Greetings, Paddlewise subscribers. My name is Paul Sanford. I am a Paddlewise digest subscriber, and I am also the Director of Stewardship and Public Policy for the American Canoe Association (ACA). I am a bit behind in my reading, but I have seen recent posts to this list serve about the Massachusetts Kayak legislation. I am writing to let you know that the ACA submitted comments on this legislation to the members of the MA House Committee that is considering the bill. <http://www.mass.gov/legis/comm/h52.htm> The text of our comments appears below: Dear Representative _____: This letter relates to Massachusetts Senate Bill 974, An Act Relative to Kayaks, which was recently referred to the House Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling. The American Canoe Association applauds the efforts of the Massachusetts Legislature to increase paddlesport safety. However, several elements of S. 974 concern us because they are inconsistent with the U.S. Coast Guard regulations and unfair to paddlers. Although the ACA is mentioned in this bill, we were not consulted on its language, and we do not endorse the bill. We have several specific concerns, which we outline below. We urge the Committee to consider the following before taking action on this legislation: 1. The ACA generally prefers voluntary education for the public on boating safety matters, rather than regulation through rulemaking or legislation. 2. The bill as written is inconsistent with the U.S. Coast Guard regulations on life jacket (PFD) wear. Section 175.17 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal regulations states that "[a] Type V PFD may be carried in lieu of any PFD required under ' 175.15" if the Type V life jacket is approved for the activity in which is it used, and it is used in accordance with its label and owner's manual. The Coast Guard has approved one or more Type V life jackets for every type of paddling. These jackets are widely used for inland paddling on whitewater or flatwater, and for coastal paddling in sheltered or open water environments. As such, the legislation should allow for Type V use. This page provides further information: http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/life_jacket_wear_wearing_your_life_jacket.aspx 3. The life jacket wear requirement in S. 974 unfairly targets kayaks. If the state believes a life jacket wear requirement is needed, it should be applied equitably to all watercraft that pose comparable risks, including other types of small boats, both motorized and non-motorized. a. U.S. Coast Accident Statistics reveal that an overwhelming majority of boating fatalities and injuries occur on boats under 26 feet in length. In 2008, more injuries occurred on boats between 16 feet and 26 feet long than on boats in any other length range, and there were nearly as many fatalities on boats of this length than on shorter boats. Since the vast majority of kayaks are less than 16 feet long, this data confirms that boats other than kayaks, including rowboats and small motor boats, pose an equal risk of injury and death as kayaks. Despite this fact, the bill targets only kayaks for the life jacket wear requirement. See Recreational Boating Statistics 2008; COMDTPUB P16754.21, United States Coast Guard, August 5, 2009, available at: <http://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/Publications/Boating_Statistics_2008.pdf> b. An example of a more equitable requirement is the cold weather life jacket wear requirement that recently took effect in New York state. Section 40(e) of the New York State Navigation Law reads as follows: No owner or operator of a pleasure vessel less than twenty-one feet, including rowboats, canoes, and kayaks shall permit its operation, between November first and May first, unless each person on board such vessel is wearing a securely fastened United States Coast Guard approved wearable personal flotation device of an appropriate size when such vessel is underway. 4. We do not object to the requirement for "wet exit" training, and require it in many of our courses. However, we believe that our certified instructors are capable of making sound judgments as to appropriate course content. As such, we are concerned that broadly applicable course content requirements like these can have the effect of interfering with or removing instructor judgment. In other circumstances, we might have stronger objections to a course content requirement. 5. Regarding the certification requirement, we welcome the recognition of the value of ACA certifications, but believe other certifying bodies such as the British Canoe Union (BCU) also provide high quality instructor training. We encourage the state to recognize these certifications under the "equivalent water training" provision. For these reasons, we urge the Committee to reject S. 974 in its current form. Finally, in considering regulatory requirements for canoes, kayaks, and rafts, we encourage all legislative bodies to consult with the ACA and proactively engage the paddling communities in their states. By engaging with boaters, policymakers will be able to develop more practical and more effective boating safety strategies. -- *Paul Sanford* Director of Stewardship & Public Policy General Counsel American Canoe Association 1340 Central Park Blvd. Suite 210 Fredericksburg VA 22401 (p) 540.907.4460 x106 (f) 888.229.3792 psanford_at_americancanoe.org <file://localhost/applewebdata/::E656EE99-1783-4671-A921-219EAB90AE77:psanford_at_americancanoe.org> Www.americancanoe.org *************************************************************************** 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, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Paul Sanford <psanford_at_americancanoe.org>wrote: > Greetings, Paddlewise subscribers. My name is Paul Sanford. I am a > Paddlewise digest subscriber, and I am also the Director of Stewardship > and Public Policy for the American Canoe Association (ACA). > > Well that was nice of Paul Sanford to include Paddlewise; thanks, Paul. :) I couldn't find much to argue with in his response. Paul might also talk to them about unreasonable state regulations requiring night navigational lights that are also in conflict with USCG Rules. I can't recall which states have begun requiring "all-around" white lights but at least one in the northeastern USA does (on non-Federal waters). Laws regulating common sense are often problematic. Even good advice about common sense can be problematic. One person's idea of safety is another person's idea of "overdoing it". I remember landing on a log-strewn beach in high winds while a local lady watched me. Once my kayak was out of reach of the logs and waves I turned and said "hello" to her and made some sarcastic comment about it being a "fine day for a paddle". She just looked at me and said, "no one should be out kayaking on a day like this." I just hope she doesn't get elected to the state legislature. 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:52 PDT