Colorado State Parks gives out pamphlets of their regs and the federal regs. The federal regs match the U.S. Coast Guard exemption (canoes and kayaks do NOT have to carry a Type IV throwable, regardless of length). The state parks seemed to have copied the CG regs BUT deleted the exemption. They are lumping all boats over 16' length together so that even kayaks have to carry Type IV throwables.

In years past, this reg was overlooked, but last year a ranger actually asked about boat length. I happened to be in a shorter boat so did not get ticketed but with the recent vicious revenue hunting at state level, I am extremely worried that they will start enforcing this reg.

I talked with the head ranger, who acknowledged that the reg made little sense. He referred me to the state boating safety officer. When I talked to the latter, he refused to listen to why the reg made no sense for nonmotorized, nonpassenger vessels. His attitude, was "Just strap it to the deck cuz it's only 18" wide and a few inches high." I tried to explain that such an item could actually pose a safety HAZARD to the paddler, who already has to carry or wear a Type III PFD anyway. I also pointed out that the federal regs that their own office gives out specifically exempt canoes and kayaks. He said he knew it did, but that the state would apply its own rules. In other words: Because We Say So, and Don't Try to Remove My Head from the Sand.

I am moving OUT of Colorado later this year but it's not going to happen until well after the paddling season starts. What is the smallest Type IV throwable made? Can I cut it in half and fold it to make it small enough to fit between my feet or in front of the footpegs? My kayak's beam is less than 20", and I like to roll so hate crap on the decks, not to mention weighing so little that anything on there adds to weathercocking.

"Because we said so" is the first refuge of people who can't think of a sensible reason for a stupid rule. This problem shouldn't be too hard to solve, Picabite. What you need is someone in a position of authority to shoot that turkey down.

My recommendation is to contact Lisa Dale. She's the Legislative Program Manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, working out of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Executive Director’s Office "to help coordinate the Division’s legislative agenda with the Department of Natural Resource’s policy priorities". Explain the situation and ask for her help. She should be both sane and sympathetic, and in a position to crack the whip.

Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Executive Director's Office
1313 Sherman Street, Room 718
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 866-3311
Email: Lisa.Dale@state.co.us
Her Bio: http://dnr.state.co.us/Leadership/EDO/Pages/LisaDale.aspx )
DNR's Web Page: http://dnr.state.co.us/Pages/DNRDefault.aspx

In the very unlikely event that she blows you off, your fall-back option would be to contact the folks who control DNR's budget. That would be via David Beaujon. Phone: (303) 866-4781 E-mail: david.beaujon@state.co.us. He's the Staff Contact for the Colorado Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Energy Committee. That committee has legislative oversight responsibility for the departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Parks and Wildlife is a division of the Department of Natural Resources. I recommend this as your fall-back because giving the agency folks a chance to clean up their own mess before you go over their heads is the nice and polite thing to do.

I've found that this approach works surprisingly well for problems like the one you described.

Good luck, mate.
Moulton Avery

Wow, Moulton; your reply is probably the best I've ever gotten concerning a serious matter. Thank you!

I have printed out the info plus Ms. Dale's bio. I think this merits a full-on formal e-mail, to be edited, reread, edited again, etc. to make it as good as I can before I hit Send. I'll leave any phone calling for *follow up* to the e-mail, if necessary. Just a hunch that a well-written, calm letter is most likely to be taken seriously...especially by someone who is a writer and an academic, among other things.

Again, thank you for steering me to someone at the policy-setting (or at least influencing) level. I'll post here if anything changes as a result of my attempts.

Good luck with trying to get your state to change a stupid regulation. I do have a question, though. You stated that the regulations already require that kayakers and canoers wear a PFD. Does it really require that you actually wear it, or does it just require that there be one on board for each person?

Thanks Picabite! That sounds great. I agree with you totally about her pedigree. Wilderness Society, academia; rather than, say, apologist for Mining companies... Hopefully you get a KO in the first round; if not, there are always more options. Keep good notes & copies of everything. Every reporter is always looking for a story, and when push comes to shove, it's hard to trump a contest between plucky little David and that stumblebum loser Goliath. This might well boil down to something simple like a memo advising rangers etc. that the reg does not apply to kayaks. Keep the Forum posted on how this goes. I'll be keeping my paws crossed for an early resolution.

Follow-up report:
Unfortunately, symptomatic of how the state has been operating.

To make a long story short, Ms. Dale forwarded my e-mail to someone else, who forwarded it to someone else on the Parks side (CO Dept. of Natural Resources recently merged its Wildlife and Parks divisions). This fellow, whom I will refer to as "Paul", called me within a week or so, which was good. We talked a bit and he said if I actually got ticketed over this, to go to his office where he would nullify the thing. While that shows willingness to work with the customer, it seems dysfunctional to continue having a law on the books that doesn't make much sense. He told me that changing the state regs was a major hassle, which I don't get because all it would take is a simple one-sentence addition to the existing boating regs. He stated that he was concerned about what the "whitewater guys" would think of such a change--but this doesn't affect them in the first place since it involves vessels 16 ft and longer, and it is for boating reservoirs, not WW! They are already exempt from it. I even e-mailed him back with suggested wording for the additional sentence. He did not respond to that e-mail.

I waited a while and left "Paul" a phone msg, this time asking him to confirm in writing (e-mail) what he had said about bringing the ticket to him. I never heard back, so I can only conclude that maybe this is all a bit iffy. Which is precisely why I wanted that written confirmation. Besides, what if he retires, is on vacation, transferred, etc. Hate to leave it to the whims of whomever might be in charge at the time.

The new state park ranger attitude seems to have adopted an anti-kayaker flavor overall. Another paddler told me a ranger told him he had to get his kayak inspected for zebra mussels prior to launching. This is the case ONLY if you trailer a boat into the water, not hand-carry. I call their office literally every year to confirm whether this is still the case. The paddler refuted the ranger's claim, finally telling the guy, "CALL the boat inspector!" And then the ranger learned something he should have already known. There are other examples of being harassed for doing things which are fully allowed according to their own regs, but the ranger doesn't even know the laws as well as the customer does.

I may not renew the annual pass that I've bought for at least 10 years now. Too bad, because this is the closest paddling location to my home.