Leaving a Pod

[leong]

I’m traveling in a pod of four on the way from Manchester Harbor to Marblehead. It’s a fairly rough day (winds 15 knots to 20+ knots). At about 20% of the distance between Misery Island and Marblehead I decide that the remaining open-water crossing is too dangerous for the pod, especially since we will have to cross the ferry lane near Marblehead and the afternoon winds are steadily increasing. I make my concerns known. The other three paddlers disagree and the arguing continues.  I can’t change their minds. So I tell them that I’m heading back to the shore along Beverly and they can follow me or not (note: I’m a very experience paddler and I could have easily paddled to Marblehead at almost twice the speed that the pod was going). The others eventually turn and follow me back. Near shore they complain that I broke the CAM rules by leaving the pod.

By my own rules I’m in the right since I make my own risk assessments. But who’s right according to the CAM rules?

-Leon

 

[rfolster]

Leon, we need more background to understand the parameters of the trip.  Was the route, conditions, and hazards of the trip discussed ahead of time?  Who was leading the group at the time this discussion occurred and was it appropriate for them to be leading the group?

[josko]

So you left the group because you thought somebody else was being unsafe?

[Katherine]

And...  had you all agreed that it was a CAM trip or was it a buddy trip?

[leong]

2 hours ago, rfolster said:

Leon, we need more background to understand the parameters of the trip.  Was the route, conditions, and hazards of the trip discussed ahead of time?  Who was leading the group at the time this discussion occurred and was it appropriate for them to be leading the group?

In CAM trips I thought top-down leadership is generally avoided unless, perhaps in an emergency, it is necessary for the concern and well-being of the group. 

The destination was discussed when we started. The route was the shortest distance. The conditions deteriorated as time passed.

[leong]

1 hour ago, josko said:

So you left the group because you thought somebody else was being unsafe?

I left the group because I thought it wasn't worth the risk.

1 hour ago, josko said:

So you left the group because you thought somebody else was being unsafe?

 

[leong]

1 hour ago, Katherine said:

And...  had you all agreed that it was a CAM trip or was it a buddy trip?

They said I broke the CAM rules by leaving the pod. We didn't discuss whether it was a CAM  or any other type of trip. But there was no paper work to say it was a CAM trip. We just paddled.

[rfolster]

9 minutes ago, leong said:

In CAM trips I thought top-down leadership is generally avoided unless, perhaps in an emergency, it is necessary for the concern and well-being of the group. 

This is a common misconception with the CAM system - typically an misunderstanding of the "Leadership can be fluid" concept.  Any CAM trip should have someone designated as a leader at all times, and that can be one person the whole trip, or shared among the group ad different times, but there should always be a leader.  You actually demonstrated leadership by saying that you were going back to shore, and suggested that the others follow, which they eventually did.  I don't know if you all paddled back together, or if they "eventually" followed separately, which is not proper CAM paddling formations and etiquette.

Regardless of whether or not anyone "broke the rules", the biggest takeaway from this is whether or not the group had a conversation about it afterwards.  That is how we all stay friends (or all hate each other).  If you discussed why you thought the conditions were too much for the pod, you might have found out that your impressions were correct, or incorrect, and learned from that for next time.  The rest of the pod would also be able to better understand your decision and be able to learn how to communicate better while on the water.

My humble opinion is, having had to do something similar myself some time ago, I think that what you did was, if absolutely necessary, correct in order to get the group to do the "right" thing.  My next questions are very existential and somewhat rhetorical, so don't feel obligated to answer, just ponder.  Were the conditions really too dangerous for the pod, or would the group been relatively challenged but within their general skill sets and have been capable of managing most situations that may or may not have occurred?  In other words, did you keep the group safe from imminent danger, or possibly prevented them from having a challenging/learning experience?  This borderline between being safe (positive) and being cautious (negative) is what trips up many BCU 5* Leader aspirants during their assessments.  It is a fine line, and sometimes we need to let people experience hardships for themselves..... to a limit.

[leong]

32 minutes ago, rfolster said:

 I think that what you did was, if not absolutely necessary, correct in order to get the group to do the "right" thing.  My next questions are very existential and somewhat rhetorical, so don't feel obligated to answer, just ponder.  Were the conditions really too dangerous for the pod, or would the group been relatively challenged but within their general skill sets and have been capable of managing most situations that may or may not have occurred?  In other words, did you keep the group safe from imminent danger, or possibly prevented them from having a challenging/learning experience?  This borderline between being safe (positive) and being cautious (negative) is what trips up many BCU 5* Leader aspirants during their assessments.  It is a fine line, and sometimes we need to let people experience hardships for themselves..... to a limit.

Rob,

I understand what you are saying but I don’t know how to answer the question directly. Let me put it another way.

Suppose I’m a passenger in someone’s car and I notice that the driver is not maintaining a safe following distance. Clearly there is no imminent danger. On the other hand, if I worn him he’ll probably get angry and I’ll possibly prevent him from learning a lesson; perhaps to be extra vigilant so he can quickly hit the brakes when the leading car does.

Back to the on-the-water situation. I’m fairly confident that any combination of us would have completed the crossing without mishap because all of us are skilled paddlers. But, because of the deteriorating conditions and that fast ferry boat crossing Marblehead, I didn’t think it was worth the risk to continue. We’ve all made the same trip many times so the reward was limited. I’ve probably done it over 100 times. As I later discovered surfing the rollers towards Beverly beaches was more fun.

-Leon

 

[josko]

My 'gut feeling' if I were in a group, but not a leader, and I was within my limits but thought somebody else might need help before the day is over, would be to stay with the group and offer whatever help I could offer.  Somehow bailing on the group because somebody else might need help doesn't seem like the right thing to do, but then again, I don't understand the CAM model.  Or maybe I'm not understanding the thread.

If you were the person in trouble, I could sort of see a: 'Folks, I'm in over my head. I know I can safely make it back, so why don't you continue without me.'

[leong]

1 hour ago, josko said:

My 'gut feeling' if I were in a group, but not a leader, and I was within my limits but thought somebody else might need help before the day is over, would be to stay with the group and offer whatever help I could offer.  Somehow bailing on the group because somebody else might need help doesn't seem like the right thing to do, but then again, I don't understand the CAM model.  Or maybe I'm not understanding the thread.

If you were the person in trouble, I could sort of see a: 'Folks, I'm in over my head. I know I can safely make it back, so why don't you continue without me.'

Josko,

I wasn't in over my head and neither were the other paddlers. As I think I implied, my recommendation was to change to a safer course and that's what I did. I wasn't trying to force the others to join me. So my responsibility ended. If they didn't follow me and I became aware (via VHF) that a rescue or tow was needed I would have gone back out as fast as I could. But, instead, they did follow me to the shoreline for lunch and to chew me out.

-Leon

[rfolster]

Leon, based on your last reply, I am sorry to say that your actions do not fall within those appropriate of a CAM participant.  A small part of CAM means that, once in a while, you may, for the good of the group, have to something that you might not necessarily would have done if by yourself or with a "different" group of paddlers.  The COMMON part of CAM is that we (hopefully) provide ourselves as an asset to the group, no matter what level paddler, and in return gain support from the group.  More advanced paddlers often comment that they do not need the support of the group and can manage just fine by themselves, but they don't recognize that they remove a valuable asset from the group if they do not stay close by.  Let's not forget that one of the main reasons for the development of the Common Adventure Model was to promote experiential learning, which has been found to be an extremely efficient and safe format for adventurous activities such as kayaking.  This experiential learning can be beneficial to all paddlers, even leaders with advanced professional training, but it only works if we are all willing to commit ourselves to it.

[leong]

57 minutes ago, rfolster said:

Leon, based on your last reply, I am sorry to say that your actions do not fall within those appropriate of a CAM participant. 

Rob,

You might be right. Although at the time when I separated from the group the conditions were still within everyone's ability, they were getting worse and worse. If I were teaching a class on paddling into worsening conditions then perhaps I’d go along with CAM theory. But, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." If the theoretical construct of CAM is against my practice for cases like the one I posted then count me out!

My reason for paddling with a group is not confined to providing experimental learning. It’s more for safety and companionship. I’m not a paddling instructor, although many people learned to paddle from paddling with me. Furthermore, on the few official CAM trips I attended, I noticed that I was usually the only one staying close by to another paddler - usually the slowest paddler (even though I was capable of paddling circles around everyone).

Peace,

-Leon

 

[billvoss]

Leon, I come down on your side. 

In good white-water kayaking groups it is always acceptable for any paddler to portage any rapid they are uncomfortable running.  The cautious paddler should never be criticized, teased, or pressured before or afterwards to take more risk than they want to take at that time.  Even if the cautious paddler planned to run every rapid at the put-in and portaging significantly inconveniences the group, the group should never pressure the cautious paddler to take more risk than they are comfortable with at that moment.

The exception is if a paddler in the white-water group does get into trouble, then all the fellow paddlers are expected to help in the rescue to the best of their ability and training.  Even though that may well involve the rescuers taking more risk than they would like.  In fact, generally all white-water paddlers are expected to help any other paddler in distress they encounter on the river, not just the other paddlers in their own group.

I think the same principles apply in sea kayaking.  Certainly books like Sea Kayaker's Deep Trouble are full of stories where group pressure pushes the group into taking more risk than was prudent, or in some cases survivable.

It can certainly be disappointing if an anticipated trip is cut short because another paddler judges the conditions too risky.  However, in a CAM context, absent other prior agreement, even if every other member of the group disagrees with the risk assessment, I think it is the group's duty to get the cautious paddler back to safety.  Once the cautious paddler is somewhere everyone agrees is safe (the take-out, the hospital, or perhaps just where the disagreement occurs), the bold paddlers can decide if they wish to form a new CAM group and take the risk.  However, absent prior agreement to the contrary, no CAM paddler should force a fellow pod member to take risks they consider excessive.

I personally subscribe to the "Three to Sea" minimum rule.  Though the risk of paddling alone is obviously lower for more talented paddlers, I would still have felt compelled to accompany you back to the take-out based on the "Three to Sea" rule had I been a member of your CAM group.  I might also have worried that you needed to turn back because you were experiencing some impairment and thus should be escorted, and were just claiming high risk because your impairment was mental or embarrassing.  If the pod has enough strength, sending two or more experienced escorts might be sufficient.  However, usually the entire pod will need to go.

Even in a non-CAM leader based commercial trip, if some cautious paddler in the pod says this is too risky for the reward, I think the leader needs to get the cautious paddler off the water or into conditions the cautious paddler finds acceptable.  I paid for a two day surfing class down in RI a few years ago, one of the students felt more challenged than the other students so the second day was less challenging than it otherwise would have been.  I was disappointed, but thought it was appropriate, even though the trip had plenty of rescue strength.

I do agree with Rob that sometimes CAM participants must be willing to do things they would prefer not to do.  I also agree that willing participants should be allowed to learn near the border between challenging and reckless.  However, absent prior explicit agreement to the contrary, I do not think CAM calls for or justifies forcing any paddler into an avoidable situation they consider too risky.  Though if someone repeatedly aborts fun paddles, I might avoid potentially challenging paddles with them in the future.

So my bottom line based on what I read in this thread is the other three should have honored your fears, even if they disagreed with your risk assessment.  I don't think you broke CAM rules.

[Inverseyourself]

I guess it depends a little on how the other paddlers viewed Leon and vice versa: As someone who needs to be escorted to the beach or as someone whose departure removes a valuable asset from the group. And how did Leon view the group: Doomed without him or all good paddlers who really don't need him to go on? Even though Leon answered these questions in this concrete case, these question arise anew in any permutation of such a scenario. Bill's point about a minimum of 3 paddlers is important. Can any group let a single paddler leave on his own in conditions (who determines "conditions"?), no matter the paddler's expertise?

I may be wrong and may still be failing to understand CAM fully but I think that CAM could be interpreted either way: 1.)The weakest, most afraid, most concerned, the one who can't or won't go on (let's assume, as in Leon's case, going on is not mandatory and towing therefore not indicated) determines the course of the entire group (home or on). And what if 2 out of let's say 6 feel the same way about turning around? 2.) The cohesion of the group (with all its +s and -s) is the determining factor and therefore you can't just leave the group, asset or not. Of course, CAM assumes that everyone is an asset. But is EVERYONE really an asset EVERY TIME? 

WW may be a little different, since everyone goes in the same direction and the portaging paddler can still assist with rescues downriver if portagers and river runners coordinate. Of course, if they don't, then you have 2 separate groups.

Complicated stuff. Wait, maybe this is the solution: CAM, by virtue of what the first letter stands for, rules out that someone goes off on her/his own, no matter the reason. For that paddler, it then becomes a SAM (Solo or Single Adventure Model). Back to the question whether CAM was agreed upon by everyone at the beach.......

 

P.S.: Sometimes, even NSPN CAM paddles run the risk of morphing into multi-SAMs.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Inverseyourself

[leong]

On 8/5/2016 at 10:40 PM, rfolster said:

Leon, based on your last reply, I am sorry to say that your actions do not fall within those appropriate of a CAM participant.  A small part of CAM means that, once in a while, you may, for the good of the group, have to something that you might not necessarily would have done if by yourself or with a "different" group of paddlers. 

Rob,

Your advice brings up some awful memories for me. I used to paddle with a group that followed the BAM (Borg Adventure Model). No matter how strong I felt against a particular paddling route I was told that Resistance is Futile. The group would tell me to get my butt back into place in the pod and shut my mouth. Seems like CAM is no better for me. So I joined SAM (Self-involved Adventure Model). In fact, I’m leaving for a SAM trip in a few minutes.  Wave to me if you see me crossing the waves between Lanes Cove and Plum Island. I'll be in my orange over white QCC 700X today.

-Leon

 

[rylevine]

Leon,

I agree with Josko on this one. Knowing your skill set, my advice would be to accompany the group to M'head. I try to keep a copy of the Ferry schedule with me, but have forgotten it at times as well. You could have directed the group to the "pinch point" in the M'head/Salem channel just south of Coney Island and minimize the possibility for trouble with boat traffic. By the way, with the usual caveats about not being there...., I think the group was foolish in not heeding your advice in the first place; and probably were not correct in challenging you later - although that could have been part of a healthy "debrief" to be useful for later paddles with them.

Bob

[leong]

1 hour ago, rylevine said:

Leon,

I agree with Josko on this one. Knowing your skill set, my advice would be to accompany the group to M'head.

Then the group wouldn’t have leaned from my experience with risk analysis; i.e. when it’s smarter to quit.

Edited August 10, 2016 by leong

[Pintail]

Bob Levine and Billy Voss write quite sensibly, agreed; but regarding this comment earlier: <...We didn't discuss whether it was a CAM  or any other type of trip. But there was no paper work to say it was a CAM trip. We just paddled> -- I do not believe this has been read (or remembered?) by everyone?  So why do some apparently think that Leon was in the wrong?  I certainly don't think he was...the other paddlers <ought> to have heeded his opinion and his years' and years' worth of experience. 

[PeterB]

I would agree with Josko and Bill .  If I felt it  safe and sound for myself to complete the crossing but assessed that  it  was unsafe and unsound  for  others  in the group to so so  , I would've  made every effort  to stay with the group to offer assistance if needed. Regarding leaving the group; I think that general CAM principle  is that  significant decisions such as  a person leaving a group are group decisions ; I would only leave the group if there was buy- in  among the group for me to do so.   I would feel my responsibility to  both CAM and just  sound group paddling to stay with the group if at all possible, and would not feel right about making a unilateral decision to leave the group while still assessing that I was not at undue risk myself.  
As Bill said, I  also think the group sort of  had it backwards in claiming that Leon violated CAM rules : if one group member voiced concerns about a crossing  (in this case, an experienced group member at that)  it would be prudent and just sound  group practice  for the group   to keep itself together and abort the closing.   
   If I assessed  that  the groups actions were putting me at undue  risk, (that  staying with the group to assist would put me beyond my abilities to assist others  and manage myself in the event of some likely incident)  I would communicate that to the group and leave  the group under duress . Only in that extreme situation would I leave the group,  but  I would  like to think that  the group's  previous  communication and  actions  (awareness /avoidance/anticipation- beach briefing/ planning etc ) would forestall that happening in the first place. 
 

[leong]

2 hours ago, PeterB said:

As Bill said, I  also think the group sort of  had it backwards in claiming that Leon violated CAM rules : if one group member voiced concerns about a crossing  (in this case, an experienced group member at that)  it would be prudent and just sound  group practice  for the group   to keep itself together and abort the closing.   
  
 

Yes, obviously I agree with Bill as well. And that's why I aborted the crossing. Everything else is a lot of noise.

You guesstimate the probabilities of various adverse events and make your decision based on your own threshold for risk. Other’s may have different estimates or higher thresholds.  If your conclusion is different from the others then so be it. In real life CAM doesn’t have to be a suicide pact.

 

[josko]

1 hour ago, leong said:

 In real life CAM doesn’t have to be a suicide pact.

 

I wholeheartedly agree, but (with advance apologies for not getting it) why would any two paddlers in the world choose CAM as a model for their paddling trip?

Edited August 10, 2016 by josko

[leong]

9 minutes ago, josko said:

I wholeheartedly agree, but (with advance apologies for not getting it) why would any two paddlers in the world choose CAM as a model for their paddling trip?

We didn't formerly agree that we were literally following CAM rules. In fact, I don’t know what are the exact CAM rules for kayaking. But I assume that they include:

Safety.
Paddling Plans.
Destinations.
A sense of group awareness.

 

[leong]

Rob,

Other than this article I couldn't find anything on CAM, especially as it should be applied to sea kayaking. Can you point me to something else in writing?

Thanks,

Leon

 

[rfolster]

The Common Adventure Model is a conceptual model made of the composition of concepts which are used to help people know, understand, or simulate a subject the model represents. This article is also written by Ron Watters and attempts to address the fact that CAM has never been officially defined, and therefore adopted in various forms and methods by numerous organizations and universities.  There is not list of "laws", and there are no sport-specific variations of CAM, but instead a collection of concepts that has been adopted my NSPN to serve as a guide for paddling together.

 

More specific to this thread, a discussion from the original implementation of CAM included this:
"Shared responsibility" does NOT mean "NO" responsibility. A group that goes out with each paddler off on his own individual adventure is NOT a CAM trip. Communication has to be maintained, and decisions have to be made for the whole group. Just how the decisions are made can be a thorny problem, but they do have to be made.  The point is that we're not responsible FOR each other....but we are responsible TO each other. In most cases the leadership issue works itself out naturally...so long as everyone agrees that they're part of a group and not a free agent.