kayak legislation

[rick stoehrer]

surely some of you forum searching guru's can find the thread on kayak legislation....was there something in there about REQUIRING certification at the guide / outfitter level?

[MPARSONS]

Here is a link to the bill:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H00664

The bill would require anyone holding himself out as a kayak instructor for hire to have certifications. It doesn't say guides or outfitters must.

[rick stoehrer]

Here is a link to the bill:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H00664

The bill would require anyone holding himself out as a kayak instructor for hire to have certifications. It doesn't say guides or outfitters must.

Brilliant! Thanks.

Now...as I don't remember much from my jr high school civics classes (they were, after all, a very long time ago) how do we get that bill amended so that the term "instructor" is inclusive of guides/outfitters and then passed into law in Massachusetts?

That standard is reasonable, minimal and is a palatable amount of government oversight.

[MPARSONS]

Brilliant! Thanks.

Now...as I don't remember much from my jr high school civics classes (they were, after all, a very long time ago) how do we get that bill amended so that the term "instructor" is inclusive of guides/outfitters and then passed into law in Massachusetts?

That standard is reasonable, minimal and is a palatable amount of government oversight.

I think you could run for office under the banner of the RICK (Rational Instruction for Canoes and Kayaks) Party.

While I think it is a good idea for everyone to keep an eye on this legislation, I'm not particularly worried about it. It has been introduced the past several years and to my knowledge it has never gone anywhere other than some hearings. I get the impression that this is something the sponsor is introducing to appease a vocal constituent, but the sponsor isn't interested in pushing for passage. My guess is that the sponsor realizes the issue is more complicated than it first appears, but his constituent really, really wants him to introduce it.

[rick stoehrer]

I think you could run for office under the banner of the RICK (Rational Instruction for Canoes and Kayaks) Party.

While I think it is a good idea for everyone to keep an eye on this legislation, I'm not particularly worried about it. It has been introduced the past several years and to my knowledge it has never gone anywhere other than some hearings. I get the impression that this is something the sponsor is introducing to appease a vocal constituent, but the sponsor isn't interested in pushing for passage. My guess is that the sponsor realizes the issue is more complicated than it first appears, but his constituent really, really wants him to introduce it.

It's the bills where they talk about pfd's, whistles, flags, etc. that start to get a little lame brained and are more a cause for concern - when the know nothings start dictating to us, the folks that are involved, have experience and knowledge...then I get twitchy. A law written in such a way to allow for the reasonable standard set within the community/industry - I don't have any objection, I think it's a good idea.

My personal concern and impetus for getting this passed into law would be that there is then at least a minimum standard set before outfitters and folks could say "I'm a guide" or some such thing. Having folks with little experience "guide" folks with no experience is sub-optimal for all...the clients don't know the risks and assume the person they are paying has an idea of what those risks are and how to mitigate them - the person "guiding" may be naive enough to think that they know what they're doing. The outfitter/shop may be in the same undereducated/inexperienced boat at best or running the operation in such a way as to maximize profit (think lot's of paddlers and few "guides"...less expense to run that trip) without too much concern/emphasis on safety.

I think that some legislation and state oversight would go a long way towards resolution.

I'm on the side of MORE legal restriction? This is a change....

[tyson]

I would very much prefer to see the certifications of the ACA and BCU promoted such that "customers" look for and demand them. We have created a world where everything is assumed to be safe and people don't need to think . I don't believe that the creation of a society where people don't take any responsibility for their own security has helped us.

[rick stoehrer]

I would very much prefer to see the certifications of the ACA and BCU promoted such that "customers" look for and demand them. We have created a world where everything is assumed to be safe and people don't need to think . I don't believe that the creation of a society where people don't take any responsibility for their own security has helped us.

Customers might not know enough to demand ACA or BCU certs. That requires a level of education/experience that they do not have. It'd be nice to have that come from the ground up, but it isn't going to happen. When folks don't know...they don't know.

As far as customers shirking personal responsibility, I don't feel that is the case any more than you shirking responsibility when you pay someone to build your house - you pay for a service that you don't have the experience or capability to perform yourself and so you pay someone with the reasonable expectation that the job is being done by a capable professional with the experience to get it done regardless of any possible/probable hiccups in the process.

All of which isn't to say that anything outside the ACA/BCU is categorically bad, dangerous or anything like that...it's just that those organizations have standards and standards and practices are what's required for legislation.

Like some other laws, it would be virtually unenforceable. The effect though would be that folks that run trips outside of the parameter of the law would be breaking the law. And if you break a law and something happens on a trip, I can't imagine your insurance company is going to be too happy about paying out...on top of which, you've just about proven "gross negligence" right out of the gate and that opens you up to all kinds of civil liability. As a result, even folks that might otherwise run fast and loose with some community/industry standards might think twice when they understand that they no longer have the umbrella of an insurance policy to hide under and are personally responsible.

So, it does come back around to personal responsibility...folks would be forced to understand that when you take folks on the water in exchange for payment, you are responsible and that you better know what your doing. I think this only strengthens the sport/community/industry.

[eneumeier]

Rick: I think you have a solution in search of a problem. The legislature has enough to do without worrying about whether someone claiming to be a kayak guide or instructor knows diddly squat about the sport. I will continue to encourage my state rep to oppose any and all kayak regulating legislation and I doubt any of it will be adopted in my lifetime. Liz

[tyson]

As far as customers shirking personal responsibility, I don't feel that is the case any more than you shirking responsibility when you pay someone to build your house - you pay for a service that you don't have the experience or capability to perform yourself and so you pay someone with the reasonable expectation that the job is being done by a capable professional with the experience to get it done regardless of any possible/probable hiccups in the process.

I typically agree with you. However, your example fails. I recently did hire someone to build a house. Before doing so, I checked references, examined some of his work, and made sure that he understood my vision of what I wanted built. I felt it was my responsibility to do so and couldn't afford to be careless. People should be expected to be even more careful with choices that effect their lives instead of "just" money.

FYI: I'm very happy with the house that was built.

[rick stoehrer]

Rick: I think you have a solution in search of a problem. The legislature has enough to do without worrying about whether someone claiming to be a kayak guide or instructor knows diddly squat about the sport. I will continue to encourage my state rep to oppose any and all kayak regulating legislation and I doubt any of it will be adopted in my lifetime. Liz

this is the same legislature that trots out the pfd/whistle/flag argument? the same legislature that i think voted on whether or not to serve fluff in schools? yer right, too busy with those weighty issues of the day.

maine managed to put together licensing (something i am not suggesting) to ensure at least a minimum level of experience and understanding...maine is less busy than massachusetts?

you can encourage your state rep anyway you see fit - next time you see some turkey leading a group with a dozen or more new paddlers blocking a channel or drifting into stationary docks or some other stupid, dangerous thing that doesn't help themselves or the sport though you should think of yourself as enabling.

it would seem to me that legislation like this would line up with the stated goals of this club.

[rick stoehrer]

I typically agree with you. However, your example fails. I recently did hire someone to build a house. Before doing so, I checked references, examined some of his work, and made sure that he understood my vision of what I wanted built. I felt it was my responsibility to do so and couldn't afford to be careless. People should be expected to be even more careful with choices that effect their lives instead of "just" money.

FYI: I'm very happy with the house that was built.

your right - a house is a poor example and hardly on par with heading out for the day in a boat but i'm not sure you could perform the same due diligence regarding on outfitter as you could with a general contractor. my point was that you are paying for the expertise. in an arena where i think there is little background and nothing tangible to review i don't see how you make the same sort of well informed decision.

and i'm glad you like your house.