PaddleWise by thread

From: Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz>
subject: [Paddlewise] Good news from South Australia
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:31:31 +1300
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/
***************************************************************************
From: Darryl Johnson <Darryl.Johnson_at_sympatico.ca>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Good news from South Australia
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:31:28 -0500
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/
***************************************************************************
From: rebyl_kayak <rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com>
subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Good news from South Australia
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 22:07:44 +1000
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/
***************************************************************************
From: Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz>
subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Good news from South Australia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:19:33 +1300
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/
***************************************************************************

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:52 PDT