G'Day Craig and Paul and all, Re South Australia and the 2 nM, or is it 5 nM limit. No arguments from me on this one. There's a bunch of us want to know what the criteria are for getting exemption and who is the qualified assessor and do they expect us to pay! OTOH quite a few of us routinely carry sails when kayaking way out to sea. Have we no shame! Are there no limits to our unabashed decadence! 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:36 AM, rebyl_kayak < rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com> wrote: > > OTOH quite a few of us routinely carry sails when kayaking way out to sea. > Have we no shame! Are there no limits to our unabashed decadence! > > > I wonder if simply carrying sails will get you off the hook or would they have to be up and drawing or merely in place ready for deployment, etc. And why were "rowboats" specifically exempted? I wonder if there is a specific distinction between "oar" and "paddle". Certainly a canoe paddle would be difficult to describe as being different than an oar. Part of the problem is that the average person really does look at anything in a kayak that's not on a calm bit of water as something only a hooligan bent on endangering the precious lives of our wonderful lifeguards/coast guard/lifeboat personnel would do. This is apparently a world-wide perception. Some time back a kayaker died off New England and was excoriated in the blog version of the story (UnionLeader.com) as was anyone who tried to defend him. One sofa-driver wrote that he knew sudden 40-foot waves could rise up out of nowhere and kayakers had no business out there. The general impression was that he deserved to die. Although there was some feeling of sympathy for his family there were some who seemed to feel that they were probably better off without him, anyway. The paddler did die but no one knows what the direct cause was (you can, after all, die of heart failure in a kayak - or anything else). A USCG vessel had spoken with him while he was on his way back in and didn't seem to feel he was in any serious danger at that time. So this is what you'll be fighting. The people who watch the evening news and "I Survived" think we should be required to stay "safe" for our own protection and for the protection of the dear fellows who would endanger their own lives to go out and rescue us. They'll be bolstered by the evening videos of morons who paddle without a spray deck in 3-foot chop and get taken aboard a ferryboat. 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/ ***************************************************************************
There is an enormous amount of preaching to the choir in this thread. More useful to us all would be succinct descriptions of specific state or Federal laws (proposed or enacted) which restrict our right to use our craft. This stuff in OZ is really over the edge, but not much more nonsensical than laws on this side of the big water ... some pertaining to us. Certainly the Canadian stipulation that sea kayakers must carry a 50-ft "heaving line" (with float on the nether end) is one. So far, in Oregon anyway, we do not have any significant restrictions. Just wait, however, for the LNG tankers, when they tie up to offload their cargo on the Columbia (perhaps at Bradwood, just below Puget Island; perhaps at Warrenton, a couple miles below me). I think the sports fishing crowd will raise a real stink when the stay-out zones impede running or fishing in the adjacent shipping channel for hours at a time. Not to mention commercial shipping. -- 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/ ***************************************************************************
Dave Kruger said on Tuesday, 13 October > enormous amount of preaching to the choir in this thread Doesn't hurt to have the choir kept awake ;-) Yesterday I had one of the Regional Councillors - quite distraught at the sight of all their careful work being downgraded to a 'recommendation' ask: "Why would you not want a law that's going to make you safer ?" She was really unable to wrap her head around our reluctance to accept this boon. Would be glad to know more about the Canadian situation (I have some hopes of paddling in BC within the next year or so). I had formed the impression that there was quite good collaboration between the Canadian Coastguard and the paddlesports community - in reaching agreement on sensible regulation (if you'll pardon the term). A 50' throw line seems optimistic - I've practiced with a standard white-water one that is much shorter and it's tough to throw (from a seated position) even with practice. My tow line is only 10m (33') plus cowtail. Glad that you in Oregon are still free of nonsense. Eternal vigilance ! ;-) 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > > A 50' throw line seems optimistic - I've practiced with a standard > white-water one that is much shorter and it's tough to throw (from a seated > position) even with practice. My tow line is only 10m (33') plus cowtail. > > Throw lines are important in white water paddling where a paddler - either in his kayak or already exited - can be trapped in hydraulics and unable to swim out. But in sea kayaking the only place this might happen would be in a sea cave or in a rock garden; and even then there is every likelihood that a throw line thrown from another sea kayak could be drawn into trouble rather than drawing the boat that's in trouble out of trouble. Maybe in a whirlpool but most of those (and I know there are some nasty ones elsewhere) on the west coast are little more than circular eddies. And a 50' throw line is practically useless for actually throwing. Professional mariners can throw one that long but probably no one else; especially not from the cockpit of a sea kayak. In fact, most throw lines are actually thrown from the dry land surrounding the hydraulic feature. Trying to throw a 50' line from the cockpit of a sea kayak in rough conditions is quite likely to result in line floating everywhere and perhaps become a hazard in-and-of itself. Whoever wrote that B.C. law had perhaps read about kayaking... but didn't understand it very well. Maybe he just misspelled "tow line". At any rate, it's pretty much a useless piece of gear for a sea kayak. 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 wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > >> A 50' throw line seems optimistic - I've practiced with a standard >> white-water one that is much shorter and it's tough to throw (from a seated >> position) even with practice. My tow line is only 10m (33') plus cowtail. >> >> Throw lines are important in white water paddling where a paddler - either > in his kayak or already exited - can be trapped in hydraulics and unable to > swim out. But in sea kayaking the only place this might happen would be in a > sea cave or in a rock garden; and even then there is every likelihood that a > throw line thrown from another sea kayak could be drawn into trouble rather > than drawing the boat that's in trouble out of trouble. Maybe in a whirlpool > but most of those (and I know there are some nasty ones elsewhere) on the > west coast are little more than circular eddies. > > And a 50' throw line is practically useless for actually throwing. > Professional mariners can throw one that long but probably no one else; > especially not from the cockpit of a sea kayak. In fact, most throw lines > are actually thrown from the dry land surrounding the hydraulic feature. > Trying to throw a 50' line from the cockpit of a sea kayak in rough > conditions is quite likely to result in line floating everywhere and perhaps > become a hazard in-and-of itself. > > Whoever wrote that B.C. law had perhaps read about kayaking... but didn't > understand it very well. Maybe he just misspelled "tow line". At any rate, > it's pretty much a useless piece of gear for a sea kayak. > > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA > www.nwkayaking.net I quite agree about the throw line. The only time I've actually used mine was to help someone out of the water after a swim, where the algae-covered rocks were too slippery to be able to crawl up unaided. Nope, that's a lie. I also used it once when I forgot my regular camping ropes, to tie my kayak up to a tree above the high-water mark in the St. Lawrence. But I didn't *throw* the rope in this case, whereas when helping my friend up the rocks, I did sort of toss it out to her -- all three feet. -- Darryl *************************************************************************** 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 throw lines: Since I occasionally paddle in Canadian waters, this topic is of personal interest to me. Several years ago, I decided to see how far I could throw a whitewater safety line while seated in my kayak. I was unable to get it much beyond 17 feet, or about the length of my kayak. I can paddle that distance in a fraction of the time it would take to get out the throw bag and throw it! I always carry a 50-foot tow line, however. Do you think I could convince the Canadian coast guard that it meets the requirements? Chuck Holst __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4504 (20091013) __________ 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/ ***************************************************************************
There is an inherent ingorance when people in authority try to make safer people who participate in things the authorities have little knowledge of. The Canadian 50' throw line is a fine example, however, I have an even more ludicrous one. My friends and I like to do a self support kayak trip down some of the regional rivers. We were at the put in for the Deschutes river in Oregon to run the 44 mile section of mostly class 2 and 3 rapids with a couple of 4's on it. The Jefferson County deputy who checked out our permit asked to see our life jackets. He wanted to see if the approval label contained the words *whitewater approved.* None of them did out of a party of 12 kayakers. He bluntly stated that due to a new law he would have not allowed us to put on if this was January, 2010. The new law he said stated that rivers designated class 3 or above, water users must have a *whitewater approved* life jacket. We explained to him that these life jackets were made specifically for whitewater, in most cases. Brands assembled at the put in were Kokatat, Astral, Stohlquist, Extrasport and Lotus. I further explained they were marketed and tested by witewater paddlers and approved by the USCG and UL. It didn't matter, the law was the law. I called the people who wrote this well intentioned but ultimately flawed bill at the Oregon Marine Board and got in touch with the man who wrote the actual language. I told him how the enforcers of this law were actually interpretting the law to boaters who show up as equipped as we are, helmets, lifejackets, immersion apparel and excellent safety and camping equipment. Further, most of the people present spend a significant amount of time in swiftwater rescue courses, technical paddling courses and outdoor leadership. I also stated that the equipment we buy was not a general grade thing you buy at a team sports store but very specific to the sport. It's for survival. If he knew paddlers like we do, paddlers are generally not wealthy, kind of cheap fiscally, but would gladly pay 5 times the amount for a Kokatat or Stohlquist or Astral life jacket as opposed to a mass market brand at a marine store or general sport store.The man on the phone was pretty shocked. He stated it wasn't his intention to have paddlers purchase new equipment just to comply with the law. He wanted paddlers to just wear them. He also admitted he had never seen a type 3 or type 5 USCG approved life jacket in quite awhile to see if the label complied with the wording in the law, but he would. He thanked me for giving him feedback before the law's implementation and to call him back in 6 weeks. This is still ongoing as he has not returned my call from his request to call him back in several weeks after he has had time to evaluate the matter. To date I have found only 1 life jacket that has the word *whitewater* written on the label. The rest say canoeing, kayaking, sailing, etc., but not whitewater. The people at the marine board have my sympathy when requiring people on rivers to wear a life jacket. Anyone who's read any of my comments here over the years has pretty well figured me out for a gear head. Still, the lunacy in these well intentioned people passing laws that have not been researched particularly well and enforcing them with the zeal we were approached with is appalling. Chalk one up for *safety.* Why don't they get someone from the PTA to write laws about mountaineering equipment. Cheers, Rob G -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Holst <cholst_at_bitstream.net> To: 'Craig Jungers' <crjungers_at_gmail.com> Cc: 'Dave Kruger' <kdruger_at_pacifier.com>; 'Paddlewise' <PaddleWise_at_paddlewise.net> Sent: Tue, Oct 13, 2009 8:02 pm Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Australian state (even more) severely restricts kayaking On throw lines: Since I occasionally paddle in Canadian waters, this topic is of personal interest to me. Several years ago, I decided to see how far I could throw a whitewater safety line while seated in my kayak. I was unable to get it much beyond 17 feet, or about the length of my kayak. I can paddle that distance in a fraction of the time it would take to get out the throw bag and throw it! I always carry a 50-foot tow line, however. Do you think I could convince the Canadian coast guard that it meets the requirements? Chuck Holst *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
rcgibbert_at_aol.com wrote: > This is still ongoing as he has not returned my call from his request > to call him back in several weeks after he has had time to evaluate > the matter. To date I have found only 1 life jacket that has the word > *whitewater* written on the label. The rest say canoeing, kayaking, > sailing, etc., but not whitewater. That sounds nutty. Will they also begin to classify the grade of whitewater on the lifejackets? So did the guy with this bright idea mention how much whitewater kayaking/rafting/canoeing experience he has? Jackie *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Jackie Myers wrote: > That sounds nutty. Will they also begin to classify the grade of > whitewater on the lifejackets? I imagine his intent was to ensure that the jackets were _suitable_ for WW, but the industry doesn't actually label them as such, which he didn't bother to check. > > So did the guy with this bright idea mention how much whitewater > kayaking/rafting/canoeing experience he has? ROFL 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/ ***************************************************************************
His intent was to find the word *whitewater* on the UL approval label on the back panel of the lifejackets. He was very specific and very matter of fact. There was no misunderstanding. He said if it was January, 2010, we would not be putting on. Of the 12 lifejackets and paddlers there that day, none of ours had that on the UL approval label. I have seen only one since then that had *whitewater* in the label. Cheers, Rob G -----Original Message----- From: Steve Cramer <cramersec_at_charter.net> Jackie Myers wrote: > That sounds nutty. Will they also begin to classify the grade of > whitewater on the lifejackets? I imagine his intent was to ensure that the jackets were _suitable_ for WW, but the industry doesn't actually label them as such, which he didn't bother to check. > > So did the guy with this bright idea mention how much whitewater > kayaking/rafting/canoeing experience he has? ROFL Steve -- Steve Cramer *************************************************************************** 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 was talking about the guy who wrote the law. He specified to the sheriff what he should be looking for. Unfortunately, what he specified doesn't exist. It's rather like a motorcycle helmet law that requires a helmet to have a "freeway" sticker if you will be going over 50 MPH. Ain't no such animal. But there is a Snell, a DOT, and a CE certification label, which a legislator could find out by asking ANY vendor or user of the product. rcgibbert_at_aol.com wrote: > His intent was to find the word *whitewater* on the UL approval label on > the back panel of the lifejackets. He was very specific and very matter > of fact. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Yes, the gentleman from the OR Marine Board specified a pink bunny, but they only come in tan, white, black or grey. If you couple that with a fundamentalist attitude that happens in law enforcement it leads to ridiculous situations as we experienced and not a floppy ear in sight. Cheers, Rob G -----Original Message----- From: Steve Cramer <cramersec_at_charter.net> To: paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2009 9:03 am Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Australian state (even more) severely restricts kayaking I was talking about the guy who wrote the law. He specified to the sheriff what he should be looking for. Unfortunately, what he specified doesn't exist. It's rather like a motorcycle helmet law that requires a helmet to have a "freeway" sticker if you will be going over 50 MPH. Ain't no such animal. But there is a Snell, a DOT, and a CE certification label, which a legislator could find out by asking ANY vendor or user of the product.B B rcgibbert_at_aol.com wrote:B > His intent was to find the word *whitewater* on the UL approval label on > the back panel of the lifejackets. He was very specific and very matter > of fact. B SteveB -- Steve CramerB Athens, GAB http://www.savvypaddler.comB *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
He has no experience in whitewater paddling, though I did not ask if he ever rafted. If he is like the typical person, he probably has done that a few times in his life. That said, it is patently ridiculous to craft a bill without actually handling the product you are requiring everyone else to wear. Specifically if the language be as specific as this Barney Fife like deputy demanded. We have since asked another OR cop what his attitude was regarding the matter. He only cared about it being a lifejacket, not what the label said. Entirely reasonable. Cheers, Rob G -----Original Message----- From: Jackie Myers <jackie_at_muddypuppies.com> To: rcgibbert_at_aol.com Cc: cholst_at_bitstream.net; paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2009 7:32 am Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Australian state (even more) severely restricts kayaking B rcgibbert_at_aol.com wrote:B B > This is still ongoing as he has not returned my call from his request > to call him back in several weeks after he has had time to evaluate > the matter. To date I have found only 1 life jacket that has the word > *whitewater* written on the label. The rest say canoeing, kayaking, > sailing, etc., but not whitewater. B B That sounds nutty. Will they also begin to classify the grade of whitewater on the lifejackets?B B So did the guy with this bright idea mention how much whitewater kayaking/rafting/canoeing experience he has?B B JackieB B *************************************************************************** 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 Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM, <rcgibbert_at_aol.com> wrote: > There is an inherent ingorance when people in authority try to make safer > people who participate in things the authorities have little knowledge of. > In a similar vein, some 30 years (or so, but who's counting?) lifejackets were not called PFDs and mostly filled with kapok which is a natural substance obtained from certain trees that can get waterlogged and lose buoyancy over time when exposed to water. At the time I was part of the crew of an off-shore drilling ship and flying by helicopter to and from the rig and wanted something better. This was also before the common use of "gumby" suits on helicopter rides over water to drill rigs. I discovered that Mustang had just created an effective flotation coat that was designed to keep a person alive somewhat longer in cold water and made a trip to Vancouver, B.C. to buy one. While it was very effective, it did not - then - have the USCG approval stamp on it and so it was not legal to use as a flotation device here in the USA. This inevitably led to my being reproached by a USCG officer for not having an "approved" lifejacket and, even worse, refusing to trade my Mustang coat for a kapok piece-of-crap. I compromised by putting the kapok thing over my float coat and then took it off immediately after he disappeared. But then I've always been a troublemaker. So it's not just those who are ignorant who are a problem. The law is the law and if it's not properly labeled, even if it's obviously a better product, it's not legal and under these circumstances any bureaucrat worth his (or her) salt will say, "no". The kapok lifejackets, by the way, are standard aboard ferries and in lifeboats as well as aboard ships of every size. They are standard because they are way cheaper than the Mustang float coat. And they are approved by the USCG. If you go on a cruise or spend a lot of time on ferries you might want to think about this a bit. 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 Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com> wrote: > > In a similar vein, some 30 years (or so, but who's counting?) lifejackets > were not called PFDs and mostly filled with kapok which is a natural > substance obtained from certain trees that can get waterlogged and lose > buoyancy over time when exposed to water. > You would think that using a substance which can become waterlogged as the primary buoyancy for a device that is intended to be used in water might negate some of its useful properties. You would, apparently, be wrong. At least in bureaucratic terms. Testing has shown that it retains buoyancy "long enough". Since these things are all but unreachable on most ships I suppose the question is moot anyway. But re-reading my post reminded me of another silly-cism. I bought an early set of two solar panels in 1980 that generated 33 watts each to use on our sailboat, Kibitka. They worked fine at first but began to deteriorate. The clear epoxy coating the manufacturer had poured over the individual cells was susceptible to the ultra violet rays of the sun and had discolored to the point where it impeded the efficiency of the panels. When I complained to the manufacturer - who no longer was in the business of making solar panels but had turned to making toys - he suggested that perhaps I had left them out in the sun too long. He did, however, offer to honor the lifetime guarantee by giving me an equivalent value in stuffed animals. 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 wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com> wrote: > When I complained > to the manufacturer - who no longer was in the business of making solar > panels but had turned to making toys - he suggested that perhaps I had left > them out in the sun too long. > > He did, however, offer to honor the lifetime guarantee by giving me an > equivalent value in stuffed animals. Yes, but were they stuffed with USCG-approved kapok? -- 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/ ***************************************************************************
So it's not just those who are ignorant who are a problem. The law is the law and if it's not properly labeled, even if it's obviously a better product, it's not legal and under these circumstances any bureaucrat worth his (or her) salt will say, "no". Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net This is the problem that we encounter when governments get into the business of life regulation. Cheers, Rob G *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Only thing I can see with this kind of thing is to take it in front of a judge and appeal to him/her that to uphold such a ridiculous thing (such as requiring a "WW" PFD) would, if I recall the phrase: "Bring the administration of justice into disrepute." GaryJ rcgibbert_at_aol.com wrote: > So it's not just those who are ignorant who are a problem. The law is the > law and if it's not properly labeled, even if it's obviously a better > product, it's not legal and under these circumstances any bureaucrat worth > his (or her) salt will say, "no". > > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA > www.nwkayaking.net > > > This is the problem that we encounter when governments get into the > business of life regulation. > > Cheers, > > Rob G *************************************************************************** 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, Oct 12, 2009 at 08:01:17PM -0700, Craig Jungers wrote: > Throw lines are important in white water paddling where a paddler - either > in his kayak or already exited - can be trapped in hydraulics and unable to > swim out. True, and there are other [similar] circumstances in which they're useful, like snagging someone who's being flushed downstream. > And a 50' throw line is practically useless for actually throwing. While in a boat? Certainly. But when standing on shore, no. I routinely practice with 50', 65' and 75' throwbags and have done some drills with double bags (connected end-to-end to yield >100' lines; requires two people and coordinated timing to throw). With 50'-60' lines, I'm just about always within 2-4 feet of the target. With 100' to 150' lines, accuracy drops considerably -- but generally those are used only to span bank-to-bank, so as long as the throw is long enough, it's okay: it doesn't have to be on-target to get the job done. Of course, it's taken several thousand throws to develop that, but it's a useful skill, and one that every river paddler should have. (Hint: standing on dry land, reward yourself with a sip of beer every time the throw bag hits the 1-meter target. This is an excellent way to pass an afternoon. ;-) ) ---Rsk *************************************************************************** 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 Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk_at_rockandwater.net> wrote: > > > > And a 50' throw line is practically useless for actually throwing. > > While in a boat? Certainly. But when standing on shore, no. > Yes, I meant while in a boat. But you're right about throwing long lines from a stable platform and standing. Working on ships requires a lot of line work and I managed to develop some nice skills using loops in both hands and faked out on deck to get good distance. It does take practice but it certainly is a useful skill. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Rich Kulawiec wrote: > (Hint: > standing on dry land, reward yourself with a sip of beer every time > the throw bag hits the 1-meter target. This is an excellent way to > pass an afternoon. ;-) ) I'd like to see your accuracy modeled for that afternoon as you get better with practice and less coordinated from the beer. :) Steve Past Champion, Dry Land Throwbag Competition Atlanta Whitewater Club -- 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/ ***************************************************************************
Apparently, nobody is free of nonsense. Starting 1 Jan 2010, Oregon will require a permit for all canoes and kayaks over a certain length. I expect the bicycle permit system will soon follow. As you may or may not know, Oregon already requires a permit to take a walk in the national forests (actually, it's a federal permit called a Northwest Forest Pass). Oh,yes, the Oregon State Parks day use fee increases Jan 1 also. Needless to say, those of us who enjoy the outdoors are "pleased as punch", since this is a family show. Brad Crain Quoting Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz>: > Glad that you in Oregon are still free of nonsense. > Eternal vigilance ! > ;-) > > 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/ ***************************************************************************
Brad Crain said on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 > Oregon will require a permit for all canoes and kayaks over a certain length Hopefully they will not be targeting people in transit (by road or coast) ? 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/ ***************************************************************************
Paul Hayward wrote: > Brad Crain said on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 >> Oregon will require a permit for all canoes and kayaks over a certain > length > > Hopefully they will not be targeting people in transit (by road or coast) ? Brad did not tell the whole story. There is a reason for the permit; the permit is devoted strictly to help fund efforts to prevent introduction of invasive aquatic species in Oregon waters: > 01. HB 2220 was passed in late June by the Oregon Legislature and signed by the > Governor in July. The bill creates the Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention > Program that will bolster prevention efforts, law enforcement and coordination > statewide for aquatic invasive species susceptible to spread by recreational > boating, such as quagga and zebra mussels not yet in the state, and Eurasian > watermilfoil, New Zealand mud snails and other harmful species already > established in the state. The legislation establishes a $5 surcharge on boat > registrations in Oregon, a $5 annual permit fee on manually powered boats 10 feet > or longer, and a $20 annual permit fee on out-of-state power boats. It also > establishes a fine ... From: http://www.boatoregon.com/OSMB/programs/docs/HB2220Rules.pdf The permit is transferable, so that only one person in the boat has to have a permit, and that person can move it with him/her from boat to boat. I'm no fan of fees or permits, but the five bucks a year is small beans in the face of the impact these invasive species can have. And, sorry, folks, but boaters from out of state will also be required to have one. All this is detailed in the link above. there is a FAQ on this issue here: http://www.boatoregon.com/OSMB/programs/09LawsFAQs.shtml Of note in the FAQ: > Is this just another way for government to tax boaters? > > No. The funds generated by the permit will go directly into a special > account for aquatic nuisance species prevention and pay for mobile > inspection teams, training/personnel, the permit infrastructure (permit > printing, purchasing, and agent partnerships) and education and outreach > materials. -- 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/ ***************************************************************************
Dave Kruger said on 14 October 2009 > permit...fund efforts to prevent...invasive aquatic species in Oregon Dave - Thanks for shedding more light on the subject. It's certainly a problem worth tackling - and I'm sorry that it seems you are being invaded by one of our snails (didn't know we had one with a wandering spirit ;-). I can only hope that a reasonable portion of the $5 finds its way to the 'battlefront', after costs of education, collection, processing, data retention and policing. We were upset last week to hear that in the first 9 months of operation of a new toll road - which had been very controversial (to toll or not to toll) - the collection of the $2 toll had cost an average of $1.29. The electronically-collected tolls did a little better, but the manually collected ones cost well over $2 to collect. This had been predicted accurately by the 'not-to-toll' faction, but ridiculed as preposterous... Who was it who said the aim of government is to create jobs for governmental employees ? 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/ ***************************************************************************
Paul Hayward wrote: > We were upset last week to hear that in the first 9 months of operation of a > new toll road - which had been very controversial (to toll or not to toll) - > the collection of the $2 toll had cost an average of $1.29. The > electronically-collected tolls did a little better, but the manually > collected ones cost well over $2 to collect. This had been predicted > accurately by the 'not-to-toll' faction, but ridiculed as preposterous... Ridiculous, isn't it? You'd think in an era when over-the-road trucking can be scanned at speed at weight stations via laser pick-offs from their transponders that a simpler, cheaper electronic system would be common. Go figure. -- 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com> wrote: > > Ridiculous, isn't it? You'd think in an era when over-the-road trucking > can be scanned at speed at weight stations via laser pick-offs from their > transponders that a simpler, cheaper electronic system would be common. Go > figure. > > The category of tax called "user fees" almost always cost more to collect than they return in funding for that particular "use". I can remember when state park campgrounds in Washington were free. You simply showed up, pitched your tent in whatever site was unoccupied that you liked, and there you were. After a while someone noticed that it did require occasional clean up work (campers were a pretty clean lot in the 50s) so someone had the bright idea of charging a fee to camp. So it was done. Then they discovered that since quite a few of these places were in the boonies ("outback" for you antipodeans) (grin) they had to build cabins for the folks who collected the fees to live in. After a while it appeared that a few of these "Rangers" had wives and children who wanted electricity and water so they added those. Naturally the costs of these improvements were passed along to the campers in the form of higher fees. Before long we had ranch style homes even in campgrounds that were near to towns with available housing and even higher fees. So as I drive in to Steamboat Rock State Park today, for instance, I see at least four pretty nice homes with attendant outbuildings along driveways marked "no entry". Steamboat Rock State Park is only about 7 miles from a town with available housing. I'm not a Luddite or a Libertarian but I think Paul is pretty much correct when he says that the business of a bureaucracy is grow a bigger bureaucracy. Just as the business of politics is to get re-elected. If we end up with nice campgrounds along the way.... well, that's just the realization of one side in the equation that if they don't give us *something* then we'll notice what's going on quicker. And some of these campgrounds are pretty nice. Too bad that, with the institution of the reservation system, you can't get into any of them unless you book a few weeks in advance. (I have noticed Oregon splits some parks into first-come, first-served areas and reserved areas.) In the past month Idaho managed to deter at least one paddler with their surcharge for invasive species. Since there was no place to buy the required permit anywhere close to where the put-in was, that paddler just said, "Aw the heck with it!) and came over to visit me instead. Do you think there will be a return trip? Not likely. How brilliant is that? Since it seems to be impossible to institute a tax or raise an existing one the states are reduced to instituting fees that are pretty much guaranteed to reduce tourism traffic. I know I'm not going to paddle in Idaho and apparently not Oregon either. But since tourism is one of the largest industries (if not *the* largest) in both states you'd think someone might have seen some unintended consequences. Apparently not. Meanwhile the Legislatures fund committees that look into how much tax money they can defer to some corporation or another so it can come in and set up a facility that will close the day after the deferments end. If not sooner. Maybe China should institute more user fees. If invasive species are harmful then they are harmful to the entire population. Saddling one group with the entire cost is counter-productive on so many levels. I recall that when Oregon had a two-tiered camping fee (one for OR residents and another, higher, one for non-residents) I stopped buying anything in Oregon for 25 years. Even after they rescinded that stupid fee. I had just started traveling to Oregon again in the past couple of years but it appears that might have to change. I don't like to complain.... but I don't let that stop me! :) 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/ ***************************************************************************
Dave is correct with his description of the legislation. However, the history of most fees in Oregon is that they are strictly monotone increasing, i.e., they will almost certainly increase year by year. The snow park permit is a good example. But the main problem is this: there is absolutely no justification for placing a fee on canoes and kayaks, just as there is no justification for charging a fee for a walk in the woods. None at all. We do not pollute, we require no services or facilities, and we promote the outdoors and good health. We simply need to be left alone. The only explanation for a fee on kayaks is that the state of Oregon needs money, the voters refuse to pay taxes, and the kayakers are vulnerable. Brad Crain > Paul Hayward wrote: >> Brad Crain said on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 >>> Oregon will require a permit for all canoes and kayaks over a certain >> length >> Hopefully they will not be targeting people in transit (by road or coast) >> ? Dave Kruger added: > > Brad did not tell the whole story. There is a reason for the permit; the > permit is devoted strictly to help fund efforts to prevent introduction of > invasive aquatic species in Oregon waters: > >> 01. HB 2220 was passed in late June by the Oregon Legislature and signed >> by the >> Governor in July. The bill creates the Aquatic Invasive Species >> Prevention >> Program that will bolster prevention efforts, law enforcement and >> coordination >> statewide for aquatic invasive species susceptible to spread by >> recreational >> boating, such as quagga and zebra mussels not yet in the state, and >> Eurasian >> watermilfoil, New Zealand mud snails and other harmful species already >> established in the state. The legislation establishes a $5 surcharge on >> boat >> registrations in Oregon, a $5 annual permit fee on manually powered boats >> 10 feet >> or longer, and a $20 annual permit fee on out-of-state power boats. It >> also >> establishes a fine ... > > From: http://www.boatoregon.com/OSMB/programs/docs/HB2220Rules.pdf > > The permit is transferable, so that only one person in the boat has to > have a permit, and that person can move it with him/her from boat to boat. > I'm no fan of fees or permits, but the five bucks a year is small beans in > the face of the impact these invasive species can have. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Hi Paul I was in your area the first week that your new toll road started collecting tolls. The provision for manual payment was laughable at best. Park your car, step out and wait in the long queue to pay. OK in the summer. Must be very frustrating in the winter, yes? Did the toll road planners factor in the cost of the parking lot, used while making a manual payment? Why not collect the manual tolls as loose coins, tossed into a basket, whilst driving past? That's bound to net more cash than the current system. Now, to keep this on topic, that toll road takes you to the Puhoi River. A pleasant little beginners paddle with a pub upstream, mangroves and a fine park near the river mouth. Gary (in Victoria BC) -----Original Message----- >We were upset last week to hear that in the first 9 months of operation of a new toll road - which had been very controversial (to toll or not to toll) - the collection of the $2 toll had cost an average of $1.29. The electronically-collected tolls did a little better, but the manually collected ones cost well over $2 to collect. This had been predicted accurately by the 'not-to-toll' faction, but ridiculed as preposterous... >Who was it who said the aim of government is to create jobs for governmental employees ? >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/ ***************************************************************************
Briefly, a couple of months ago, South Australia (a large state in their Union) unexpectedly passed a silly law prohibiting kayaks from venturing more than 2 nm offshore. I reported on this a while back. Peter Carter, a SA paddler, today reports success in having this nonsense changed: http://www.users.on.net/~pcarter/regulations2009.html I mention this again, both to share the good news and to show that sensible efforts by the paddlesport world can achieve good outcomes. If it happens near you, take heart and get off your bum. To extract from Peter's site: "It was a productive meeting. We achieved the outcomes we wanted, and the regulations will be amended. The two nautical mile limit will not apply, replaced by a 400 metre limit for craft that are not sea kayaks. A definition of sea kayaks suitable for inclusion in the regulations needs to be finalised, but sea kayaks will be permitted on all waters, sheltered and unsheltered." and "Sea kayaks operated solo beyond 400m from shore will need to be equipped similarly to other small craft: PFD 2, bailing device, waterproof torch at night, flares (2 red, 2 smoke), V sheet, four litre water capacity, chart, compass, EPIRB. (There is some question as to whether PLBs meet the standards.) A VHF radio and/or a mobile phone is recommended. That means that some of us will have some shopping to do, but it brings us into line with other craft. A pod of kayaks, such as a group under training with an instructor, must have all that equipment within the group, plus a towline. With club groups, there will usually be multiple items of equipment. A question to be resolved is the definition of a 'pod'. An important outcome of the meeting was the opening up of communication between the department and organised canoeing. Thanks go to David Mausolf for his initiative, to Jim Hallion and his staff, and Ian Dewey for becoming the main point of contact with the department. " 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/ ***************************************************************************
Paul Hayward wrote: > Briefly, a couple of months ago, South Australia (a large state in their > Union) unexpectedly passed a silly law prohibiting kayaks from venturing > more than 2 nm offshore. I reported on this a while back. > > Peter Carter, a SA paddler, today reports success in having this nonsense > changed: http://www.users.on.net/~pcarter/regulations2009.html > > I mention this again, both to share the good news and to show that sensible > efforts by the paddlesport world can achieve good outcomes. If it happens > near you, take heart and get off your bum. > > To extract from Peter's site: > > "It was a productive meeting. We achieved the outcomes we wanted, and the > regulations will be amended. The two nautical mile limit will not apply, > replaced by a 400 metre limit for craft that are not sea kayaks. A > definition of sea kayaks suitable for inclusion in the regulations needs to > be finalised, but sea kayaks will be permitted on all waters, sheltered and > unsheltered." > > and > > "Sea kayaks operated solo beyond 400m from shore will need to be equipped > similarly to other small craft: PFD 2, bailing device, waterproof torch at > night, flares (2 red, 2 smoke), V sheet, four litre water capacity, chart, > compass, EPIRB. (There is some question as to whether PLBs meet the > standards.) A VHF radio and/or a mobile phone is recommended. That means > that some of us will have some shopping to do, but it brings us into line > with other craft. > > A pod of kayaks, such as a group under training with an instructor, must > have all that equipment within the group, plus a towline. With club groups, > there will usually be multiple items of equipment. A question to be resolved > is the definition of a 'pod'. > > An important outcome of the meeting was the opening up of communication > between the department and organised canoeing. Thanks go to David Mausolf > for his initiative, to Jim Hallion and his staff, and Ian Dewey for becoming > the main point of contact with the department. " > > Best Regards > Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand Not only excellent news for Australian paddlers, but incentive and cheer for paddlers in other area where legislation threatens common sense. We do just need to get off our butts and make those "sensible efforts". -- Darryl *************************************************************************** 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 wrote: - >Briefly, a couple of months ago, South Australia (a large state in their >Union) unexpectedly passed a silly law prohibiting kayaks from venturing >more than 2 nm offshore. I reported on this a while back. >Peter Carter, a SA paddler, today reports success in having this nonsense >changed: http://www.users.on.net/~pcarter/regulations2009.html <http://www.users.on.net/~pcarter/regulations2009.html> G'Day Paul, Excellent news indeed and just in time for Freya. Many thanks to Peter, Ian and Australian Canoeing. The issue of PLB's vs EPIRBs is a national as much as a state concern. The main differences between epirbs and plbs are battery capacity that is 48 hrs for an epirb and 24hrs for a plb; also some epirbs will automatically activate on immersion and finally epirbs are substantially larger than plbs. Otherwise they are functionally very similar. The current legal requirement in most if not all states of Australia is for an EPIRB to be fitted in boats that are significantly off shore - distances vary from State to State and a plb will not suffice, however this was also being discussed at a National level with AMSA but I haven't heard that the requirement has been waived or is considered uncertain - If anyone has further information I'd be keen to find out. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Peter wrote on 5 November 2009 > PLB's vs EPIRBs ... functionally very similar I've been keeping an eye on these for a while and they are getting better & better and less expensive. The usual electronics curve, but still good to see. The smallest McMurdo unit is now really cellphone sized (140 gms or 5 oz). As you point out, a PLB with half the battery life (of an EPIRB) is a reasonable trade-off for kayakers - given that the PLB fits reasonably in/on a PFD - which EPIRBs (IMO) really can't. Andrew McCauley's device was found in the kayak - enough said. My own feeling is that 24 hours is probably my useful rescue period - the 24 to 48 hour extension isn't likely to do me much good. I'm a little concerned at the likes of SPOT diminishing the credibility of the PLB devices. From what I can make out, the SPOTs are a serious step down in quality and signal success (as they use a different sattelite system). It would be a pity to have other PLB devices relegated to 'convenince' devices from their current 'nearly an EPIRB' status. Peter, do your local PLB & EPIRB retailers hide behind the 'Local Registration' barrier to allow them to double the price on the devices - the way the NZ stores do ? (I've just checked on that McMurdo unit and it sells today in Auckland for just over 2x Westmarine's price - which could certainly be bettered online. That's outrageous.) 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > Brad Crain said on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 > > Oregon will require a permit for all canoes and kayaks over a certain > length > > Hopefully they will not be targeting people in transit (by road or coast) ? > > Because the permit is specifically intended to reduce invasive species, it's the in-transit boats that pose the biggest threat. If your boat never moves out of whatever waterway it uses then it's unlikely to become the vehicle that introduces an invasive species. It's the trailer-boats, mostly, that are the culprits. Outdrives and outboards are perfect carriers of juvenile mussels (or adults if they are not cleaned). I have seen a video of a boat from Nevada (where there are lots of zebra mussels) traveling north in Idaho festooned with zebra mussels and the drive blithely unaware. But no, in-transit boats are probably not targeted. As long as they keep on driving they don't much care. It's the next state's problem then. 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/ ***************************************************************************
I spent the weekend surfing off Tybee Island, GA USA. I like to start and end my day on Tybee with a bike ride to the back river. Friday morning I met a woman in her 50's who was a bit thick but looked reasonably capable in an athletic sense. She was staring out across the back river towards Little Tybee. She asked me if I was local. I said sorta. She asked me about the currents. I shared what I knew. The area she wanted to visit is calm at low tide but typically has breakers at mid/high tide. I asked her if she was comfortable in small surf. She mustered up a yes. I asked her if she had ever paddled in the ocean before. She nodded but I didn't believe her. She opened her mini van to get her boat. It was a department store SOT. To her credit she did wear her PFD and did follow my suggestion to paddle into the wind and tide so her return journey would be easier. Also to her credit she only went halfway across the river before deciding to return. Most of us are pretty smart and know what to avoid. We stay off the radar. That evening I went to the same location. I watched a very drunk woman arguing with her very drunk man while seated in a small, unkempt daysailer which was fifteen yards out. She stood up and decided to get off the boat. She stepped into 20 feet of water and sank like a rock. Somehow she sputtered to the surface and weaved her way to shore, up the beach, past me and into the night. Her man began paddling the daysailer to the beach with a single kayak paddle. He was so drunk that when I asked him if I could help his answer was unintelligible. He beached, threw out an anchor and stumbled off into the night. I looked into the hull and saw a mostly empty bottle of rum, two glasses full of what looked like Coke and a scrap piece of lumber jammed into the transom drain plug. There was no rig, centerboard, flotation, or PFD's. Their craft was ready for a bonfire and nothing else. Some of us aren't smart and don't know what to avoid. This is the type that makes the paper and sways public opinion. I'm gunna go pat some gators on the head. Hold my beer, k? 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:52 PDT