In the August issue of Sea Kayaker, Matt Broze writes about a rescue that happened a few years back. The group of 3 very experienced paddlers on an off-season paddle find themselves in trouble in the rough waters of Queen Charlotte Strait. All members were successfully rescued because they initiated their distress call before it was too late, and had proper signaling equipment.

Matt, along with comments from two of the members, takes us through the planning of the trip, the decisions that were made and a followup of what went wrong.

We'd like to hear your comments on this safety artcle.

I love anything written Matt; he is critically curious, not easily fooled, has the expertise and wherewithal to bring to our attention the salient points with reasonable and insightful recommendations.

Anyone who has ever been involved making a navigational decision that they later regretted will tell you point blank, “If in doubt, don’t!” It can be a hard lesson and one that may take a couple of times to sink in.

It’s nice that the safety net, which is the Coast Guard/military apparatus most commonly involved with search and sea rescues, is there for us as paddlers – most of the time anyway, if they can be notified. That we are part of a boating community that can be tasked in extremis or even solicited for help proactively (where opportunity is sometimes afforded), should give us pause to individually assess our place of responsibility in that same community.

As more of these incidents come to light of experienced, seasoned paddlers getting into trouble, it behoves us all to try and figure out just why and where the ability to manage risk is failing. It has to fall somewhere in the realm of how paddlers think about and process risk taking and avoiding these incidents that may have a net effect of working against our current freedom.

Using Sea Kayaker Magazine as a repository for the more compelling incidents, working through the recommendations so we can learn from what went wrong, and admitting and pointing to our own mistakes rather than hiding them from public, should be encouraged and a level of appreciation held for those who come forward and for those who strive editorially to bring readability and publication for a wider audience.

I usually learn something from each issue's "Safety" column but I occasionally find myself wagging my finger at the author and far too smugly reminding myself that *I* wouldn't paddle offshore without a sprayskirt or *I* wouldn't paddle with my PFD under the deck bungies. The August column struck me differently though--these paddlers were quite experienced. They clearly had thousands of miles more under their keels than most of us. So what really went wrong?

I was struck by the fact that although they made some what now seem obvious equipment and navigational errors, they often noticed these errors as they were happening! Rob felt misgivings about the route change and early on noticed problems with the ferry angle towards the islands. Ian broke a rudder pedal and had to feel misgivings about his ability to keep up. But in the interest of "avoiding conflict", they didn't speak forcefully enough. We aren't told specifically that the conflict they were avoiding was with John, but it seems likely, due to the fact that it was his navigation suggestion they were questioning. Fortunately for all of them, they were smart, skilled and equipped enough to summon help, and the fishing vessel and Coasties performed admirably.

This is a fascinating area for risk-assessment research. Do subtle problems with group dynamics and interpersonal relations cause as many accidents as lack of knowledge, training, or experience? Perhaps. I know I find myself sometimes unwilling to speak forcefully to a group leader I know to be more experienced. I hope this story will stay with each of us next time we are hesitant about speaking up while on a trip.

Bravo to Matt Broze for the fine article. Bravo to "Rob" and "Ian" for being willing to engage in fascinating dialog about trip they might rather forget. And bravo to SK Magazine for a fine long-running "Safety" series.

I heartily second NoOffsideRoll's endorsement of the Storm Islands saga in SK. Matt did his usual fine job of gathering up all the salient points, and he had the full and candid cooperation and input of 2 of the 3 participants, making this an especially complete and helpful analysis of a trip gone wrong but ended without tragedy.

Anyone generous and bold enough to publicly share paddling mistakes, mishaps, and accidents has my appreciation and respect. If we castigate those who come forward with enough vigor, we'll soon have no one willing to share this kind of valuable information. The unproductive rain of criticism was particularly noteworthy in the sometimes vitriolic prose that followed Michael Powers' candid account of his error in judgement. It would have been far more useful to read comments that offered a solution or at least discussed the variables that led him to decide that it was sensible to paddle solo on that occasion. As I pointed out in Anatomy of A Bad Decision, this cognitive process can be messy and complicated terrain, something best negotiated cautiously and with eyes wide open. It's very easy to quietly and gently slip into making a really bad decision and anyone who thinks themselves immune is sadly mistaken.

I think the dynamics of personal interaction and communication play a huge role in accidents, and greater consideration of this important variable would certainly improve the management of risk in our sport. Airlines have instituted protocols to improve safety with respect to cockpit communication and decision making, as have other industries, and we could certainly put to good use a simple communications matrix for sea kayaking safety. If one presently exists, I'm not aware of it.

For starters, we could promote the value of a simple agreement among paddlers that it is the duty of any paddler who feels that little (or big) tug of warning, doubt, insecurity, misgiving, or discomfort to speak up. In turn, it is the responsibility of the group as a whole and individual paddlers in particular, to respect and encourage that kind of discourse, and give those feelings a respectful hearing whenever they're raised. Whether it's an individual problem or something potentially involving the entire group, everyone will be better off when things are out in the open.

Good comments Mr. Avery. I think one can see where the cognitive process can be impaired during stressful moments when, unfortunately, keen decision making is required. These emotion-based decisions, like the one the three paddlers made to attempt the crossing earlier than planned to get home sooner (so they thought!) certainly appeared to look like it had the emotional bookmarks often seen in outdoor adventure pursuits where thoughts of home and family, warmth and comfort,, and freedom from a current interpersonal hierarchy that’s not overly joyful override or subdue logical thinking.

Domasio’s somatic-marker hypothesis does seem to have some bearing here, whereby the decision-making paradigm was biased toward what the paddlers thought was an advantageous option – which is what the theory proposes will happen when the cognitive process is overloaded.

We also know that very often there will be conflict and difficulty communicating effectively in a group paddling situation. There will be differences of opinion about conditions yet developing, the question of what sea states can be handled that day, and what the best options should be. It takes common sense, intelligence, cooperation, forthrightness, openness, higher rather than lower emotional IQ, and sometimes – unfortunately, mind-reading. Fortunately, there have been some good examples of good group decision making in the pages of Sea Kayaker over the years; I’m thinking of the La Nina all-female paddling expedition down the outer coast of BC a few years back, where deference was given to the member with the least confidence each day.

Anyway, a sense of calm and grace overwhelms me every time I read anything you write or post here Moulton. Thank you.

Thank you for your generous comments about my writing, Nordkappman. I feel much the same way about what you've written on this Forum, and I always read what you have to say with great interest. Insightful, intelligent, eloquent, and well-considered, your opinion is a real contribution to the conversation.

I echo your praise of the really fine job Matt Broze did in his analysis of the incident. I'll repeat what Eric Soares said of my Cold Shock article 20 years ago: What Matt has to say in this article “should be stapled to the forehead of every sea kayaker”.

Damasio's hypothesis goes a long way toward explaining some the group's flawed decision making, and I agree that emotional bookmarks likely played a very significant role in this incident. I've always found the classical economic notion of exclusive cognitive rationality laughable. Any ad agency in the country can give you countless examples of the non-cognitive emotional decision making process in action. As you point out, that process is particularly evident and noteworthy in their decision to deviate from their planned route, attempt the more exposed crossing of Queen Charlotte Strait, and get to Port Hardy “a day earlier”; thereby lessening by one day the physical beating and discomfort they were enduring. It was a big, ripe, juicy plum they simply couldn't resist picking.

Poor decision making illuminates only part of the story, however, and I think you're right on target in citing variables like common sense, intelligence, cooperation, forthrightness, and openness as really important components in this kind of incident. I was practically leaping out of my chair shouting Yes! Yes! Yes! when you called attention to the La Nina all-female paddling expedition's wise and sensitive policy of deference to the least confident among them. That's a perfect example of group dynamics being informed and guided by a protocol established well before the trip begins. I've been a proponent of establishing pre-trip ground rules or agreements since my wilderness school days in the 70's. It's a standard of practice that proved its worth time and again in the field, and it never let me down.

This was a trio of skilled and experienced paddlers who got into trouble, and while there were more than enough errors, omissions, and oversights in the whole trip to keep critical wags busy, what really fascinates me is that virtually all of the major problems and mistakes could have been averted by better group dynamics, communication, situational awareness and attention to gear. That's the good news I see emerging from a careful review of these sorts of incidents, because it suggests that by placing greater emphasis on a few key concepts and ground rules, paddlers can greatly increase the safety and enjoyment of any trip.

Well, it took me awhile to get around to reading this article that all of you are speaking of.

I'll not rehash all that has been said here, suffice to say that the paddlers in question here are lucky, not only due to having appropriate signalling equipment, but also vessels nearby to effect the rescue.

The curious points to me were the complete lack of honest, and sometimes forceful, communication, especially in the wake of an off the cuff plan change involving crossing to unresearched islands and the seemingly shared concerns about one anothers equipment.

I can only wonder how the trip would have been if this team had done a shakedown trip together prior to the main show.

I am a big Matt Broze fan, and always have been. Long before there was a Sea Kayaker Magazine, Matt had written a definitive pamphlet entitled Sea Kayaking Safety, and included it with every Mariner kayak he sold. With Matt's permission, the sea kayaking journal ANorAK published the pamphlet as an integral part of one of its issues. I argued, years ago, that TASK, the Trade Association for Sea Kayaking, at that time the mouthpiece of the sea kayaking industry, replace its sorry little throwaway leaflet Before You Go with an updated version of Matt's pamphlet (it never did). And, of course, over the years Matt largely defined quality writing on sea kayak safety and accident affairs in the pages of Sea Kayaker itself, said writings to form the backbone of the book Deep Trouble. His commentary on the Storm Islands saga continued the standard of Brozean excellence.

That said, I (and I suspect many other readers) was puzzled by Matt's published response to my Letter on the Storm Islands rescue in the October issue. It was as if Matt was replying to some other other Letter that SK received on the subject that stressed "trying to shame the more extreme sea kayakers into limiting their freedom..." and "promoting the limiting of a sea kayaker's freedoms...". I know that I certainly wrote no such Letter, nor did SK publish such a Letter, so the answer may be that Matt's response was, indeed, a reply to an unpublished Letter that may appear in a future issue. My Letter was clearly about reducing the negative component of our public profile by raising the level of prudent seamanship among big-water sea kayakers, reminding them that sea kayaking is not a sui generis activity like whatewater paddlers running waterfalls, but exists instead within a larger context and tradition of marine boating.

Another part of Matt's reply is more troubling. Matt states that he believes the concern for bad publicity is misplaced, and postulates that--just wait--we are going to soon experience a "huge increase" in reported kayaking fatalities, as the explosive increase in rec boats and fishing kayaks makes itself felt. He is very likely correct in his prediction, but he helps to make my case that open-water sea kayakers need to upgrade their seamanship and to become the wisest mariners afloat so as to further distinguish ourselves from both the rest of the open-water recreational boaters (powerboaters, jet-skiers, etc.) and from the impending wave of rec/fishing kayak users with "little or no kayaking expertise" that Matt sees looming on the horizon.

Comments?

" It's very easy to quietly and gently slip into making a really bad decision and anyone who thinks themselves immune is sadly mistaken."

Spot on!

This is really a fascinating area of safety and survival during any dangerous/challenging activities or circumstances. Which eventually includes daily life.

I would highly recommend that any kayaker (or any backpacker or any climber or any person) not only read "Deep Survival" by Gonzales--but to thoroughly study it.

I have learned so many critical concepts from repeatedly studying it, and it's the kind of book where I know that each year when I reread it, there will be something new, something deeper as I grow as a person.

There is one sobering point, however, which is critical to understand: the way the human mind is wired, it is virtually inevitable that we'll make mistakes. Certainly we should try to minimize them. And we should use our knowledge to take on only that amount of risk which seems appropriate to ourself. Yet we must factor into that risk assessment that the mind is--in certain ways--hard-wired for certain errors.

Seriously, study "Deep Survival". Priceless.

Deep Survival is one of the best wilderness books I've ever read. There is a wealth of information and good advice to be mined, and as Illusion says, the book bears repeated reading. Ditto most of the original sources listed in the Selected Bibliography.

Mistakes are, indeed, inevitable. However, the hopeful note in DS is that humility and a little knowledge can go a long way in helping one to avoid them, or at least to minimize the collateral damage when they occur. In this respect, a little knowledge, while perhaps dangerous, sure beats stumbling around totally clueless.

Furthermore, although accidents do happen all the time, they don't necessarily have to happen to you. Things like cold shock, or getting caught on the summit of Gotta Late Start Tower in Yosemite when the afternoon thunderstorm rolls through are not inevitable occurrences, at least not on an individual level.

Carl,

Perhaps Matt took umbrage with you implying that the local kayaking community had every right to be upset with the three paddlers in the wake of the incident. Just for context, the original local newspaper story indicated the paddlers had set off into far worse conditions and subsequently battled five meter breaking seas and that one of the paddlers (Ian in Matt’s story) wasn’t given a choice not to cross. The three paddlers obviously became paddling pariahs locally and I think Matt was showing some deference here, especially to the third paddler who chose not to contribute his narrative -- though the newspaper story did highlight the contributory freak tide (something that Matt did kind of gloss over). I see there’s also a letter to the editor cutting the three paddlers a bit of slack because of the writer’s own experience with the same tidal force anomaly in that location.

As to your request for comments on the more substantive question regarding Matt’s diatribe about freedoms and limitations in response to your letter or some as yet not seen letter to the editor, I personally think Matt was just spring boarding into his own deep end. For as long as I’ve known him on various forums, he has had the propensity to do this or sometimes take off on a tangent belying his considerable, ratiocinative powers. I’ve learned to not react too negatively to what Matt writes – just sit back and think about what he has to say; let it sink in; postulate what has led him to his conclusion; and to extract and learn from him -- jettisoning any unwanted deck load at some future point if I must. This has taken patience some days. And yes, remember Matt has forgotten more about paddling that I’ll ever know, or you, or most of us.

I didn’t agree with all of your perspective in your letter either but, your main point regarded the notion that sea kayakers should be the best possible mariners, and who could disagree with that? Not me anyway. Adventurous paddlers seeking big and broken water ought to consider seriously your rational and proposal. I think many do. I think some forget and need reminding. I think some paddlers need to re-commit themselves to the notion. Whether a paddler is an extreme water seeker or one who perhaps more nobly seeks an epic voyage of discovery, the sea is no less demanding, even to the kayak fisher 10 miles offshore and unfortunately the public far less forgiving than they are with the waterfall and Class V whitewater mavens of madness.

For me, it’s twofold: work toward becoming a better mariner, nay, the best mariner you can be. Realize mistakes are made so give yourself or your group enough of a margin for error – this in the context of whatever type of paddling you do. In recognizing we all make mistakes (even “fuddy-duddy”, plus quam perfectum paddlers can get into deep trouble from time to time), we should continue to examine, discuss, and attempt to understand why, where and how these mistakes occur. That in itself will never be a perfect process but at least it hopefully evolves the activity forward. There are enough paddlers working against that notion that the rest of us least not subvert the process while still allowing ourselves some fun and freedom on the water we love.

Doug, thanks for your input. This issue of paddlers' rights, freedoms, responsibilities, search/rescue costs (privatized or socialized), etc. is going to continue to play out over the months and years ahead, as Matt correctly hinted at in his warning about the wave of rec/fishing kayaker accidents/rescues to come. Just Google Staten Island Kayakers Rescued, with NYC Mayor Bloomberg's fiery denunciation of two local kayakers venturing out during Irene, capsizing, and having to be rescued. They were subsequently served summonses, for disorderly conduct (I think). As of yet we know nothing of these paddlers' experience or expertise level, but it has created a local media frenzy.

Sooner or later I think the sea kayaking community is going to have to deal with certain "realities". It just won't do to wax rhapsodic, a la Jack Izzo, about the glory and grandeur of the heroic and God-blessed-and-sanctioned risk-takers, or to fulminate against those yearning to take away our constitutionally-endowed right to paddle any way and anywhere and anytime we want (it's in there somewhere). To simultaneously expect and even require that we be searched for and rescued from our errors at the public's expense, does not logically follow from the tenets of the New Libertarians, who disdain government in all its manifestations, including government's notions that it can regulate certain aspects of marine boating. No, rhetoric won't do; we need reasoned discussion of serious issues--issues that TASK, in its years of folly and denial, failed to address. Maybe we can discuss them here.

Carl, a bit of a ramble following, but I had to laugh at your post. I was performing Google searches late last week with “Hurricane Irene” and “Kayakers rescued” and didn’t get any hits. I should have kept it up. Too funny, especially after your letter about Google searches. I figured given the increased attention extreme kayaking is garnering these days, that someone on the eastern seaboard was bound to be out there being silly. I see there was another arrest for someone paddling down a main street in another area. I’ve done enough hurricane paddling off Vancouver Island to know you don’t do it where you can be seen and you don’t do it if you can’t exfiltrate under your own stream. No, I don’t do it anymore. At least not for now. I grow horns and can’t be trusted. I’m also a frustrated, depressed paddler these days too but owe it to the community to behave myself – even if Matt thinks that’s a fuddy-duddy stance. Heh heh.

Just so we are straight on this, at no point in my wilder days did I ever actively carry a “help-button” or contemplate calling in a rescue. John Winters always maintained on our Paddlewise forum that if he wanted to go off alone into deep wilderness, he should have the right to do this without a societal pressure to carry rescue communication devices nor the added advantage of knowing you could call for outside assistance if you got in too deep. If he had an unexpected medical emergency, well that’s his problem. How much more so should that sentiment carry forward for those of us who pursue wilder pastimes? And when a paddler wipes out in dumping surf off the coast of South America, his head buried in Penguin poo and their kayak broken in half, do they deserve extraction at someone else’s expense? I don’t frickin know. There are no absolutes in this game. There are lots of opinions though.

I personally put in my rescue practice; I'd often be found dumping solo offshore in conditions that would be a real emergency, maybe even life and death for many paddlers, capsizing and swimming on purpose so as to replicate a real life scenario should I blow a roll or scull recovery. That doesn’t fit into a prudent kayaker mariner profile but it did and will help you understand the dynamics and maybe be part of the reason you make it home for those so inclined to challenge these types of waters. I fear few paddlers really understand how important a commensurate rescue practice regime really is. I had to give up teaching paddle float rescues for our club because no one wanted to pump their cockpits dry as it was too much work and I too insistent that the self rescue wasn’t complete until one was under way, mostly dry, skirt attached, stable and headed for safety. Matt’s Safety Manual made this abundantly clear years ago making me realize my BCU re-enter and roll was only half the battle. By the way, those dump and pump sessions were on flat water with the clubbers – imagine these folks in rough conditions.

As for freedoms and limitations, it really doesn’t matter what you, me or Matt think, the vision and realization for kayak marinership and the requirement for ocean playboaters/ dangerous journey seekers to be prepared and trained properly for their expansive exploits is a matter born by the individual paddler. The individual paddler is sovereign both in life and actions. Carpe libertatem…Matt probably has it right. I’m just trying to find the right balance in all this Carl and maintain some responsibility. Matt is also right about stories like the Storm Island rescue helping us to become better mariners through these lessons learned, as once you are in a boat on the water, you are a mariner with all the implications that carries. That we must all agree on I think. So you are completly right too Carl.

Doug, having read Matt's response several times, I'm more puzzled by it now than I was at first reading. Herewith additional grounds for puzzlement:

1) Are we or are we not, as sea kayakers, to be concerned about bad publicity? In the Storm Islands article, Matt brings up the subject as the first item on his agenda, noting that the incident made the news, that the accounts may have been sensationalized and in error on several points (he doesn't give his opinion), and that many in the local kayaking community were upset by the bad publicity. We need not wring our hands over the possibility of sensationalism and errors; that's inherent in coverage of such stories, and needs to be factored-in as an ever-present possibility, even reality, in kayak accident/rescue reporting.

But if we are not to be concerned about bad publicity, why did Matt introduce the topic right from the get-go? What's his point? Then later, in answer to my Letter, he suggests that, while worrying about bad publicity about sea kayaking may be "misplaced" (what does that mean?), we should gear up for an onslaught in kayaking fatality stories resulting from all those rec/fishing kayak users out there who will be dying like flies. Will that be misplaced?

I just don't get where Matt is at, on this topic of publicity. I wish and hope that he, or somebody, can explain. Are we to ignore reportage, publicity, and public opinion entirely, or to instead pick-and-choose those parts that suit us (Freya circles Australia!), or to strive to be invisible (by being the wisest and most mature boaters on the water--my view)?

2) Where does the idea of making paddlers sign agreements to not seek outside help come from? The mind boggles... Who would one sign such an agreement with? And what would one get in return?

3) It is refreshing to have Matt's forthright assertion that sea kayaking is a dangerous sport, and that we are only a capsize away from an emergency situation. What is really new is his notion that there would be "a lot more" sea kayaking fatalities (and, I guess, accidents and rescues), if under-30 paddlers were out there on the water in force. I'd not ever considered looking at sea kayaking through this lens, but it sounds like Matt is saying something like I am: we need more maturity, more emotional stability, more experience, more knowledge, more judgement, more common sense, more simple caution and prudence out there on wide waters in our tiny, narrow, "tippy" cockleshells than maybe we have at present, and that we need to upgrade our expectations of responsible seamanship of ourselves and our peers. Is that the same thing as "shaming more extreme sea kayakers into limiting their freedom"? If people think it is, we've got problems.

In closing, I note that the Michipicoten Island rescue story in the same October issue raises some points of interest, for instance the thinking behind the purchase of the ACR PLB. Would the couple have considered repeating the crossing to & from Michipicoten had they not had the PLB? But that's a whole other subject.