In the December 2010 SK (Letters), Jack Izzo offered a ringing endorsement of "adventurous risk-takers who...challenge life and reality in all its dimensions". In seeking to defend his longtime friend, Tsunami Ranger Michael Powers, from censure, Izzo extolls entering potentially dangerous situations, whether the motives are from "good, solid, admirable reasons" or rather "just for the pure fun and excitement of it." In a final peroration, Izzo concludes,"Let those who will not venture into uncharted waters pray for those who do, and rejoice in their daring whether successful or not. These adventurers represent the cutting edge of humanity and we need them. God needs them. God bless them!" WOW!

As examples of risk-taking undertaken for those good, solid, admirable reasons, Izzo lists investigations of electricity, flight, medical research. He reminds us that surgeons and astronauts risk death, their own or others', every time they practice their professions. I think we can all concur in this aspect of Izzo's assertion. I'd add Shackleton's astonishing open-boat journey from Antarctica's Elephant Island to South Georgia, in a heroic attempt to save the rest of his expedition, and also Amundsen's carefully planned and executed assault on the South Pole.

But for Izzo to lump together both sorts of risk-taking--that done in order to save lives or expand human knowledge, along with that done for "pure fun and excitement"--into a blanket advocacy of risky behavior, is to do violence to the concepts fo knowledge (including self-knowledge), judgement, prudence, and responsibility.

Once we allow for these romantic notions of boys (usually boys) at play, of daredevil feats and stunts, of romping--as Jon Krakauer has grippingly documented--"Into Thin Air" or "Into the Wild", then the erosion of long-held standards of rational, reasonable behavior while recreating ourselves in the Great Outdoors, is complete. for sea kayaking, this means detaching our activity from the traditions of seamanship--that long-established body of behaviors and knowledge that permits us, in sea kayaks or ocean liners, to travel widely and safely upon open waters.

Seamanship involves both an understanding of the nature and hazards of the marine environment, and of the nature and limitations of ourselves and our vessel, so that we maximize our chances of safely completing our voyage. I've long asserted that, since sea kayaking is the most basic and primitive form of marine boating, we sea kayakers must be the most prudent and most knowledgeable mariners on the water. to fail in this is to invite the unnecessary capsizings, rescues, fatalities, that lead to our being held in contempt by more powerful or more experienced boaters or boating authorities--"Yeah, some idiot out there in a kayak!"--which may lead to curtailing our very freedom to paddle.

So I find Jack Izzo's "feeble effort" to defend his friend Michael Powers to be both unconvincing and very dangerous for the long-term health of sea kayaking. Rather than extolling and glorifying risk-taking on the water in order to indulge our egos ("the pure fun and excitement of it") or to keep to an imposed itinerary, we should instead be repeatedly attempting to instill the basic concepts of seamanship, of being mariners upon wide waters, among our fellow sea kayakers. Failure to do this, in pursuit of romantic self-glorification, may have dire consequences for our chosen activity.

I think your overall point should be that there is always the danger of losing our freedom and liberty as long as there are people who think they know what is best for all and are determined to control everyone.

Don't take that to mean that I disagree with prudence and good decisions.

Magooch, I look forward someday to your actually engaging in the substance of one of these discussions, but meanwhile I welcome your endorsement of prudence and good decisions. And thanks for your input on what you believe my overall point should be, though I already am pretty comfortable with what my overall point is.

You might be overstating the danger to the sport of kayaking just a bit. The fatality rate in kayaking is fairly low compared to many other outdoor activities so we are a fairly low on the list of dangerous things people do. Something like 30-40 deaths per year out of 11+million participants. In a addition, while warning of the danger of the govt intervention on our chosen recreational activity likely fits with your political ideology, there is little evidence implying that actually is going to happen.
On a related note, your description of 'Into Thin Air' as describing 'daredevil stunts' implies your own tolerance for personal risk is low and perhaps you refuse to accept others may have a much higher acceptable level. From what I've observed, this is the case with the majority of sea kayakers. I think this causes the reaction of the sea kayak community to analyze to death every incident and to amplify any mistakes made by the victim to assure themselves 'this could never happen to me if I have the right gear/training/plan' because they need to keep the perceived risk low to continue enjoying the sport. You don't see this sort of reaction in other recreational activities which have much higher fatality rates like climbing. Each death or serious accident in climbing is just a sobering reminder of the risks but there is a general acceptance that not every accident is preventable.

Nick, thanks for your input. For a more targeted discussion of where sea kayaking stands in the public mind, as opposed to perceived riskier activities like climbing, free diving, caving--or even cycling--you might want to follow the thread under Safety--Lessons Learned that is titled The Anatomy of a Bad Decision.

Speculations on my possible political ideology aside, perhaps people's perceptions of the opinion in which sea kayakers is held is colored by where they live and paddle. Here in New Jersey, the waterways are crowded with powerboaters much of the year, many of whom take a dim and contemptuous view of the colorful flotsam that is vying with them for use of the waterway. While I was waiting quietly and prudently at channelside for traffic to slacken one summer day near Barnegat Inlet, an otherwise normal and sensible-looking gentleman piloting a powerboat shouted the single word "IDIOT!" at me as he roared by. He clearly felt I had no business being there on that water in that kayak. Others hereabouts report similar incidents. Should Push come to Shove (for whatever reason) and state boating law administrators are pressured to make decisions concerning priorities of waterway usage (I am talking here about tidewater/open water, not ponds and streams), then I fear that sea kayakers will not have a big reservoir of public sympathy and support compared to the "big boat" people.

Additional serious input welcome!

I'm going to go with Nick here. You've made clear on other posts/threads that you have a low opinion of kayakers heading into challenging conditions and how that affect the general boating populations perception of kayakers. I also think you knuckled under on the closure of that canal in NJ.

I find it interesting that you want to bring up Jon Krakauers books. Many in the mountaineering community found Into Thin Air to be an exculpatory account of his involvement of the 1996 Everest disaster and Into The Wild was about a kid who drifted along getting into trouble but didn't have the knowledge or experience to see it until it was too late (and for some reason goes on into the author's experience on Devils Thumb).

Even prudent mariners seek out adventure and put themselves and their craft in harms way. Sailors wanting to circumnavigate and headed into 60S - also known as the Roaring 60s because of the fetch being limited by the circumference of the earth there - to go around Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope. Why should I in a kayak not seek out my own adventure on my own terms.

Yours is not the only busy waterway and the animosity that you encounter is not particular to your area. We experience it here on the west coast as well. Power boaters rightly get frustrated by kayakers; many kayakers don't know anything about the COLREGS and the Rules of the Road. Many kayakers think they have the right of way and view themselves as special and that is a failing of the kayakers not seeking to educate themselves. However, many power boaters don't Have that knowledge themselves, so kayakers are not unique in their ignorance.

Finally, in response to the animosity, I meet many more power boaters that look upon the exploits of kayakers in dynamic water with respect and a bit of envy. Our ability to dance upon waters that would surely take their boats onto the rocks loos - and is - fun. The key to the whole problem is education on the part of both parties. Jerks abound on both sides but their numbers are small, just loud. So take heart in what your kayak allows you to do, go play in those rock gardens that make the power boater sweat. Surf the waves, ride the tide races and let it calm your heart and provide sustenance to your soul for you do not fear the water the way that they do.

My thesis is in regards to those sea kayakers who clearly fail in their ability to cope with those challenging conditions they set out to master. I have no problem with those paddlers who are properly prepared, physically and judgmentally, to paddle Deception Pass or around Cape Horn for that matter, and I utterly reject your notion that I have a "low opinion" of such paddlers. My point is this: the sea kayaking community should do what it can to ensure that on-water risk-seekers understand the need for that level of ability and judgment required to come back safely from such outings and not require the attentions of rescuers, Coast Guards, ambulances, helicopters, or morticians, and thus draw unwelcome and possibly damaging attention to ourselves and our activity. I hold that required level of ability and judgment to be the hallmark of seamanship and of being a mariner piloting a sea kayak.

As for sailors venturing into far southern latitudes or other mariners crossing the oceans in tiny sailboats or rowing craft, the essential difference that leaps out (you know this) is that these mariners, in a hard chance, can lie ahull, possibly sealed into the cabin (if there is one) and ride out foul weather, while hoping for the best. A sea kayaker paddling a standard-issue sea kayak must remain both awake and constantly engaged in maintaining stability to survive an extended period of rough water; otherwise he dies.

Nick's figure of 11+ million kayakers is of no relevance to this discussion---we're talking about sea kayakers paddling sea kayaks on tidewater/open water; a tiny subset of all kayakers.

Regarding the Point Pleasant Canal, Mark, you should reconsider. If you would you allow stand-up paddleboards, say, on this canal, you'd allow skateboarders on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Also, please indicate in more detail why it is interesting to you that I brought up Jon Krakauer's books. It seemed to me that Into Thin Air showed clearly what results when a formerly obscure and little-practised activity becomes within the realm of wealthy dentists who can shell out $40,000 to be taken to the top of the world's highest peak.

I'm enjoying this (but not as much as paddling).

It's not quite true that the sea kayaking community is the only group that dissects each accident. The American Alpine Club publishes an annual "Accidents in North American Mountaineering". Years ago I was the book buyer for REI and this was always one of our top selling books.

Personally I view sea kayaking accident reports not as a way of saying I'd never do something that stupid but rather; are there changes I can make to my equipment or situations I should be more aware of, or skills I should improve that will make me and those with me safer paddlers. An example that comes to mind is a recurring accident theme from the pre bulkhead days of sea kayaking. Float and gear bags often shifted in a capsize either preventing a safe reentry or causing the bow to sink. By having access to accident reports we simply added a means of securing our float bags so that wouldn't happen to us should we end up in trouble.

For all our concern about government regulating kayaking to date the group that government has come down on the heaviest would have to be those operating power vessels. Many states now require that those operators pass a test in order to obtain a required operators permit and most states require and annual fee paid on each vessel.

If we want to have input concerning future regulations on sea kayaks I believe as an industry we should be aligning ourselves more with the boating industry and less with the outdoors industry. When government starts thinking boating regulations those are the organizations that are contacted for input, and currently we don't have a very strong voice in those organizations.

What are going to be the consequences of this 'unwelcome and damaging attention'?
What exactly should the kayak community do to ensure this sort of incident doesn't happen?

Hopefully, governments at all levels will busy themselves with the things that are really their business and leave kayakers and all other recreationalists the heck alone.

I don't really have any problem with Strange_Magic's exuberance for seamanship, and I'm sure he is right that the less negative attention we bring upon ourselves, the less chance there is that officialdom will inflict themselves on our sport. My only point is that as much as I don't want government interference, I also wouldn't be happy about folks from within kayaking to appoint themselves as regulators. At some point, people must make decisions for themselves and live, learn, or perish as a result. The thought of a nanny state gives me the creeps.

Mike, you raise an interesting point about the sea kayaking industry (SKIN) aligning itself more with the boating industry and less with the outdoor industry, in order to maximize its clout with those regulating on-water recreation. A problem arises, though, due to the schizophrenic nature of sea kayaking itself, as exemplified from the get-go by the contrasting approaches of founding gurus John Dowd and Derek Hutchinson. As recently as 2008, Dowd downplayed the importance of rolling, saying it was not "an essential skill" and that an emphasis on rolling was responsible for driving potential sea kayakers away from the activity. Dowd went on to stress that sea kayaking involved (or should involve) Just Plain Folks paddling beamy and heavily-laden boats from one scenic destination to the next. Dowd also told us that he sat on his wetsuit as a seat cushion, and would, in a capsize situation, shoot off his biggest flare and then struggle into the wetsuit.

By contrast, Hutchinson urged a very high level of kayaker skill, especially rolling and bracing, but, strangely, followed Dowd in sneering at dressing for immersion: "People that I paddle with don't dress for immersion. We dress for Eskimo rolling. But you don't have to roll because you don't capsize. There's no such thing as a capsize, it's just degrees of lean."

So sea kayaking developed two opposing brains in one body-- sea kayaking as just a larger, grander version of paddling the old family canoe; or sea kayaking as a specialist activity of a highly trained and skilled few. Both of these views are remote from the concept of sea kayaking as the most basic and primitive form of marine boating, requiring a high degree of seamanship, knowledge, and judgment (my view).

It won't be easy for SKIN to resolve this division within its own brain, but it needs to figure out a way to do so, in order to most effectively defend the activity from unwanted oversight by harried authorities.

My point is that the kayak is a perfectly useable craft for seeking out adventure in its element. While I wouldn't say that it's ideal for crossing the Atlantic, it is ideal for coastal waters, even several miles offshore.

I don't feel that, as a community, we have to bow down to the power boating community and their insistence that our craft is not suitable for transiting their idea of extreme conditions. More often than not, and in greater numbers they operate their craft in a more irresponsible manner than novice kayakers. I use the Point Pleasant canal as an example of a watershed moment. I have never heard of a waterway that is open to pleasure craft being restricted to a single variety of pleasure craft and it concerns me that this could be used to set a precedent, that's all I'll say about that.

Kayaking has a bad rap. I think the reason for that is that non kayakers only know what they read about it in the paper when there has been an incident. Kayakers being unprepared, unequipped and unskillful. The media presents kayaking as this thing that is undertaken in calm sunny days in the sunset cavorting with the orcas and otters. Local papers don't print pictures in the local paper of kayakers playing off the local point or tide race honing their rescue skills, rolls or surfing. none kayakers don't understand the rigorous education that skillful kayaker/mariners undertake and the intense practice that proficient skills demonstrate.

The real question is how do we, as a community repair that? Local events are one way, here in Seattle we have a new paddling festival in a month, just about in the middle of the city. Perhaps getting the paper or local news folks to come and take a rescue class or see a practice session. My point is that it's time for some positive publicity.

As Mike mentioned, kayaking is not the only sport in which incidents are hashed over in detail and publicly. Accidents in North American Mountaineering is great and I used to peruse it endlessly! I learned a lot from it (mostly what not to do) and the most common mistake that I took away was people not being prepared; no helmet, no rope on a peak that required rappelling off, not having the appropriate skill level to attempt the route. Some incidents were due to objective hazards, i.e. rockfall, avalanche, etc, but many were more directly attributable to the climber not doing their homework. The same could be said for kayaking. I also feel that it is important that we hash out these incidents. The incident in Baja in Feb is a perfect example where the kayaker made all of the bad decisions but he was held forth by other media as an experienced expert, but within the community he was carved up for his many poor decisions. The worst this about it is that it's common that someone with a few miles behind them is portrayed as "experienced" and all that it implies.

Jon Krakauer rubs me the wrong way and the incident on Everest in 1996 was the result of the guides in question putting future business/reputation ahead of good guiding practices. Krakauers' book is an interesting account of what happened and a good demonstration of the cascade effect. It is also viewed, in mountaineering circles as an exculpatory account of his own involvement in the event. As an experienced mountaineer he knew that inappropriate decisions were being made and didn't speak up. Additionally, Into the Wild lionizes a young man who strode off the map without a thought, with no knowledge and little experience except surviving other escapades. He shrugged off the advice of others that were more experienced and wasn't so intrepid in his attempts to exit the Alaska wilderness as he was to enter it. more to the point, Chris McCandless unknowingly balanced his way along a knife edge, then fell off. Somehow, Krakauers experience on Devils Thumb is relevant to the story although krakauer was, by then, an experienced, though (if memory serves)green mountaineer.

That's all my coffee fueled brain can manage for now. I apologize for the rambling nature of this response, but it is Saturday morning andi've had 4 cups of coffee and no food yet. time to eat...

Mark, I appreciate your involvement in this discussion.

My take about "what to do" to give sea kayaking a better rap involves leaving behind scapegoats (the Media, the powerboaters), and also all theories about our God-given Freedom (Uhuru!) To Do What We Want on the waterways (paddling Pungos, bathtubs and stand-up paddleboards through the Point Pleasant Canal). We should instead concentrate on What Is, and on What Is Likely.

My suggestion to the sea kayaking industry (SKIN) is for it to clearly differentiate what is done with sea kayaks into two distinct categories: (A) recreational paddling on relatively calm and/or enclosed and/or non-congested waters, and (B) a kind of marine boating, using the most basic and primitive equipment but relying upon very knowledgeable and skillful mariners. Category (A) instructions from SKIN and from kayaking clubs and associations would revolve around such paddlers avoiding conditions involving turbulent water, open water, wind, and heavy boat traffic, (Don't Go There; Don't Do That!) while also transmitting the usual paddling and safety instruction. Category (B) instructions would stress over and over the requirement for rich knowledge of the marine environment and of seamanship, skills development, proper equipment, and, most of all, excellent judgment. And there should be another message--kayak mariners should be encouraged always to think about whether their proposed trip or play session will be good for their fellow sea kayakers if things could "easily" go wrong. Both the recent Powers and Berry incidents fail this test, as do almost all the incidents involving "experienced" kayakers.

The media should be incorporated into this changeover by SKIN (or TAPS) making this division into two categories, with two different approaches and two different mind-sets and two different instructional requirements, open and common knowledge, so that the media becomes more knowledgeable about what kayakers are trying to do, rather than lumping all activities involving sea kayaks into one undifferentiated mass.

This change will be difficult for SKIN and TAPS to get their collective minds around. It involves coming to terms with offering masses of people the prospect of wonderful recreation on the water, often cold water, when we all know that, unlike falling off your bicycle or your cross-country skis, or even off your stilts, if you fall out of your kayak, the substrate is going to try to kill you. Maybe by drowning; maybe by Cold Shock; maybe by hypothermia--but our home is not in the water.

Deaths in Category (A) the public is used to--people are dying in canoeing accidents constantly, and nobody really is calling much for banning or regulating the family canoe (maybe licensing it). But the tidewater/open water sea kayaker is out there in the view of the rest of the boating community--either sometimes getting in their way, in their faces (not wise), or, more rarely but more notoriously, as the subject of some search and rescue, or search and recovery, with helicopters, rescue craft, the whole set of machinery in motion, with the media hanging over their shoulders, ready to report on the latest mishap involving some goof out there in stormy, open waters, in a kayak, yet!

So my question is, where are you going with this?

Carl, you certainly bring a new level to the dialogue. You make us think. You make me think anyway. That’s good. And while anything I say might seem tending toward the disculpatory (given some of my own obtuse seamanship in seeking out conditions, though I'm on lock-down right now) I do feel there’s far too much gradation, degrees of individuation, challenges with perception, differences in approach with similar principals, and well, the list goes on. So there’s a kind of continuum fallacy to your model that might not warrant any practicality, let alone a desire for take up by the paddling community. On other groups where I’ve heard similar arbitrary attempts to promote or label paddler types, the reasoning gets discursive and unproductive pretty fast.

However, that isn’t to say there isn’t some merit in your thinking (why thank you Doug!). Designer and hydrostatic expert, John Winters, first introduced me (via the Paddlewise listserver group) to the notion, concept, a theory of risk versus reward (risk homeostasis) and he always made a distinction between the (safe) seasoned paddler with good backup gear and skills who refrained from seeking conditions thereby always remaining well within wide margins versus the (unsafe) overly optimistic adventure seeker knowingly heading into conditions relying on backup gear to get them out of trouble.

I still think the answer lies in education and training, with a certain amount of effort from paddling-related publishers, paddling organizations, as well as self-policing amongst ourselves to be careful not to promote rough water paddling without addressing the requirement for good judgement to rule all.

Sea Kayaker Magazine certainly tries to keep a well-centered message when it comes to safety and their incident reviews are a useful tool to those willing to learn from the mistakes of others. Good judgment, seamanship, knowledge, skillsets, navigational attributes, top-notch equipment, and a prudent approach alone aren’t always enough. Better paddler communication practices, the necessary balance between emotion and cognition, the nitty-gritty matter of managing risk in context, and a host of other best-practice thinking strategies need to be brought into the discussion and more fully appreciated and understood by all of us.

In terms of public perception, boating community versus the outdoors community, and threats of regulation – these are all bigger issues you and I don’t have final control over. Given the six degrees of separation in the world today, maybe we can have some influence on a positive outcome, though the challenges our world faces today make the kayak mariner conundrum seem a bit less of a priority.