CAM Trips - Principles of Paddling in Groups

[Suz]

Here is a link to an explanation of CAM trips: http://www.nspn.org/trip_participation.htm

Why don't we discuss here what it means to be paddling in groups and what things we should consider. I will start with a few that I think are important:

Prior to launching, state the goals of the trip and establish the group. Understand what others limitations are.

Launch together then stay together within sight and hearing.

Group size should be kept small. If this can not be done, then within a group, there should be partners and partners are responsible for knowing where each other is at all times. If your partner needs to stop to eat or pee, then go with them but inform the group and land within sight.

(In a large group, unless partnered, you might not notice that someone left the group and another joined the group - keeping numbers the same but not individuals.)

Anyone else want to add a few?

Suz

[PeterB]

Here is a link to an explanation of CAM trips: http://www.nspn.org/trip_participation.htm

Why don't we discuss here what it means to be paddling in groups and what things we should consider. I will start with a few that I think are important:

Prior to launching, state the goals of the trip and establish the group. Understand what others limitations are.

Launch together then stay together within sight and hearing.

Group size should be kept small. If this can not be done, then within a group, there should be partners and partners are responsible for knowing where each other is at all times. If your partner needs to stop to eat or pee, then go with them but inform the group and land within sight.

(In a large group, unless partnered, you might not notice that someone left the group and another joined the group - keeping numbers the same but not individuals.)

Anyone else want to add a few?

Suz

More or less amplifying Suz’ points:

Beach briefing is key, all participants reach consensus as to trip goals and decision- making model for that day, (whether it’s one leader riding herd, buddy system, etc. )

Very good idea about group size. Large groups of paddlers pose challenges : group awareness, head counts, and communication on the water are all harder to maintain. Also, with large fleets of paddlers, interacting with other watercraft becomes an issue.

When bad things happen to kayakers, Very Often it has something to do with the group becoming separated in some way

In a group ,of, say 12, maybe three pods of 4 or two pods of 6 makes sense . This may also lead to better, more fun trips : E.g. those who wish to surf or rock garden can be one pod and those who wish to tour or otherwise stay clear of surf and rocks can form another. These pods can then agree on how or whether to communicate with each other while on the water.

As an aside, NSPN traditionally has a couple of large padding event events per year , such as our upcoming Solstice Paddle, also a group paddle after the General Meeting in the fall. While we are all tickled when lots us get together on the water , these events are scheduled with some reluctance as this rubs against general policy , which discourages really large groups on the water. The thinking is, one or two a year is okay and great for our club , but not to be encouraged as a matter of general policy. Weekly pods of thirty paddlers on the water is not a goal of NSPN.

[risingsn]

More or less amplifying Suz’ points:

Beach briefing is key, all participants reach consensus as to trip goals and decision- making model for that day, (whether it’s one leader riding herd, buddy system, etc. )

Very good idea about group size. Large groups of paddlers pose challenges : group awareness, head counts, and communication on the water are all harder to maintain. Also, with large fleets of paddlers, interacting with other watercraft becomes an issue.

When bad things happen to kayakers, Very Often it has something to do with the group becoming separated in some way

In a group ,of, say 12, maybe three pods of 4 or two pods of 6 makes sense . This may also lead to better, more fun trips : E.g. those who wish to surf or rock garden can be one pod and those who wish to tour or otherwise stay clear of surf and rocks can form another. These pods can then agree on how or whether to communicate with each other while on the water.

As an aside, NSPN traditionally has a couple of large padding event events per year , such as our upcoming Solstice Paddle, also a group paddle after the General Meeting in the fall. While we are all tickled when lots us get together on the water , these events are scheduled with some reluctance as this rubs against general policy , which discourages really large groups on the water. The thinking is, one or two a year is okay and great for our club , but not to be encouraged as a matter of general policy. Weekly pods of thirty paddlers on the water is not a goal of NSPN.

Well, here is my 2 cents ($3.50 w/ the coming inflation). Please understand, "I prefer clarity over agreement" DP

-I have always viewed the CAM system as an attempt at creating a politically correct paddling system. My guess is that it was created by or because of the influence of Lawyers. Basically in the CAM system, no one is responsible, everyone is responsible.

-If someone offers to lead a trip & details what that trip will be, then that should be the trip. If that's not the trip you want then you need to organize a trip of your own, or get someone else to do it.

-When I'm on a trip, I want to know who is leading so that I can decided if I want to be on that trip with that leader. In the CAM system you could start out on a trip with a competent leader and have someone incompetent becoming the leader later. I know coaches & guides who's trips or classes I would not participant in because they have poor risk assessment skills. They are excellent paddlers.

-In any surf training that I have run or participated in we have always paired up & as Suz (I think) said you always stay together.

-Referring to the incident that sparked this thread, a few months ago their was a long thread about the use of VHF radios for communication. I think what happened here ends that discussion. In rough condition you may not be able to use you VHF & brace or paddle as needed. We also see the limitations of VHF radios.

-I feel that if their were a leader for a group of ten or eleven he would have been able to keep track of the paddlers in the group. He probably would have been acting more as a leader & less as a participant. Its not always fun to be a leader.

- I remember months ago someone was lamenting the reduced # of official trips. It would be interesting to here from trip leaders that used to run trips & no longer do, why not? Has their been an increase in SAG trips?

To be clear, I was not on this trip (a bit of a drive from FL). My comments are based on what I have read about this incident & the CAM system. I'm sure that Genes fellow paddlers were besides them selves when they realized that they were missing a paddler. It is terrific that Gene is OK, and I very much appreciate his analysis of the mistakes that were made. Lastly, I understand that hind sight is 20/20.

[Suz]

Tom/ayong made some good points in his summary of what took place from the "trip report"

http://www.nspn.org/forum/index.php?showto...20&start=20

One of which I would like to discuss here: (copied from his post)

" Group protocol"when an experienced, well-equipped paddler, on a day with good conditions, indicates that he’s leaving the group, what’s called for? Perhaps it would help if we tried to develop a standard that one is either “in†or “out†of the group. When you start from the beach you are all “in†and stay “in†until you decide to leave, in which case you signal clearly that you are “out†and leave the umbrella. Some group dynamic has to account for individuals who are leaving because of a problem, in which case they need an escort…otherwise, we’re free to set out on our own, using our own judgement. But one’s responsibility to the group does demand a clear signal that you’re departing."

This is a really important point and when following the CAM model is up to the group on the water to decide how to handle. The group could decide to accompany the paddler or send a couple to join them or do as was done in this instance, acknowledge their departure and alert the rest of the group to their departure.

Rick S suggestion that a clear conversation of what they were going to do upon leaving and having the departing paddler indicate where they were heading would have been a great decision. Although I would have to say, I probably wouldn't have thought to do that considering he was so close to the launch site.

I think that the group on the water did all they should do. Alert the CG when they knew that the paddler didn't make it back to the car.

Suz

[Nancy Hill]

I became interested in reading more about the Common Adventure Model a few months ago and found a few papers online that were interesting. As I understand it, the CAM came about years ago as a way for colleges to avoid being sued by participants in college sponsored outdoor adventures. In addition to your excellent description of the CAM on the NSPN site, two good articles can be found here for those who do not understand the CAM in detail.

http://www.isu.edu/outdoor/CADefine.htm

http://www.isu.edu/outdoor/CALitReview.htm

They're lengthy, but interesting and informative.

Since decisions are to be made by the entire group in the CAM, that can present some problems with people who are spread out. Kayakers can be spread out from each other, making a discussion impossible. It might be a good idea to gather everyone together when a group decision has to be made (someone wanting to leave the group, for example).

-Nancy Hill

-Nancy Hill

[Gillian]

I think that the group on the water did all they should do. Alert the CG when they knew that the paddler didn't make it back to the car.

Su

Suz, I remember a picture of Kevin's first ocean paddle and you have this intense look, watching over him like a hawk in that photo t make sure he was safe - you can see it from the look in your eyes. I have a feeling back in those days if anyone on that paddle had wanted, needed, or decided to take a break on the beach, whether advised or not, that person would have returned to the group when finished breaking, bar none, no questions asked. The thought that the group would have carried on their paddle despite failed attempts at communication, and decided an hour and a half later to call the authorities noticing the paddler had not returned simply would never have even been a potential scenario. In the worst of all worse cases and the group ended up back on that beach an hour and a half later less 1 paddler, I sincerely think you would have leapt to action, organizing a party back on the water to search and organize a party back on the land to coordinate with local authorities.

I just don't believe you when you say the group did what it should because you guys were the ones that instilled in us newer paddlers the all importance of safety, planning, and fellowship on the water. We're saying now that we're a CAM club all that goes out the window??

If that's the case I say we drop CAM and go back to led trips where all of us can use the skills, knowledge, and follow the tradition of safety and commraderie that made me want to be a kayaker in the first place. NSPN'ers are supposed to be the ones who risk themselves to help another and I know it's true because I've heard all the stories of people who have put themselves in somewhat questionable situations if a fellow paddler was in distress. Never once was a paddler left and someone said, well according to CAM we did what we could.

It just saddens me that folks coming up in the ranks of NSPN these days will not have the pleasure of learning what you guys once taught us.

[PeterB]

I think that the group on the water did all they should do. Alert the CG when they knew that the paddler didn't make it back to the car.

Su

Suz, I remember a picture of Kevin's first ocean paddle and you have this intense look, watching over him like a hawk in that photo t make sure he was safe - you can see it from the look in your eyes. I have a feeling back in those days if anyone on that paddle had wanted, needed, or decided to take a break on the beach, whether advised or not, that person would have returned to the group when finished breaking, bar none, no questions asked. The thought that the group would have carried on their paddle despite failed attempts at communication, and decided an hour and a half later to call the authorities noticing the paddler had not returned simply would never have even been a potential scenario. In the worst of all worse cases and the group ended up back on that beach an hour and a half later less 1 paddler, I sincerely think you would have leapt to action, organizing a party back on the water to search and organize a party back on the land to coordinate with local authorities.

I just don't believe you when you say the group did what it should because you guys were the ones that instilled in us newer paddlers the all importance of safety, planning, and fellowship on the water. We're saying now that we're a CAM club all that goes out the window??

If that's the case I say we drop CAM and go back to led trips where all of us can use the skills, knowledge, and follow the tradition of safety and commraderie that made me want to be a kayaker in the first place. NSPN'ers are supposed to be the ones who risk themselves to help another and I know it's true because I've heard all the stories of people who have put themselves in somewhat questionable situations if a fellow paddler was in distress. Never once was a paddler left and someone said, well according to CAM we did what we could.

It just saddens me that folks coming up in the ranks of NSPN these days will not have the pleasure of learning what you guys once taught us.

From what I have read, there were no failed attempts at communication on Saturday : the paddler elected to leave the group, and clearly communicated his intention to do so. This has nothing to do with CAM , this scenario could have played itself out on a CAM trip, a led trip or even a professionaly run trip. Given that the put-in was within sight, it was entirely reasonable to assess that the paddler electing to leave the group could do so without incident. In 20/20 hindsight, of course it would have been better to have taken steps and have escorted that paddler back , but his subsequent errors in judgment, piloting, and navigatiion were so extraordinary that no paddler could reasonably be expected to have predicted them .

I took NSPN trip leader training a few years ago, in which I was taught that if a paddler wishes to leave a group and clearly states their intention to do so, the Leader has no obligation, legal, ethical or otherwise , to keep that paddler from leaving. So invoking the good old days of led trips is, I think, erronious.

What happened on Saturday was not attributable to failings in CAM, or any other model. and its a mistake to presume that led trips, or any other model , preclude the possibility of exactly the same scenario playing itself out.

[rossjb1]

Gillian, I am hoping that you are not suggesting that those of us on this trip threw safety, planning, and fellowship "out the window".

[Suz]

I think that the group on the water did all they should do. Alert the CG when they knew that the paddler didn't make it back to the car.

Suz, I remember a picture of Kevin's first ocean paddle and you have this intense look, watching over him like a hawk in that photo t make sure he was safe - you can see it from the look in your eyes. I have a feeling back in those days if anyone on that paddle had wanted, needed, or decided to take a break on the beach, whether advised or not, that person would have returned to the group when finished breaking, bar none, no questions asked. The thought that the group would have carried on their paddle despite failed attempts at communication, and decided an hour and a half later to call the authorities noticing the paddler had not returned simply would never have even been a potential scenario. In the worst of all worse cases and the group ended up back on that beach an hour and a half later less 1 paddler, I sincerely think you would have leapt to action, organizing a party back on the water to search and organize a party back on the land to coordinate with local authorities.

I just don't believe you when you say the group did what it should because you guys were the ones that instilled in us newer paddlers the all importance of safety, planning, and fellowship on the water. We're saying now that we're a CAM club all that goes out the window??

If that's the case I say we drop CAM and go back to led trips where all of us can use the skills, knowledge, and follow the tradition of safety and commraderie that made me want to be a kayaker in the first place. NSPN'ers are supposed to be the ones who risk themselves to help another and I know it's true because I've heard all the stories of people who have put themselves in somewhat questionable situations if a fellow paddler was in distress. Never once was a paddler left and someone said, well according to CAM we did what we could.

It just saddens me that folks coming up in the ranks of NSPN these days will not have the pleasure of learning what you guys once taught us.

Gilian,

First, I wasn't on the water on Sunday but working at KTP. As to what would I have done, I am not sure. A seemingly competent paddler who doesn't want to do what the group stated their intentions of doing - surfing - wants to leave, I would have asked if they wanted company back to the car perhaps... But maybe not if it was the the first time I had a chance to surf in awhile, things were fun and I had no relationship with the paddler, I probably would have just said good bye. Especially if said paddler only spoke to one/two of the larger group and seemed to know what they were doing.

TOTALLY different situation with Kevin on his first paddle out of Portsmouth, I do remember that well. He was in his new Sirius and his hips were locked so tight he couldn't let the tiny swell slide under the boat. He needed a watchful eye and didn't appear competent or wish to leave the group. I was fearful that something would happen to destroy his newfound interest in kayaking. He went with the group and came home with the group. If he said he wanted to leave early for a lunch date or whatever else, the group would have known it was due to being overwhelmed in conditions and so would have gone back to the launch with him and probably carried on paddling after or called it a day.

I think that large group paddles lead to a different dynamic - same as any large group. Any one individual does not feel responsibility to the whole group. People who you don't know and have no bond with are amongst the members. People then individually determine that their needs are more important than the groups needs and make more selfish decisions than would be done when it is your buddy. I can see how it would play out and the thoughts that would go through individuals heads....

As for what would I have done if I had gotten back to the car and found the previously departed paddlers car, I don't think it would have been to search for him on the outside of Plum Island. It might have been to search the inside but I doubt it. I think I would have made the assumption that he just was intimidated by the surf and decided to paddle alone up the inside of Plum Island on what was a lovely day. It would never have occurred to me that on a clear day he got lost in that area and was on the outside of Plum Island.

I will say that I love the camaraderie of the large group paddles - it bring energy and enthusiasm to the club. It gives the opportunity for beginner paddlers to meet more experienced and put faces to the names seen on the message board. I don't think they should stop, we should find ways to do them safely.

I remember my first Solstice paddle and being in a large group and being paired with Marjorie Woodwell who told me it was her first paddle after her good friend, Jim Traverso, died paddling in Nepal and she was fearful. We looked out for each other on that paddle because we were paired together and in the large group it made a bond. We lunched on the island and when it was time to paddle back, we found each other on the beach to depart again and make sure we were with the rest of our group rather than another one.

I remember the picnic under the pavilion back at the beach and the funny kayaking stories told by Rick S that made me want to learn more.

I remember being welcomed to the group by many individuals.

We are that group now and we will continue to be that group. The way to do that is to create the bonds within the group and they start at the beach briefing with the introductions and pairing up of people. It is a simple step but it creates a sense of "belonging" or ownership of the group. That's what NSPN is all about. Let's continue that legacy.

Suz

[Gillian]

I remember being welcomed to the group by many individuals.

We are that group now and we will continue to be that group. The way to do that is to create the bonds within the group and they start at the beach briefing with the introductions and pairing up of people. It is a simple step but it creates a sense of "belonging" or ownership of the group. That's what NSPN is all about. Let's continue that legacy.

Suz

cool i'm really glad to hear that you and hopefully everyone feels that way and that this is what will be passed down to everyone . . .ps. thanks for watching kevin like a hawk that day

[alcoons]

I remember being welcomed to the group by many individuals.

We are that group now and we will continue to be that group. The way to do that is to create the bonds within the group and they start at the beach briefing with the introductions and pairing up of people. It is a simple step but it creates a sense of "belonging" or ownership of the group. That's what NSPN is all about. Let's continue that legacy.

Suz

cool i'm really glad to hear that you and hopefully everyone feels that way and that this is what will be passed down to everyone . . .ps. thanks for watching kevin like a hawk that day

Guess I am missing something. Maybe I skipped a posting. Please help. Do we all feel that pairing is appropriate and required? Clearly if pairs must be formed and must stay together we might feel safer but it certainly limits the kind of activities we have. Does each pair have to go together to play in the rocks? What if one member of the pair no longer wants to? If a pair is behind are they OK? Who knows if they have rescue skills? I fully support CAM. I have paired people in certain kinds of non-kayak trips I have run, but I do not see it as appropriate for all members on all NSPN paddles. What I hope is that we will raise the awareness of all paddlers in the group. We all need to be counting heads, noticing and pairing with lagging paddlers, being near someone trying something demanding, sharing our conditions with others, etc.

[subaruguru]

Gillian, I am hoping that you are not suggesting that those of us on this trip threw safety, planning, and fellowship "out the window".

Ross,

That's NOT how I read Gillian's comment, yet I can empathize with with any defensive feelings the group members have during this discussion. Clearly she spoke in in a generalist manner.

Cogent discussion is ensuing on this important topic. Let's keep the heat on simmer....

Ern

[subaruguru]

In a group ,of, say 12, maybe three pods of 4 or two pods of 6 makes sense .

A few weeks back an unwieldy group of 14 of us a bit too casually (again, 20/20) split to 8+6, which was fine until one of the forward 8 decided to lay back unannounced and joined the 6. It was uncomfortably long before we in the downsized group all realized the regrouping.

The combination of my failing mnemonic skills, inability to rubberneck in heavy chop/swell, as well realization that 8 at the dinner table reaches the tipping point for enjoyment has led my thinking that we simply shouldn't ever have a pod larger than 8 without clearly defined sub-pods, preferably with 3 as a min critical mass for safety.

I personally dislike the myriad complications of threesomes, and am most comfortable with min group size of 4 for companionship and safety.

It's clear that defining these manageable 4-8 person (sub)groups must be done onshore BEFORE launching.

What's very unclear to me is how to FURTHER subdivide once on the water when interest, fatigue, skill, etc., require reduction of a group. The red flag that pops in my mind when an 8 becomes a 7+1, regardless of the quality of adequate communication, is perhaps a useful warning; perhaps it becomes a "herring" only in hindsight, after exhaustive confirmation of safety?

Although I'm speaking rhetorically I'd feel much more comfortable seeing 6-8's divide to 2-3min subgroups. (e.g., in Gene's scenario TWO other paddlers would've accompanied him to shore, then returned to reform the larger group or continued as a partnered pair, ensuring that no-one was alone EVER.)

I guess I'm suggesting that ALL pods/groups/subgroups be defined as having 2-8 members.

Thoughts?

[subaruguru]

Guess I am missing something. Maybe I skipped a posting. Please help. Do we all feel that pairing is appropriate and required? Clearly if pairs must be formed and must stay together we might feel safer but it certainly limits the kind of activities we have. Does each pair have to go together to play in the rocks? What if one member of the pair no longer wants to? If a pair is behind are they OK? Who knows if they have rescue skills? I fully support CAM. I have paired people in certain kinds of non-kayak trips I have run, but I do not see it as appropriate for all members on all NSPN paddles. What I hope is that we will raise the awareness of all paddlers in the group. We all need to be counting heads, noticing and pairing with lagging paddlers, being near someone trying something demanding, sharing our conditions with others, etc.

Hi Al,

See my comment to Peter's re group size. We're just starting this discussion....

Ern

[Nancy Hill]

I think PeterB hit the nail on the head when he said:

<snip> this scenario could have played itself out on a CAM trip, a led trip or even a professionaly run trip. Given that the put-in was within sight, it was entirely reasonable to assess that the paddler electing to leave the group could do so without incident. <snip >, but his subsequent errors in judgment, piloting, and navigatiion were so extraordinary that no paddler could reasonably be expected to have predicted them .

<snip>

What happened on Saturday was not attributable to failings in CAM, or any other model. and its a mistake to presume that led trips, or any other model , preclude the possibility of exactly the same scenario playing itself out.

Under the circumstances described in this and other posts, there was no reason to expect that Gene was going to be in danger by paddling back alone, plus there is nothing about the CAM that obligates a paddler to stay with a group. I've gone on trips where I made it clear to others that I had to leave early and would paddle back alone. It was no big deal. Possibly, the vague description of the trip plans (maybe circumnavigate the neck, find some surf, etc) were a factor in Gene's decision to go. If it had been planned as a "surfing" trip, he may not have gone. Good surf with the tide just right is not always easy to find on a nice day, so I can see the attraction of staying and playing. Perhaps those who are interested in looking for good surfing opportunities should make it clear to others (before they go to the trouble of driving to the put-in) that they might be spending a majority of time in the surf, if they find it. Then, if other non-surfers want to go, there might be rule that there has to be at least 2 or more non surfers that can split off from the main group and stay together. If I had been there and someone wanted to go to shore, I may have offered to accompany them, but on a clear, calm day in an area close to the put-in, I would probably stay and play like everyone else did. Since it was not planned as a surfing trip (correct me if I am wrong), it may have been nice if the surf time was limited and the group (or part of the group) continued on to paddle in calmer waters as a courtesy to Gene.

Of course, I wasn't there and I am not certain of the exact reasons Gene chose to leave. I could imagine that this type of thing is likely to happen again - someone going on a trip and getting themselves into a situation that was not expected - and wanting to leave. That's why it is important for the trip plans to be very clearly stated and if they change it should be with all in agreement.

-Nancy Hill

[rick stoehrer]

I think PeterB hit the nail on the head when he said:

<snip> this scenario could have played itself out on a CAM trip, a led trip or even a professionaly run trip. Given that the put-in was within sight, it was entirely reasonable to assess that the paddler electing to leave the group could do so without incident. <snip >, but his subsequent errors in judgment, piloting, and navigatiion were so extraordinary that no paddler could reasonably be expected to have predicted them .

<snip>

What happened on Saturday was not attributable to failings in CAM, or any other model. and its a mistake to presume that led trips, or any other model , preclude the possibility of exactly the same scenario playing itself out.

Under the circumstances described in this and other posts, there was no reason to expect that Gene was going to be in danger by paddling back alone, plus there is nothing about the CAM that obligates a paddler to stay with a group. I've gone on trips where I made it clear to others that I had to leave early and would paddle back alone. It was no big deal. Possibly, the vague description of the trip plans (maybe circumnavigate the neck, find some surf, etc) were a factor in Gene's decision to go. If it had been planned as a "surfing" trip, he may not have gone. Good surf with the tide just right is not always easy to find on a nice day, so I can see the attraction of staying and playing. Perhaps those who are interested in looking for good surfing opportunities should make it clear to others (before they go to the trouble of driving to the put-in) that they might be spending a majority of time in the surf, if they find it. Then, if other non-surfers want to go, there might be rule that there has to be at least 2 or more non surfers that can split off from the main group and stay together. If I had been there and someone wanted to go to shore, I may have offered to accompany them, but on a clear, calm day in an area close to the put-in, I would probably stay and play like everyone else did. Since it was not planned as a surfing trip (correct me if I am wrong), it may have been nice if the surf time was limited and the group (or part of the group) continued on to paddle in calmer waters as a courtesy to Gene.

Of course, I wasn't there and I am not certain of the exact reasons Gene chose to leave. I could imagine that this type of thing is likely to happen again - someone going on a trip and getting themselves into a situation that was not expected - and wanting to leave. That's why it is important for the trip plans to be very clearly stated and if they change it should be with all in agreement.

-Nancy Hill

nope. on a trip with a guide or a professionally led trip he would NEVER be alone. period.

[Suz]

Guess I am missing something. Maybe I skipped a posting. Please help. Do we all feel that pairing is appropriate and required? Clearly if pairs must be formed and must stay together we might feel safer but it certainly limits the kind of activities we have. Does each pair have to go together to play in the rocks? What if one member of the pair no longer wants to? If a pair is behind are they OK? Who knows if they have rescue skills? I fully support CAM. I have paired people in certain kinds of non-kayak trips I have run, but I do not see it as appropriate for all members on all NSPN paddles. What I hope is that we will raise the awareness of all paddlers in the group. We all need to be counting heads, noticing and pairing with lagging paddlers, being near someone trying something demanding, sharing our conditions with others, etc.

I'm not suggesting that ALL trips need to have pairs within the trip. I think it helps when you are in a large group to do this. It doesn't mean that you have to do everything at the same time and together but it is easier to find one individual within a larger group whose pace is similar and interests.

I also think that you can NOT micromanage a CAM trip. You can not regulate safe practices within our model. Even within the OLD NSPN system we had rules and plans and regulations but no ability to enforce them and no time or manpower to manage the oversite.

We as members can make suggestions how we think members should run trips. We can not mandate. We can simply choose to paddle with people whose practices we like.

Suz

[Gillian]

I also think that you can NOT micromanage a CAM trip. You can not regulate safe practices within our model. Even within the OLD NSPN system we had rules and plans and regulations but no ability to enforce them and no time or manpower to manage the oversite.

Suz

Hey you're absolutely right about not being able to regulate a CAM trip . . . but something has changed since we implemented CAM as compared to the old trips where there was a clearly defined trip leader . . . even after Rick S. organized that huge CAM practice paddle last summer, where everyone agreed to shared responsibility while keeping in tact things like beach breifings and head counts, it seems like we're still struggling with how far to "lead" and not lead in a CAM trip . . . perhaps the nature of CAM tends to cripple decision making when someone in a difficult decision making situation would normally make a quick assertive decision, but now with CAM the same person is not enabled to be assertive? I'm not sure CAM in practice is working out so well so far . . . just kind of trying to think this through . . . sorry for the ramble

[rylevine]

nope. on a trip with a guide or a professionally led trip he would NEVER be alone. period.

I'm new to active paddling with the NSPN. I have paddled all over Salem sound alone for some years now without mishap, but have become aware that it is dangerous. My suggestion would be that on NSPN trips nobody ever paddles alone. If an individual has to leave, then somebody in the group takes the initiative to leave with that person. If the intent is to return to the group, then two people leave with the individual so that a pair returns to the group. This is burdensome, but I think it should be part of the cost of group paddling which afterall has a lot of benefits.

Bob

[G. S. Shear]

First - I feel awful about what Gene went through, and I've been really impressed with his courage in sharing the specifics of his ordeal. Second - I think Ross has contributed so much to our community by initiating many of our trips and it sucks that he may now be feeling defensive or attacked. Both these guys have been windowshaded by these events, and neither of them should need to apologize.

Everyone that day got into a skinny boat and chose to paddle in predictably complex waters. Don't we intentionally make ourselves vulnerable in these situations? Isn't it my conflicted relationship with fear and my faultering efforts to manage the risk that specifically attracts me to kayaking.

CAM can be improved and that is the value in the critical discussions going on now. What CAM will not give us is what I'm feeling tonight - a renewed commitment toward empathy and the need to really take of each other on the water. I also feel the need to suspend my impulse to judge or blame? Or put another way... there but for the grace of god and a forgotten chart go I.

[jeffcasey]

Peanut gallery here:

1st: Gene - I'm glad to hear that you came home ok. Really glad.

2nd: Anybody who thinks that this can't happen to them is nuts. Once you "anchor" your perceptions on one mistake (i.e. Essex vs Ipswich entrance), it is easy to rationalize any number of clues that should correct the mistake into confirmations of the mistake. This goes double once you are tired. Experience helps, familarity with the territory helps, and being skeptical of your own decisions helps a lot - but you never can be fully proof against this - it is human nature. The best one can do in this regard is to stay in groups - it is less likely that all will make the same mistake at the same time, and once a discussion starts (Essex vs Ipswich), charts and such will usually sort out the correct answer quickly. (Scott C. used to do a Coast Guard group-think exercise during leader training on this very point....)

3rd: Over a decade or so, we've seen NSPN go from wild show-n-go trips to formal trips to chaos to CAM. All have advantages and disadvantages, but the common thread is that we are safer in groups than alone. Sometimes it is a pain to paddle with groups, but we do it for a number of reasons, including safety. This trip appears to have shaken us up a bit - as it should. If we take a lesson home from this it might be that since we chose to paddle together on a trip, we should make an effort to stay together.

[ayong]

In considering the CAM model and the events off Pavilion Beach, think about the context .

All of the participants were experienced, fit, mature kayakers with good equipment. Conditions were extremely benign, outside the surf zone, and there were safe landing beaches within a few hundred yards in two directions, with hundreds of people on those beaches and many recreational boaters everywhere.

When a CAM group includes individuals who could slide outside their comfort zone, the vigilance level should—and would—go up.

Given the setting, if someone we know to be competent and responsible chooses to leave the pod, giving a matter of fact signal, what should reasonable kayakers do?

I do agree that every outing should have a beach meeting; that we did not do.

Tom

[tyson]

In considering the CAM model and the events off Pavilion Beach, think about the context .

All of the participants were experienced, fit, mature kayakers with good equipment. Conditions were extremely benign, outside the surf zone, and there were safe landing beaches within a few hundred yards in two directions, with hundreds of people on those beaches and many recreational boaters everywhere.

When a CAM group includes individuals who could slide outside their comfort zone, the vigilance level should—and would—go up.

Given the setting, if someone we know to be competent and responsible chooses to leave the pod, giving a matter of fact signal, what should reasonable kayakers do?

I do agree that every outing should have a beach meeting; that we did not do.

Tom

That is roughly the point I was going to bring up. I've probably been in the bay only about 5 times prior. ...but the day in question, except for the sand bar, was the most benign conditions I've ever seen there.

An other point: How far is the definition of separated?

Some of us were in the meat of the waves. Some played in the edges. Some entertained themselves just outside the waves. ...at what distance is a person separated from the group?

Out of site would be a useful discriminator. But if Gene had not gone around the back side, he would have been in sight and reasonably near by.

So, how flat and how close for an experienced paddler to not need an escort?

Under what conditions is a paddler no longer part of the group and so doesn't need an escort? ...or are we really supposed to end the group's trip to chase around a person who doesn't really want to be part of the group any more?

There has a been a lot of language termed in absolutes. Life is not that way.

Cheers!

Ty

[Pintail]

<...I have paddled all over Salem sound alone for some years now without mishap, but have become aware that it is dangerous...>

Bob (Levine), that statement is unfounded: there is nothing "dangerous" about kayaking solo, if you are reasonably competent and able to look after yourself. There is added <risk> -- of course! Tell Chris Duff or any of the great solo kayakers that they shouldn't be paddling alone and you'll doubtless be met with laughter. I try to paddle almost every day, after work, and I do it alone, most of the time: if I was not comfortable with that, I would rarely paddle.

Your original statement (above) plus the idea that most of us have about VHF being a lifeline are fallacious and misleading. Regarding VHF, we all need to remember that range is almost non-existent when transmitting from a lowly sea kayak -- for instance, when paddling alone along the northern side of Cape Ann, do you imagine that the USCG are going to hear me if I call them? Of course not! There are several miles of granite in between us, plus high ground. Merrimac is miles away, too. Neither do I expect many lobstermen to be monitoring channel 16 -- I rely on my own skills that I have tried to hone through many years.

This CAM model should work perfectly well when we understand completely its full implications -- ConnYak have been running their show this way for ages. I believe Suzanne is perfectly correct when she says that if someone <wants> to leave the group then there is nothing the group can do about that -- NSPN is not in the business of <controlling> the individual. There are, of course, precautions we might think about taking under such circumstances; but <group communication> is the all-important thing. I mean <all-important>.

We have to beware dogma and always trying to find <the> correct solution to a given problem: the reality is that there are more ways than one to skin a cat! (As we all know). Same with kayaking rescues or whatever it is we are discussing (clipping on to decklines, VHF usage, whatever...)

We shall all learn from this particular event, I trust. As Jeff (Casey) said: when the sh*t hits the fan, it can involve anyone.

[Phil Allen]

Hi All;

I was away when all the excitement that inspired this discussion happened, and have gotten to read the TR, incident analysis and then this thread in whole. I'll probably re-state some covered points but here's my limited two cents worth:

A ) my feeling about leadership on CAM trips is that everyone should act as a "silent" leader. No one gets to sit back and give up responsibility to another. Just because I'm following a course set by someone else in the group doesn't mean I shouldn't be navigating on my own, watching for trouble to avoid and evaluating the condition of my fellow paddlers. Nothing stops EVERY member of the group from keeping a head count, for example.

B ) mutual responsibility has implications about how we paddle as a group. For example, if one is off the front and can't see the other group members in a quick glance; one can't count heads and isn't acting as a silent leader. There are plenty of other examples, but I'm trying to keep this short.

C ) communication needs to be clear, concise and confirmed. It doesn't matter that you use a radio, whispers, hand signals, smoke signals, sonar, etc. But the communicating parties need to confirm that they understand each other. This seems to be where things often go wrong. A good way to ensure that the information is conveyed accurately is to involve multiple parties. If I say something to a fellow paddler, and they misunderstand my intent, they may act on inaccurate information. If I say the same thing to multiple people within the same group, the odds are much better that they'll correctly get my information. Multiple people involved also increases the odds that someone will ask a clarifying question if confused.

D ) Continuously evaluate the INTENT of the trip and the ability of your group to carry it out. The implication is that there's a clear intent at the beach (conditions expected, distance, rocks, surf etc), and that the members of the group are able and willing to work with that intent. Nothing says that the intent remains fixed. Conditions, group and individual performance and desires change within the day.

E ) In general, I disagree with the idea that a member that choses to leave is no longer the responsibility of the group. In the crazy paddler situation, or confused aggressive person needing but refusing first aid, you dont walk away because they're resisting aid. You stay and observe until conditions change and aid either isn't needed or can be safely provided. Similarly, if someone wants or needs to leave the group I believe it's still the groups responsibility to insure that person arrives safely at the put-in. That may mean an end to the rest of the paddlers trip, or it could just mean observing their travel from a distance, but I feel the group has responsibility to its member from BIB to BOB (butts on beach). If someone can't do the full trip because they need to leave early, then either they shouldn't come or the trip should be modified in advance to put them on the beach as a member of the group. Inconvenient for the rest of the paddlers, but best IMHO for the safety of the group.

So having said all this, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the folks agreeing that they're paddling in the same place, but they're not a group. Some say, "there's no WE in surfing". Assisted rescues are hard and often unsafe in the surf zone, so one is on their own. That's fine, as long as I know in advance that that's the model we're using that day.

Phil