help to save yourself. One of the funniest parts is that a two-way-radio is obliged; even on the big lake that France shares with Switzerland. On the French side such a radio is required; on the Swiss side it's forbidden. Another hoot is that the equipment is only required when more than 1 kilometer offshore - if I remember the distance correctly. Within 1 kilometer, a kayak is not a sea going vessel but a "beach craft", in the same realm as an inflatable mattress. That means I can take a kayak out in raging seas as long as I stay close to the cliffs, while being further out would be much safer. Luckily, while Corsica is officially part of France, it tends to live by its own rules. It's been part of so many countries in the past (It's been claimed by Italy, Portugal, England and Spain if I remember correctly) that they probably got fed up with international politics. I've been paddling their coasts for 10 years, happily crossing large bays when the mood takes me, without any interference from the authorities. Neither have they ever bothered me about "stealth camping" (thanks for teaching me a new word). They've bothered me only once. I was having lunch on a small beach, when a boat of the park rangers found a need to harrass me from a speedboat, staying out of the surf and shouting themselves hoarse. "You can not stay here!" I had already started packing up my lunch when they corrected themselves: "No, you can have lunch, but you can't stay _overnight_!" Such shouting might have been appropriate at sundown, but hardly at 2.00 pm. Some advice to the poor kayakers in Australia: Whenever you see a police boat coming you way, perform a wet exit. You may not be allowed to kayak offshore, but you might be allowed to swim there. Niels *************************************************************************** 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 - 16:33:52 PDT