“You’re totally self reliant when you’re in a kayak out there,” Follis said.
This is the comment made by Bayfield Co sheriff Bob Follis regarding the kayaker who died of hypothermia near the mainland sea caves last weekend. I tend to think sheriff Bob is correct. Its you, your gear, your paddling partners, and your ability to assess your skills in relation to the paddling conditions. I worry however, that self reliance seems to be a virtue in decline. Instead, regulating and managing activites to protect the least competent and most irresponsible members of society seems to be the trend these days. One personal example is Interstate Park between Minnesota and Wisconsin on the St Croix River. One of our annual family events was to pack a picnic lunch, canoe up to the cliffs at the Dalles of the St Croix, and spend a hot summer afternoon jumping off the cliffs. A few years back, a drunk and stoned teenager dove off one of the cliffs, struck his head and was killed. Alcohol dulls the senses and marijuana confuses them; lets get dull and confused and then dive into the river! The NPS, which has jurisdiction because the St Croix is a Wild and Scenic River, immediately banned 'cliff jumping'. I fear (and can actually envision) a day when the "No kayaking allowed" flag is flying in the Apostle Islands Nat'l Lakeshore launch areas. This would likely be based upon some arbitrary wind and wave level designed to protect a 14 year old beginning kayaker in a plastic Carolina-type rec boat with no spray skirt. No public hearings that I know of were held on the administrative order to ban cliff jumping. In fact, a hearing on the Apostles Islands Management Plan that I attended in Minneapolis last year reminded me of those car seats that were around when I was a kid. They were unsafe as hell but had a little plastic steering wheel that let you pretend y0u were driving. Every once in awhile the car would turn in the same direction that you turned the wheel and it gave you the illusion that you were driving. But you weren't and you knew very well who was in the drivers seat. I think that meeting was much more of a 'here's what we're gonna do' rather than a 'please tell us your ideas and concerns' type of scenario.
It was a tragic death last Friday at Meyers beach, one that was completely preventable and a real waste. However we in the kayaking community need to be vigilant of any possible regulatory or administrative backlash. Responsibility, enlightened decision making, and acceptance of consequences are still qualities that a number of us cherish. We need to make sure that the do gooders don't inhibit our right to exercise those qualities in pursuit of advancing our kayaking skills and abilities.
8 comments:
I was impressed with the photo. Is that on the Keewenaw?? The woman in the picture looks "fully geared". Too bad she forgot her boat ... ;-)
While I do not favor additional regulations (NPS warning or no paddle launch allowed flags from Meyers Beach), also realizing that I am always saddened by these tragic events, as one of many taxpayers, I question why we need to continue to pay for these rescues
These "best rescue" is the rescue that never occurs - because the watercraft operators know what they are doing. Departing and returning to port is generally a preferred event.
But there are enough people who decide differently
http://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/443/161955/
and by no means restricted to sea kayakers as listed in these press release summary http://www.piersystem.com/go/doctype/443/5213/
as the NPS, USCG, and law enforcement is funded by us taxpayers.
What is done in Germany:
1. You need to get a boater's license, just like an automobile driver's license, to operate a watercraft (boat), take and pass written tests similar to offered by USCG Auxiliaries. Pass an on the water test (just like a car driving test) for the type of watercraft being operated.
2. Make the wearing of a USCG approved PFD a law on waters under the authority of the USCG, NPS and state DNRs; this would be just like seat belt laws (in many states) for operating a motor vehicle, or motorcycle helmut laws.
If you believe this restricts your "freedoms", then consider the current restriction on "taxpayers' freedoms". Taxpayers money is spent by paying for these type of rescues.
So whose "freedom" prevails?? Well, that is politics.
We need to continue to fund this, but can we watercraft operators take time to learn what we are doing?
Out,
Scott
An excellent and thoughtful piece. I prefer things as they are. I sailed for many years and knew what a small craft warning meant. I also knew that if, like now, I chose to go out, I had to be prepared to take care of myself. I suspect we have enough government control of things like recreational kayaking.
Excellent post! I would be nice if the people out there in "T"shirts and no spray skirt would actually read it!
Oh, by the way.. I love the analogy of the car seat!
~Regulator #3~
Thanks for the comment on my blog pointing me here. I had not encountered your excellent blog before.
As a retired NPS ranger who spent 13 years of his career at Apostle Islands, I find the discussion very interesting, to say the least. It speaks to one of the fundamental challenges of park management: how many restrictions should an agency place on visitor freedom in order to protect people from their own over-confidence and lack of knowledge?
I have to say I start from a default position of, "the less regulation, the better." I go along with your comments in another entry concerning the cliff-jumping ban on the St. Croix; I rolled my eyes when Apostle Islands implemented a similar regulation a few years back. Thought it was totally unnecessary.
On the other hand, believe me when I tell you that I can recall many times when I encountered kayaking parties who were obviously unprepared for the conditions they were proposing to tackle, and warned them in strongest terms, "I would not advise you folks to go out here today," and had my cautions ignored.
(The most common reply? "Well, we'll be real careful." Strikes me that going out after you've been told it's a bad idea is the opposite of "careful.")
At that point, there's nothing you can do but keep an eye on them as they set out, alert the island personnel to watch for the party, and maybe go out a little later to see how they are doing.
The good news here is that on most of those occasions, these rash folks survived their encounter with the Big Lake with nothing more than a hairy moment or two. Yet in a way, that's the bad news, too, since the message they get is, "Oh, the ranger was being over-cautious," and they are even less likely to heed future warnings.
Bottom line, though, I would not want the authority to tell people, "Yes, you may go out today," or "No, you may not." Besides going completely against my feelings about what a National Park experience should be like, there's an eminently practical reason, too: just think how fast the lawsuit would come the first time a ranger said, "It's okay to go out" and somebody ran into trouble.
Changing subjects, I'll let you know that your colorful perspective on the "public input" phase of the General Management Plan process made my breakfast coffee come out my nose. If you don't mind, I'd dearly love to quote it on the page where I'm discussing my own concerns about the GMP alternatives.
Bob, thanks so much for the feedback. I enjoyed your blog also and have it bookmarked. Feel free to use my car seat analagy if I can use some of your stuff in my followup to this tragedy. Gotta figure out how to drive home the point with the knuckleheads. Off to LSB for a 5 day paddle to Cat, Outer, Stockton, et al tommorow.
Have fun on your trip! If you leave your car in the main lot at LSB, you'll be parking roughly where my house used to be in my District Ranger days. ("They paved my old house and put up a parking lot.")
If you stop at the Outer sandspit, you'll see the remains of a boat in the sand. Here's a picture of what it looked like in its heyday.
When you get back, how about dropping me a note (bobmack at charter dot net) - so we could compare notes on a few topics?
Incidentally, I'll be doing a program in Bayfield in August, repeating one I did last year for the "Around The Archipelago" series. Topic is 150 years of mishaps on Lake Superior and the title?
"The Lake Is The Boss."
Great line, for sure. We ought both to be paying Julian Nelson royalties, I guess! -- grin--
Per ‘Daveo’ :“A few years back, a drunk and stoned teenager dove off one of the cliffs, struck his head and was killed. Alcohol dulls the senses and marijuana confuses them; lets get dull and confused and then dive into the river! The NPS, which has jurisdiction because the St Croix is a Wild and Scenic River, immediately banned 'cliff jumping'. No public hearings that I know of were held on the administrative order to ban cliff jumping… No public hearings that I know of were held on the administrative order to ban cliff jumping. ”
Per ‘Ranger Bob’ “I go along with your comments in another entry concerning the cliff-jumping ban on the St. Croix”
I suppose I shouldn’t be stunned that a blog, which is merely a modern diary, would short shift facts to support a personal view. But I guess I am surprised that a former park ranger with an apparent ax to grind would criticize another park, without exploring the facts. Especially one he never worked at and obviously has little knowledge of. Hopefully this is not typical of these dedicated people who hold positions of esteem in the public eye.
As a local to the St. Croix area, I knew some of the facts from the start when the issue on the river arose, and have double-checked those for the following. The facts:
The state of Minnesota had previously banned cliff jumping.
The state of Wisconsin wanted to ban cliff jumping, but feared the backlash.
The NPS implemented a swimming ban in the area, not a jumping ban as you state (jumping from cliffs or bridges on NPS lands was already prohibited). This all happened after the two drownings that summer, and in neither case were drugs or alcohol considered major factors in the deaths. (The DNR did ban jumping after the park service first banned swimming in the Dalles. Yes… for a short period of time it was legal to jump, but not swim. Go figure. )
Banning swimming in this one-half mile stretch of river was based on the fact that drowning had claimed 13 lives in the previous 18 years alone. (Though it looks placid, the river in that area reaches a depth of over 100 feet, resulting in very turbulent water right below the surface. Strong eddies and extremely volatile currents are made even more unpredictable due to the hydro-electric dam located less than a mile upstream. All facts.)
There have been no drownings in this area since the swimming ban was implemented. Period. Statistics would indicate there are people alive today because of this.
In short: check your facts, check your personal garbage, and be safe on the water.
Post a Comment