Re: [Paddlewise] PFDs

Darryl Johnson wrote:

> But the main thing is that I'm just sick and tired of people doing 
> dumbass things and expecting someone to rescue them. Skiing or skidooing 
> in out-of-bounds areas when there is a threat of avalanche, for example. 
> Climbing mountains in the face of threatening weather. It's becoming a 
> drain on western culture -- which is going downhill fast enough -- and I 
> don't want to play any more.

> I'm extremely glad there are people who volunteer to work in areas like 
> nursing, policing, firefighting, SAR, etc. But their work is hard enough 
> without society encouraging the mentally deficient to "do your thing and 
> we'll take care of you regardless."

Darryl, I know what you mean by "I'm just sick and tired of ...":  I do not 
have much sympathy for folks who egregiously attempt hard, dangerous stunts 
without the requisite skills or knowledge, and who go into those stunts 
thinking, "If I get into a jam, I'll get rescued."  But there are some 
squishy ethical issues here.  Stay with me for a while on this:

I agree people do _dumb_ things.  I also agree some are _unknowing_.  I 
agree I would not risk my life to rescue someone if I was _certain_ I would 
die if I tried to do so.

Some questions to think about:

1. What's a "dumb" thing?  My son is such a skilled rock climber that 
soloing steep rock is as risky for him as walking down a cracked sidewalk 
is for me.  We are equally likely to be injured in our respective "risky" 
practices.  Yet, we readily respond to an injured person who tumbles off a 
"safe" city sidewalk, falls into a ravine, and requires a high angle team 
to be pulled out.  Another example:  a family of four takes a drive on a 
rainy day across a mountain pass, goes a little too fast around a curve, 
skids on gravel, and their vehicle punches through a guardrail and rolls 
down a cliff.  Their retrieval demands a high angle team scramble to their 
rescue, endangering the team members.  This is regarded as a good usage of 
the high angle team.  Their drive was "risky."  Was it "dumb?"  Do we feel 
someone whose vehicle rolls off a highway because of their incompetence or 
poor judgment is in the same class as a well-prepared climber who attempts 
an icy face and gets stuck?  Similar degrees of risk to the person, similar 
degrees of hazard for the rescuers, similar degrees of competence for the 
person(s) stuck.  What's the difference?  I think it is this:  we 
ground-pounders are "familiar" with driving, and can see ourselves as a 
possible victim of what befel the family of four.  So, it's Ok to rescue 
them.  But, the climber gets in trouble doing something that is foreign to 
most of us, and it "looks" dangerous as hell ... so we condemn him/her as 
an "idiot," and begrudge the use of resources to rescue him/her.

2. How do we determine, in a rescue situation, whether the stranded person 
was "unknowing?"  Sure, if its a kid, we expect kids do foolish things, 
unknowingly, and we go get 'em!  They're kids!  Suppose it's a middle-aged 
woman (or, man) who falls out of her kayak, sans PFD, and appears to be 
drowning.  Well, _she_ can't be "unknowing" can she?  She's an adult!  No 
USCG helo for _her_!  So, we watch her drown.  Oh, later, we find out she 
was ignorant and did not know anything about PFD's, paddling, etc.

3. Finally, how do we figure out when a rescue is "certain" to kill a 
rescuer?  Sometimes it's easy:  kid is stuck in a huge hydraulic below a 
raging waterfall, circulating in it, and I'm on the bank without a rope or 
anything to help him from the bank.  I'm _not_ going into that to help him. 
  I know I'll end up like him.  that's an easy one.  But, if Becky falls 
out of her boat in extremely rough water, wearing her PFD, farmer john, and 
drytop, god-damn it, I'm going to try to get her back in her boat, even 
though I know doing so endangers me, even though I know our paddlefloat 
rescue techniques are not good in very rough water.  Why?  Because I'm 
_not_ certain I'll die trying to do so.

Peace, Darryl.  I think we share a lot of common ground on this.  But I 
think some of that ground is a bit uncertain.  Here's what I am concerned 
about:  For the majority of the public, what we do in our tiny little boats 
looks "dangerous" to them.  If it comes to pass that we are viewed as the 
public now regards well-prepared mountain climbers, it may be that rescues 
of "taboo" sea kayak paddlers will also be verboten. If they seem dumb, or 
knowing, or "mentally deficient".  I support reasonable attempts to rescue 
stranded people, with minimal risk to the rescuers ... and I support 
reasonable means to reduce the cost to the public for rescues, in people 
and money.  If we decide "all mountain climbers stuck on a steep face" are 
unworthy of rescues, then maybe next will be "all sea kayakers in rough 
water" and somewhere down the line will be "idiots who slide off slippery 
roads and crash down a cliff."

-- 
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/
***************************************************************************