Moulton Avery discusses why experienced outdoors people can make very bad decisions. A very worth while read for all of us. It's in this month's SK e-newsletter. http://seakayakermag.com/current-NL.htm

I'd be interested in hearing comments concerning his observations.

Mikekayak

This URL is only good through the first week of December. After that time you will find the article in the November 2010 SK e-newsletter found in the archived e-newsletter section. http://www.seakayakermag.com/articles_REVIEW-E.htm

I salute Sea Kayaker Magazine and Chris Cunningham for posting Moulton Avery's thought-provoking Newsletter article. Longtime readers of Sea Kayaker will recall Moulton's blockbuster Cold Shock article in the Spring 1991 issue of SK, a bombshell piece that literally poured cold water all over the "wear the suit only in Challenging Conditions" theories of the sea kayaking gurus of the day, many of whom still cling to their disastrous notions. This Newsletter article, along with SK's publishing of Chris Brooks' article on Cold Shock and Swimming Failure in 2008, represents a continuing emancipation of SK from the ongoing TAPS stricture of almost never mentioning wetsuits and drysuits--the bright yellow caution label inside my brand-new sea kayak only tells me to "dress appropriately for weather conditions....." WEATHER conditions! Nothing about focusing on water temperature conditions, and nothing about what constitutes appropriate dress. Sad.

Moulton Avery was a longtime, active member of ANorAK, the Association of North Atlantic Kayakers. As such, he was a potent voice within ANorAK during ANorAK's vigorous campaign during the 1980s and 1990s to fully air the whole issue of cold water safety and to emphasize the role that regular, habitual wetsuit/drysuit use plays in promoting sea kayaking safety, especially by introducing newcomers to seeing their peers routinely wearing wetsuits and drysuits. Our local paddling group here in New Jersey, the JSSKA, is an example of how effective that peer example is, as virtually everyone in our group paddling cold water routinely wears wetsuits/drysuits as the normative response to cold water. What the early gurus of the Sea Kayaking Industry failed to recognize was that cold water itself was the challenging condition requiring habitual wetsuit/drysuit use.

Again, great article, and kudos to Moulton avery and to Sea Kayaker Magazine.

And Kudos to you as well, Strange Magic, for your tireless and long-standing work promoting Cold Water Safety.

I just re-read Moulton Avery's "Anatomy of a Bad Decision" with renewed interest, in light of recent articles, editorials, and letters to the Editor. I too narrowly interpreted Avery's notions on the first reading as contextualized for cold water paddling only, when in fact, the push/pull between reasoned risk-analysis and that of intuition and emotional-apparatus decision making is so apropos to many kayak-related incidents, especially involving advanced and expert paddlers.

I'd like to see more of Avery's type of risk-theory brought to light where there is application for paddlers. As I assess various kayak incidents that cross my attention for possible contribution to Sea Kayaker Magazine, I'll certainly be considering these elements for signs of compelling lessons when determining what stories are worth pursuing.

The dichotomy between experienced, proficient and theory-soaked paddlers versus their apparent lack of preparatory and precautionary practices and poor launch decisions, as well as when and why errors of judgment are made as they transition from safe boundaries to potentially unsafe ones, is something that a mature sea paddling community needs to examine. I'm doing that in my own paddling life right now.

I'm not sure a framework for an integrated model of thinking exists in a activity where so much depends upon individualized skill-sets, personal risk-aversion thresholds (that truly vary significantly), regionally-inclined equipment/safety-gear choices, an evolving navigational ethos, and a society-based pressures that bring the importance of our poor adventure decision-making consequences increasingly into the light of lawmakers and those agencies looking at S&R funding options. Certainly though, one can't throw out intuition for cognition nor visa versa.

I also don't know if there is a better way to present safety articles so that there is a standard by which each incident can be judged for comparative values, much the same way kayak stability curves are given inventory or car magazine publications compare performance metrics. The narrative approach is an abiding format to safety articles and benefits from independent review in certain cases or where that has become the expectation, perhaps.

Whatever the scope inclusive with Sea Kayaker Magazine, it too must evolve while remaining relevant to each succeeding generation of paddler. The e-newsletter and this online forum has certainly come a long way and I with it.

Many years ago, I obtained a very slender volume about "seamanship". Unlike, say, Chapman's, it wasn't intended to exhaustively cover all elements and phases of the topic, but just give the most basic, elementary notion of what seamanship involves--which is not getting you and your boat into trouble. Don't let your boat run aground or crash into things. Don't let it catch fire. Be careful about having holes in the hull. Know (always) where you are. Keep an eye on the weather and the weather forecast. Avoid sea conditions that seriously threaten your boat. And if you find yourself in those conditions, how to get out of them, or to survive them. And so on--basically, Don't Screw Up. The basic premise was that the idea of seamanship, of boating, of being a mariner, was to get from place to place on water, or to just go out and have fun, but to do it in a way that minimized risk of boat, life and limb. Refreshing idea!

This ties in with my notion of sea kayaking being the most basic and primitive form of marine boating, and the kind that is closest to the fine line between safety and danger. But the activity is very often presented as yet another way in which the supreme individualist can pit him/herself against the elements or against their own limits, or whatever--all very romantic and 19th-century. The result is going to be a certain number of deaths, hospitalizations, search-and-rescue episodes--and the resulting tales, in SK and elsewhere. I'm prepared to accept the deaths, etc.; the question, as Doug suggests, is to what degree is law enforcement prepared to allow/tolerate a continuing stream of clearly preventable "accidents" on the water, without taking action to curtail the activity?

How does one participate ethically and with responsibly in an activity where the participant(s) wish to push the envelope? With river paddling, an objectively dangerous sport, we have swift water rescue certification and a group of dedicated, typically well-trained paddlers self-policing and generally taking care of buisness when it goes wrong. While outside agencies do come in from time to time to help there doesn't seem to be an outcry like there is for the apparent lack of seamanship sea kayaking brings into question when the CG, Forces and police get involved.

I don't have the answers. Here in Canada, the paddlesport community have organized and I'm sure there are discussions in back rooms about promoting better public perception. Boating, watersports, including paddle safety and deaths, have just undergone a huge review. Certainly young males don't seem to develop that part of the brain that mitigates against risk until later in life. Us older guys have no excuse, apparently.

I believe that an important factor in public perception of various activities is the notion, rightly or wrongly held, that the activity is "inherently" dangerous. I think the public at large holds rock climbing to be inherently dangerous, also whitewater paddling, free diving, and, were they widely practiced, also would be highwire walking, the handling of poisonous snakes, etc. The public is thus prepared to accept fatalities (which are rare, as these activities are not widely practiced) as just part of the way things are.

The public also knows that hundreds and thousands of people die while driving cars and riding bicycles--they easily visualize, and often see, the impacts, and again just regard the accidents and deaths as the way things are.

But recreational boating is differently regarded: we visualize sunshine, breezes, sparkling waters, the sailboats gliding swanlike across the bay, the canoeists plying their paddles, the jet skis whizzing about like waterbugs, the happy waterskiers, the powerboats with their fishermen or sun worshippers aboard..... How can this be reconciled with lone kayakers out on wave-torn seas, caught in swift and turbulent currents under dark and foreboding skies, struggling alongside their capsized boats, frantically calling out for succor?....... What kind of people are these--thinks the public mind--who so misuse this wonderful opportunity for safe and peaceful recreation? Shouldn't something be done?

This is my fear: that someday those upon whom falls the responsibility for crafting and administering boating regulations will decide that sea kayakers must be subject to some sort of limits or strictures, in order to save them from themselves. I hope this never happens; I sense that there is still a strong bias towards unhampered individual responsibility, but I think the Sea Kayaking Industry could certainly do a much better job of realistically presenting sea kayaking, and its real possibilities for danger, to the public at large that it is so eager to market to.

I rarely get an adverse reaction from most of the people I come in contact with in regard to sea kayaking. Most of them say, hey that looks like fun. In my memory there has been only a couple of fishermen in their fishing boats that expressed any reservations about the ability of my craft to deal with the conditions at the time. They had no knowledge at all about kayaks.

The last thing any politician, or government official need concern themselves with is kayaking. I'm sure they have enough to do with many other issues now days.

Certainly that's the hope. And certainly sea kayakers are not dying en mass. But those of us who have spoken with representatives from the rescue coordination agencies have heard loud and clear their displeasure with a number of salt-water based rescues: paddlers out in conditions getting in too deep, paddlers attempting long crossing in vessels they don't see as appropriate for that, etc. Fortunately, the regulators are the politicians and we do have influence and the appeal of reason.

There's a big push with intermediate fast-tracking these days where instant experts sprout up eclipsing the true bolster of paddlers diligently developing advanced capabilities while at the same time making it difficult to hear the voice of true experts. I don`t fault the effect of phenomena like Justine`s This Is The Sea DVD`s, but the core capabilities to deal with adventurous water takes a bit more than a course or two and a little affirmation that its okay because seeking wild water is now legit.

Even straight forward touring in open water or day-tripping in current-dangered waters requires proficiencies that are sought with time and effort by careful degree. Hopefully I’m on the same page here with some of you who know that good paddlers know their ocean environment really well. I can’t believe the times I’ve seen paddlers who are surprised by conflicts of skill and conditions, with those conditions being especially anticipatory with a little sea savvy. What did Chris call it a while back? Waterman, that was it. This applies to the careful kayak mariner with keen seamanship practices to those who seek playtime in the waves.

Any way you put it, government needs to keep its fingers out of kayaking and every other form of recreation. There is enough for government to do that is legitimate and there is too much governmetn already. Sorry to get all politcal.

Some "political" issues: Who Pays? I'm looking forward to Paddlesport 2011 here in Jersey, "The Largest Canoe & Kayak Show on the East Coast", next weekend. Marcus Demuth will be one of the presenters--the conqueror of the Falkland Islands, and now talking about his recent circling of the British Isles and of Tierra del Fuego. Demuth knows what he's doing, and has an excellent article in the Paddlesport mailer on Trip or Expedition Planning. Demuth urges the would-be expeditioner to bring both the SPOT personal communicator/locator AND a "real" EPIRP, and to make sure you know exactly what sort of rescue facilities will be available to you, should you need them. As it turned out, after have been forced onshore in a particularly remote part of Tierra del Fuego, Demuth and his party were rescued only by being seen by a private helicopter--this after being told via satellite phone that the Argentinian Coast Guard "does not own helicopters or all-weather lifeboats" and that "their boats were not made to rescue us in the violent conditions which raged without end in sight". I'll try to ask Demuth who paid for their rescue, after all was said and done.

One can pose legitimate questions, "political" questions: should people who get into trouble offshore or in the wilderness be presented with a bill for rescue services rendered? Should the taxpayers, like Magooch may be eager to do, pick up the tab? Should would-be adventurers, or even just weekend sea kayakers, be compelled to buy rescue insurance policies? I've got to buy auto insurance; the mortgage holders insist people buy homeowners insurance; yet there is an ongoing spasm about compelling people to buy health insurance. Tricky questions, maybe tricky answers. Inquiring minds want to know, any way you put it.

I don't really want to continue in a politcal vein, and I don't know what New Jersey requires in the way of insurance, but my state only requires liability insurance--as opposed to collision and comprehensive. I'm not sure I think that is even the business of government, but there is a huge difference between forcing one to be accountable for the damage they do to others as opposed to requiring insurance for damage to ones self.

As far as making people pay for being rescued; I think that would depend on the nature of the activity that triggers the rescue and what resources are consumed in the process. I know that in extreme cases, people are held liable for expenses. I have doubts about how many of those bills get paid.

My prime point is that I don't want government involved in regulating things that don't need to be regulated. I can only see negative results for kayaking and personal liberty for government to involve itself where it is not needed.

Magooch, if the Coast Guard or the state Marine Police, or your local police or fire or whatever governmental agency, taxpayer-supported, come out to rescue you, Government is involved, whether you like it or not. Question: shall governmental agencies involved in rescuing people out on the water be disbanded? Should they present bills for their services? Should standards be set? Should insurance be mandated? Do you have any actual facts or ideas to offer?

By the way, Demuth's Tierra del Fuego party was seen and rescued as the result of a pure chance encounter with that private helicopter.

I don't know about all parts of this state, but there really is no formal rescue units on the water, other than the Coast Guard and in these parts, by the time the Coast Guard could make it here from the nearest base, they'd probably be too late. Our Sheriff Dept. does have a boat, but it is normally only in the water to investigate a drowning, or maybe a crime related to the water. They have no ability to respond in an effective and timely manor.

I would not favor the state, county, or local government involving itself with water rescue. It wouldn't be practical; the expense could not be justified and there simply is no money for it. I should say that if such a program were to be initiated, I can guarantee you that the money would have to come from some kind of boating license. There already is a sticker required for power and sailboats, but the purpose of that is strictly for state revenue. This state is over $5 billion dollars in the hole and getting worse by the day and I for one am not interested in contributing one more penny toward that failing enterprise.

Government cannot and should not be the nanny.

I had a personal experience a number of years ago when I flipped a small sailboat. A city cop saw it happen and came ripping down the highway--siren blaring and lights flashing. My interest was to right the boat and get on with it. The cop was insisting that he drag the boat on shore over the rocks. I told him very firmly that he would not be dragging my boat over any rocks and that he could be on his way, thank you. I also had a couple of encounters with the Coast Guard while sailing in my big boat. One young guardsman told me to not sit on the gunnel as the boat was heeled over. I just politely sailed away.

The point is that I'll take my chances. I don't need, nor want govenment to wipe my nose.

Thanks for your nice comments on my article, NordkappMan. Speaking of which, lad, I'm must say that I'm rather fond of me own Nordy, a 1984 HM.

After some forty odd years of kicking around, one way or another, in the great outdoors, I find myself captivated by this intersection of emotion and reason. For me, it's been kind of like that situation where you've never really taken notice of people driving a certain type of car, and then, you decide you're going to get one for yourself. Now you see them all over the place. That's kind of how it's been for me with the emotion / cognition interface. For the past ten years or so, the more I've delved, the more I've seen.

Just this past weekend, I went on the first of a series of distance training trips organized by our local 600 member sea kayaking club, the Chesapeake Paddlers Association. Before we even left the dock, I witnessed the Trip Leader in a tough wrestling match with that old tarbaby Judgement Call. He was faced with a tricky and ambiguous situation involving a very unexpected change in the weather forecast, some unknowns about individual skills within the group, and the conditions on a portion of the route we planned to take. Nothing about it was clear cut.

Some people, looking at the situation, would have considered his decision to have been a no-brainer. It wasn't. As I wrote afterward:

“if you wanted to test the acumen, experience, judgement, and safety-consciousness of a sea kayaking trip leader, you couldn't have asked for a better situation. It was more than just good, it was classic.”

Given the ambiguous circumstances, it would have been so easy for him to have rationalized going for it, and believe me, people make that mistake all the time, because the mental pressure to just go ahead with the plan – whatever it happens to be - is tremendous.

To his credit, he did what so many people are somehow unable to do when the moment arrives: He backed off of the planned outing, modified it, and then moved forward with a safer trip. All this took place under the pressure of time - at the put-in, no less. As he wrestled, more cars with kayaks on top were arriving every minute, and I watched in fascination as the whole process unfolded.

There's never anything easy or straightforward about the kind of judgment call he had to make. It doesn't matter what certifications you hold, or how much you've read, or how many courses you've taken, or years you've paddled, or what your level of experience happens to be - it's always really hard to back off.

I think this area of metaknowledge, which is growing more sophisticated with each passing year, applies to all outdoor activities, and, for that matter, to most indoor ones as well. The more I learn about it, the more amazed and fascinated I am.

Moulton Avery