djlewis Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 At the risk of throwing more raw meat to the pack, here is an item that I had not seen before. The kayak bill now includes a "teach wet exit" requirement. > The measure, which passed the House this week, would also require > kayaking schools to teach and practice the method of bailing out of an > overturned kayak before allowing students to head to open water. It > now goes to the Senate. http://tinyurl.com/p392a I guess I have come around to the skeptics' viewpoint, that all this micro-legislating on the basis of a couple of incidents -- tragic though they were -- is really a bad idea on a number of counts. BTW, the wet exit thing is a good idea in the abstract, IMHO, but legislating it is ridiculuous. There are many more lives to be saved elsewhere by legislation that won't happen for a variety of reasons, mostly too political to raise here. Of course, you don't need "open water" to drown for lack of a wet exit. It could happen in a pool. I wonder if the law will apply, for example, to NSPN practice sessions. --David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlewis Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 Here's the bill that got combined with Gomes pfd/whistle/compass measure. I still haven't found the combined bill. I see that there is more there, including requirements for first aid and cpr training by professional instructors. Does NSPN need to make sure we are not subject to this law, should it pass? http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht04pdf/ht04551.pdf --David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Nystrom Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 The combined bill is a real mess and will create a lot of problems, particularly for outfitters, as discussed in previous threads. As for us, most of us are not "professional instructors", so we needn't worry. However, I see a potential gray area for those with instructor certifications who are conducting free classes for the NSPN. What status do they fall under? This bill strikes me as a typical case of legislators lumping together a bunch of provisions that are hard to argue against individually, but whose combined effects are problematic. It's also classic "nanny government" trying to protect every idiot from themselves. There is no way they can enforce the regulations on paddlers as the state agencies have almost no resources to do so. It makes a lot more sense to use those limited resources for tasks like arresting drunks who are a danger to all water users than for checking to see if kayakers are carrying whistles. STOOPID! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnHuth Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Legislation based on a single incident is not a good idea. If there's are repetitive incidents, then that's another matter. FWIW....I know Tom Leach. He's well meaning - I won't try to defend his legislation.Here's a story - I was kayaking last summer in Nantucket Sound. A dense fog rolled in, and I was paddling by compass. As I approached some rock groins, I found out that two boys were lost in the fog. The police, coast guard, and harbormaster were all called out. I had a portable fog horn, and blasted it a bunch of times. One of the boys heard the sound and followed it to the shore. When I told Tom this, he came up with an idea for the classic "lost in the fog" report he has to respond to - bring a bunch of cars right up onto the beach, and start honking the horns. Here's an idea which isn't legislation, but is a "best practice" for search-and-rescue folks. The "lost in the fog" scenario happens very regularly on the Cape. I daresay that it'll happen three or four times this summer on my little stretch of the Cape alone this summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_Crouse Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 >FWIW....I know Tom Leach. He's well meaning - I won't try >to defend his legislation. His intentions may be noble, to save people, but it won't work. The two girls who drown were violating the existing law, no one was able to give them a ticket or better yet stop them and educate them. I don't see how anyone can think that expanding a law that isn't getting enforced will make anyone safer.Tom also quotes all sorts of incorrect figures about kayak sales on his pro mass pfd bill website and uses ridiculious quotes and inaccurate statistics from Tim Ingrim (aka: the spoonson guy). Tim is a well know spammer and general nut case.It's too bad Tom Leach didn't talk to any kayakers before pushing for this legislation. Maybe we could have come up with something that would benefit kayakers and the harbor masters, enviromental police, and coast guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlewis Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 I would imagine that the official leadership of NSPN -- which is reputed to be one of the largest, most active paddling clubs in New England, if not the US -- would swing quite a bit of weight if they made some concerted, official effort to influence this legislation. Also, the club is unarguably pro-safety, as evidenced not only by our practices and web site, but also by the brochures that we made and distribute at events (and thanks to all who make all those things happen.) That would give us consierable moral standing to argue for good sense with the legislature.So, how about it board and officers -- there's lots more that the club could do beyond beating our collective breasts on our own web site, or writing individual notes to legislators.--David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Nystrom Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 ...that were sent to these legislators, courteously offering to work with them the last time they proposed this crap, it's obvious that they don't want our help. This legislation is nothing but pandering, "feel good" nonsense. It's designed to make them look concerned and give them something to add to their resumes, not to promote public safety. It's all about appearances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlewis Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 Letters and e-mails are good -- but they are basically counted by the pound. I was thinking of more direct and proactive action. Start developing ~official~ contact with state legislators, via direct calls from the NSPN president or board members, working contacts through local politicians, etc etc. I'm sure we can find some sensible legislators who would realize that this is a bad idea. I'd be happy to make an initial contact via the Arlington area reps, who tend to be pretty level-headed. (And for what it's worth, Arlington seems to me to have the highest density of sea kayakers of any inland community). But the officialdom of the club are the ones who will have to do the heavy lifitng after initial contact. It will take some time and energy beyond just firing off an e-mail. Contact me if you are interested.As a major club engaged in exactly the activities affected by this legislation, I think NSPN has a legitimate voice to be heard. It will take some work, but I cannot imagine a better way to spend some of our institutional energy.--David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eneumeier Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I went to the hearing last year, as an individual, and testified against the bill. I do not have time to work on it this year.If there are people who want to get involved, I suggest finding out when the public hearings will be and getting permission - in advance - to bring some kayaks. One of the many problems with the bill is "kayak" is not defined. I asked the staff and they could not tell me. The legislators are not aware of the array of boats available and the related safety issues, e.g. rec boats with large cockpits in waters where they could be swamped by boat wake or waves. Help them understand why this proposed "one size fits all" bill will not help safety.Liz N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlewis Posted June 25, 2006 Author Share Posted June 25, 2006 That's great, Liz -- you actually tried to do something rather than sit around here and complain.But... as I said, the combination of (a) the club speaking officially, with ( its obvious tremendous emphasis on safety could have an impact for greater than any individuals acting alone, no matter how eloquent. I can see how the speech might go...Ladies and gentlemen of the legislature. NSPN is a kayaking club with x-hundred active members in the Boston area. As a club and as individuals, we are among the local and national leaders in our concern for and promotion of safe kayaking practices. Look at these brochures, which we distribute at blah blah; look at out website; look at our training materials; etc etc. But, this legislation, in our opinion, would not only do little or nothing to actually improve kayak safety and reduce fatalities and other incidents among kayakers. It would, in many ways, set back the cause of kayaking safety by reducing the credibility of existing laws, which are not even enforced and in fact, are virtually unenforceable, and by holding the legislature up to ridicule among kayakers as out of touch with the day-to-day realities of individual and commercial kayaking. Etc Etc. What we would like to see instead, and would wholeheartedly support and particiapte in, are activities aimed at the education of kayakers in safe practices. Etc etc.Also, how about joining forces with other clubs and outfitters to get some more muscle? Get some advice or even services from a lobbying firm that helps non-profits, etc etc.Hello, NSPN officials -- any thoughts?--David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanK Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 David,It’s all well and good to volunteer somebody else’s time, but this effort in my opinion incorporates a lot more time, effort and energy than you’re putting forth.Firstly, when is the hearing? Who is going to be there? What kind of press will be involved?Secondly, what does the general membership believe? Have you done a poll to the membership as to legitimately put forth the membership’s opinion?Thirdly, how will this legislation truly impact the club? Is it a statement for the kayak community as a whole, or from a group of rather sophisticated kayakers, who predominately are not affected by this legislation?Forth, will doing any political lobbying affect our 501©(3) status? As sometimes political lobbying will revoke your IRS designation.Fifth, who is going to do the legwork, because the Board has its hands full with everything else the club is trying to do?Sixth, did you consider any implications it may make to the ACA as we are an ACA affiliate organization?Seventh, there are more implications than just a statement from an educated club, have we considered them all?I do appreciate your original post, as it does bring club awareness to the Bill’s status, which mind you hasn't been changed since March. However, please don’t put a charge to the Board in this manner without truly detailing out its total impacts. Sean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlewis Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 Hi, Sean:Buncha good questions... thanks.>It’s all well and good to volunteer somebody else’s time, >but this effort in my opinion incorporates a lot more time, >effort and energy than you’re putting forth. As I said, I am willing to do some significant legwork to help, but only if the board commits to doing the heavy lifting, since only as an official act of the club, IMHO, will this have any effect.>Firstly, when is the hearing? Who is going to be there? >What kind of press will be involved? That's all part of the information we'd collect, if we -- as a club -- decided to do this.>Secondly, what does the general membership believe? Have >you done a poll to the membership as to legitimately put >forth the membership’s opinion? Excellent point. I am assuming, of course, that the vastly predominant opinion of club members is against this legislation and in favor of education instead. There seems to be come concern about this starting down a slippery slope that could actually impact even "sophisticated kayakers" at some point. In fact, I was probably one of the few holdouts, but have now swung around to that apparent majority position. Adding the wet-exit provision made me realize that we may be on that slope already.Predominant opinion is different, of course, than having the membership actually favor the club spending money and energy on this. On the other hand, when ever has the club been asked to vote on what we should do as a club? It seems to me that the board makes those decisions pretty much on its own -- after taking some kind of reading of the club's desires, I presume, but not a formal one, as far as I can tell. If there's ever been any even semi-formal poll about whether we should, for example, start a while new initiative in assessing trip leaders, run commercial classes, distribute safety brochures, or any other major activity, then I have certainly missed it.>Thirdly, how will this legislation truly impact the club? >Is it a statement for the kayak community as a whole, or >from a group of rather sophisticated kayakers, who >predominately are not affected by this legislation? Another good question. But one of the nice things about NSPN has always been a bigger view of its mission. For exmaple, the "sophisticated kayaker" in the club does not need the safety brochures -- that initiative is, I presume, to educate the kayaking public at large. In fact, it's precisely in the same vein as the proposed legislation -- make kayaking safer for everyone -- just, in our (possible) collective opinion, a better way to go about things than passing ill-considered laws.>Forth, will doing any political lobbying affect our >501©(3) status? As sometimes political lobbying will >revoke your IRS designation. Really terrific question -- a good reason to consult a non-profit consulting firm, should we deem this a worthy cause. My guess is that, as long as we are non-partisan, attempting to influence legislation that affects our domain of interest is OK. I could be dead wrong on that, but it's easy enough to find out.>Fifth, who is going to do the legwork, because the Board has >its hands full with everything else the club is trying to >do? No comment on that. I'm sure that board members do put in significant time, and I thank you all for that. But it's a matter of priorities and effectiveness.>Sixth, did you consider any implications it may make to the >ACA as we are an ACA affiliate organization? Easy enough to ask the ACA. Someone there should know about these matters. Gee, maybe they even lobby on such things themselves and could help us out.>Seventh, there are more implications than just a statement >from an educated club, have we considered them all? Seems like a good start here. Also, it's another good reason to get help and advice, work with other organizations, etc -- if, of course, we decide this is a place to put energy.BTW, my inclination is that it ~is~ a good place to put energy in terms of our public advocacy, and that given the heated and passionate discussions on the forum, is something the membership might well favor. >I do appreciate your original post, as it does bring club >awareness to the Bill’s status, which mind you hasn't been >changed since March. However, please don’t put a charge to >the Board in this manner without truly detailing out its >total impacts. Thanks. And I appreciate your thoughtful response and opportunity to raise some of those issues and impacts.--David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEL Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 >>>Forth, will doing any political lobbying affect our >>501©(3) status? As sometimes political lobbying will >>revoke your IRS designation. >Need to distinguish between political activity and lobbying as those are different activities with regard to the tax code. 501©(3) organizations are free to engage in "insubstantial" lobbying. Insubstantial referring to the extent of the lobbying activity compared to all other activity of the organization. As you might suspect, defining "insubstantial" in any given setting can be a quagmire, but I rather doubt the activities here would be considered anything other than insubstantial.If the commercial kayak folks are not doing much about this legislation, then not sure why NSPN should carry their water so to speak. However, if it would seriously impact the ability of the club to sponsor classes by professionals, especially those who are not based in MA; then it would directly concern the club by negatively impacting its ability to carry out its agenda.Ed Lawson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 It would seem apparent that this bill has been crafted without the consultation of professionals in the field : guides, outfitters, retailers, instructors. Generally (i.e. vaguely) speaking: whatever would help bring them into the loop would be a good thing. My understanding is that the kayak touring/teaching industry has found from experience that beginning sessions with wet exits & immersion (i.e starting participants off cold and wet) has a negative effect on the overall teaching/learning experience, especially in "off-season"/colder months, so other models for teaching this essential skill are being explored. One can foresee this kind of bill having the the unintended effect of driving beginners away from the very classes and instruction that they need, and could lead to more beginners setting out on their own, which is ,probably, just the situation which occurred on the cape last fall. In the unlikely event that legislation such as this were actually enforced, it would probably: Have little or no effect on serious paddlers or determined beginners.(NSPN, for example, would probably not be affected in a meaningful way) Decrease the number of people taking classes &instruction , especially in colder water (around here: @ 7-8 months of the year) Damage the professional/commercial end of the sport. (outfitters/instructors) Have little to no impact on the (already small) number of kayaking accidents/fatalities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Nystrom Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 We can add them to the litany of problems with this legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eneumeier Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I believe what Ed said is correct and add that NSPN can do education, including education of legislators, without running afoul of our not-for-profit status.I do suggest that people write individual letters about their concerns. That does have an impact.Liz N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I had some facts wrong in my previous post. The incident on the Cape that I alluded to was on Columbus Day 2003, not last year. The paddlers who died had taken a kayak class. My Apologies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.