Author Topic: HPWA update  (Read 12255 times)

Socalsupper70

  • Rincon Status
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
HPWA update
« on: January 30, 2015, 03:12:34 PM »
Jack Hanna recently fired off a letter to a large email list the HPWA compiled over the years-maybe some of you received it. This first part is that letter-he also penned a letter to the Coasties basically challenging the course they are taking on PFD and their reliance on counsel that he and many others believe to be ill equipped to properly represent the issue or the SUP community. Recent attempts in last few months to challenge the sup surf ban have gone the way of the dodo. There has not been an entry in the SUP Advocacy thread since December. So the issues lay dormant or dead for now, take your pick.
I get it-everyone is busy. I think most of us train, paddle and sup surf where we want or feel like for the most part and just take our chances and go with the flow.
One thing i know for sure is the community of paddlers and sup surfers is growing, the surf videos are getting amazing-the athletes are getting better, going bigger and the idea all things SUP are a fad is long dead. Seems the sup surf vibe is loosening up a bit, just a little here in socal. Maybe the timing was wrong, time will tell, i continue to support the HPWA and hope everyone else will as well, whether the issues re-surface or not. Practice aloha and more importantly just get out and have a good time!


My Dear Advisors, Advertisers, and other supporters,
   Buoyancy and remount-ability are the keys to safe use of stand up paddleboards that have been proven statistically.  But, yak boards confuse the situation, as they proliferate in the big box stores.  Kayaks become involved, because the Coast Guard and its Council intend to classify human powered watercraft as propelled by oars or propelled by paddles.
   In attempting to explain the issues of life jackets and leashes to boaters and staffers in the business of boating safety, I have learned to teach a self-rescue drill to my own SUP students in the Delta.  Steven and Brian did that poster about life jackets and leashes, but we don’t think about it too much.  We should!  We also need to think more about safe and easy release from a leash.
   When I bought my sit inside kayak, I learned how to perform a “self-rescue” by using an inflatable sleeve to stabilize the boat for a difficult re-entry and use a bilge pump to make the boat operable.  If you have never swamped a canoe or a row boat, I recommend the experience to demonstrate the safety issues of these craft.  It is my opinion that we must pursue the safety issues of buoyant human powered watercraft as a vessel class.
   The current policy of regulating oar driven boats differently than single or double bladed paddle driven craft would be supported by the new amendment to the Code.  Carriage exemption for racing “paddlecraft” will be revoked, except for events sanctioned by approved race organizations.  Carriage will continue to mean, “Wear or carry an approved personal floatation device’ and a signaling device.
   The resolution is now in the hands of the Recreational Boating Safety Staff at USCG-HQ.  I am urging them to consult with Region Eleven of the Western United States, specifically Mr. Paul Newman of the Oakland Coast Guard office who is a reasonable civilian employee in the recreational boating safety program.  He is also a surfer and is open to intelligent ideas about equipment, drowning statistics, and law enforcement. 
This may be my last letter to the Coast Guard before the resolution is officially corrected and set for public comment.  In this letter, I am urging them not to use the intention of the resolution, but to assume that the Council has made a mistake for which they will be held responsible.  The staff understands their responsibility legally and morally.  But, they also would like to make the process easy.
   Captain Burton sent me a letter thanking me for my interest in the resolution and assuring me that his staff is looking at the evidence.  He quotes drowning statistics over the last decade or so and suggests that their reliance on carriage regulation and “Wear It!” incentives is responsible for a dramatic decrease in boater deaths.  The enclosed letter is my response, intended to condense three years of testimony and many pages of correspondence into a two page letter.
   The point I am making is that paddleboards, OC racers, surf skis, yak boards, and sit atop kayaks are buoyant.  They are easily re-mounted for self-rescue.  Of course, we all agree that leashes are a better safety device for SUP.  But, the Coast Guard, the Council, and other safety program components rely on life jackets for water safety.
   It will take more than my testimony and letters, powerful and intelligent as they may be, to get the Coast Guard to consider human powered watercraft differently than boats.  Please think about the problem and let’s make decisions to poop or get off the pot this spring.
   I have narrowed the list of 1400 petitioners down to a few dozen who continue to be interested enough to respond to email.  If we pursue the matter next year, I will need help!  Please read the enclosed letter and tell me what you think.  Please forward this to anyone you think should be informed.
   Finally, I offer a major issue to our friends and clients in Southern California.  Harbor patrols in Orange and San Diego Counties are not currently pursuing paddlers for carriage.  But, the passage of the resolution gives the Coast Guard greater reason to ask the counties to enforce the Code as they hand over the big checks for new boats.  This is not a dead issue!  It is only dormant in So Cal.
Jack

Here is the letter Jack Penned in response to some Coasties correspondence.

U.S Department of Homeland Security
United States Coast Guard CG-BSX-2
Attention Captain Burton,
Director, Inspections and Compliance
2100 Second Street, Washington D.C. 20593-7501

January 22, 2014

Re; NBSAC resolution # 2014-92-02

Cc: email Captain Boros co Jeff Ludwig, Paul Newman Dist Eleven, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

Dear Captain Burton,

Thank you for your letter of January 7.  We support the Coast Guard’s commitment to safe boating, and recognize the challenge and the progress.  The task given to Prevention through People by Coast Guard staff reflects the challenge of protecting the next generation of boaters who will enter the water in human propelled vessels.  The PtP subcommittee and the National Boating Safety Advisory Council have chosen to ignore my testimony and rely on Chris Stec of the American Canoe Association. 
Your staff has earned my admiration for their work, but I challenge their expertise on buoyant “paddlecraft.”  The statistics you quote suggest a universal simplistic solution to boating safety applied to oversized surfboards, sailboats, and power boats together.  Your logic must be contrasted to another simple bit of logic.  Attachment of a small piece of floatation to a large piece of floatation is an impotent redundancy.  Standup paddleboards have no freeboard.  It is easier to remount one than it is to put on a life jacket while in the water. 
We are pleased that the NRBSP has chosen to fund ACA to promote education on the subject of leashes.  However, Mr. Stec is still behind the learning curve in this sport and its related equipment technology (reference testimony in Watsonville 2012).   Leash technology, like paddleboard technology, has advanced through the overlapping surfboard industry which is dominated by manufacturers and distributors in the Western United States.  ACA is attempting to gain a market share of the instruction part of that industry which has already matured around racing events.
The advanced skills and equipment required for moving water with snags and strainers should not be confused with typical SUP or other buoyant ‘vessel’ operations in typical recreational conditions.  Self-regulation of whitewater and moving water is required to go well beyond carriage regulation for reasonable safety.  You will not see life jackets attached to whitewater rafts.  And the danger of a “strainer” requires strong swim skills and understanding of currents.  Carriage regulation is inadequate for these conditions (reference testimony spring 2014). 
Compliance to carriage regulation implies user safety.   But, self rescue and a safe return to takeout are not promoted by the false sense of security which is generated at such a high cost to law enforcement.  The irrationality of the redundancy is embarrassing to law enforcement officers who understand water sports on buoyant watercraft.  This inconsistency threatens the integrity of the regulatory system by degrading the respect of the officers charged with its enforcement.
We respectfully suggest that the Council has not performed their ‘due diligence’ on the subject of buoyant human powered watercraft.  Reliance on the expertise of a single Council member does not take place with power and sail vessels.  The resolution fails to address the safety challenges of modern buoyant “paddlecraft.”   Neither logic nor experience support carriage for low freeboard buoyant watercraft.
Identification of vessels by oar or paddles demands that row boats and canoes should be regulated differently and canoes and paddleboards should be regulated the same.  To perpetuate that perception is to be ill prepared for the next season and the next decade (reference testimony fall 2014). 
I understand that my suggestion to consider the nature of the hull more so than the paddle or oar represents a new challenge to the language of the law and the enforcement thereof.  PtP and NBSAC have failed to identify this challenge.  They are boat experts.  They have failed to reach out to the established racing, manufacturing, and teaching experts in District Eleven.  The most experienced experts for cruising, racing, and downwind challenges are here in the west.  Without their advice and support, Council has navigated poorly.  Coast Guard staff has the opportunity to correct the course.
Statistically, standup paddleboards have proven safe when compared with row boats and canoes.  We assume that is because they are easily remounted.    Kayaks present a different challenge.  Double paddles do not indicate the challenge of stabilizing and bailing a traditional sit inside design to restore the boat to operable status.  The yak boards may be operated from standing or sitting position.  Sit atop kayaks and yak boards may be difficult to separate visually, but both are buoyant and easily re-mounted.
If it is easier to remount than to put on a life jacket carried, then the mission of safety is not served by carriage regulation and enforcement.  Wear might seem a solution, but under what authority should the Coast Guard demand life jacket wear without significant statistical and trade studies? 
Reliance on drowning statistics is a shallow investigation.  Riders of paddleboards and kayaks expect to get wet sometimes.  Boaters seldom think about self-rescue.  Human powered watercraft operators must plan for self-rescue.  The Coast Guard would be wise to consider this fact and give greater attention to the difference between boats with freeboard and self draining buoyant watercraft.
Advanced users and instructors agree that certain individuals and conditions indicate the use of vests.  There is increasing agreement that belt packs are minimally invasive, although their value is limited.  For SUP, the recognition of the value of leashes for recovery is nearly universal when operating a significant distance from shore.  No one is promoting unsafe activity for their friends or their customers.  Unsafe operations happen through ignorance.
Personally, I support the Coast Guard’s Mission.  When the Service is embarrassed publicly, I am offended.  The mission of the HPWA is to represent human powered watercraft user rights to government.  Safety regulations that do not promote safety unduly stress our rights to enjoy water access.  I ask that the staff take on the task of discovery that was missed by NBSAC or re-task PtP.  To take the intention of the referenced resolution forward would be a regrettable mistake that will haunt both HPWA and USCG.

Jack Hanna

HE>I.com
Instagram- @supjuan

SeaMe

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: HPWA update
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2015, 08:50:50 PM »
I love walls of text.  >:(

After copying this over to a word processor so I could make it readable I'll say this: kudos to Jack for carrying the torch, but if he's hoping to sway the Coast Guard's thinking on how SUPs are regulated I don't foresee a favorable outcome. As a supporter of his side of the argument, I find a lot of his language toward the Coast Guard and ACA antagonizing.

There are a number of incendiary statements in his letter, particularly his mention of the ACA "attempting to gain a market share of the instruction part of [the] industry." That sounds like sour grapes. Of all the bodies offering SUP certification the ACA is the most safety-focused IMHO. I'm not sure I see the benefit of picking a fight with them. If Jack feels that Chris Stec is not up to speed on certain areas of SUP, he should offer to consult, not insinuate that money is the ACA's sole motivating factor.

He really needs to adjust his tone if he hopes to convince the majority.
“I must be a mermaid, Rango. I have no fear of depths and a great fear of shallow living.” ― Anaïs Nin
¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º>
Fanatic Fly HRS 10'6"
Fanatic Ray HRS BVI 12'0" ヾ(@°▽°@)ノ

Socalsupper70

  • Rincon Status
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Re: HPWA update
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2015, 04:24:18 PM »
sorry about walls of text Seame-im a bit of a cut and paste and tech in general novice!

I see the whole thing as hopefully progress, ill let Jack defend himself and his actions or path hes taken.
All i know is he has picked up where Stephen left off, like you im on his side of the argument.

I simply want the best representation for SUP as possible, time will bear it out but im wondering how many grains are left in the hourglass...
HE>I.com
Instagram- @supjuan

HPWA Jack

  • Waikiki Status
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: HPWA update
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2015, 12:49:49 AM »
Yep, I agree.  Too long.  But, the letter was addressed to people in the Coast Guard staff who sat through all of the meetings where Chairman Stec designed and pushed his resolution through his committee and council.

If anyone thinks he is qualified to set standards for SUP regulatory safety, I will be pleased to debate in short or long form.  Because the law he supports makes putting a life jacket on a board compliant with the regulation.

In SO Cal, few water cops enforce that law...... now.....but eleswhere, in Lake Tahoe a young woman was arrested violently for failing to go fast enough to retrieve her life jacket.

My proposal was to study the difference between buoyant human propelled watercraft and traditional designs that can swamp or even sink.  Over one hundred people died in accidents with human powered watercraft in 2013.  Only five of those were on paddleboards.

Placing a buoyant device capable of floating 20 lbs on a device capable of floating 250 lbs is  IRRATIONAL. But worse, it is dangerous to let people go out in lakes with new and rented boards thinking that they are safe because they have a vest lying on thier board.  Wind and current separate rider and board and there is a real chance of drowning.  you might have noticed that they shoot away during a fall in calm water.  Leash up and recover the board.  This year, millions of dollars will be spent to send thousands of cops looking for boards without PFD's, just not in Orange or San Diego counties.

The proposed amendment to the law does not change that.  Good news is that it gives sanctioned race events exemption.  Bad news is that race training will not be exempt for SUP.  Exemption for racing canoes is revoked.  And, probably there will be pressure on So Cal Harbor Patrols to rejoin enforcement.  That may come with the strings on federal money for new boats.

I apologize for the long letter.  It was not designed for the board.  ACA is an East Coast organization that doesn't get that surfers created SUP. Canoe people may wear whatever they want on SUP, canoe, yak board, or kayaks.  But, surfers invented and perfected leashes and know their real value.  That is another important theme of the full letter.

The political power in the East doesn't care as long as racing shells continue to be exempt from carriage because they have oarlocks.  So, if you find yourself in a jurisdiction like San Rafael that tickets riders for not carrying a pfd, throw your paddle away and you wll no longer be on top of a "vessel".  Sorry if you think I'm bashing the esteemed COO of ACA.  But, I have a nasty streak intelligence.  I just don't think that PFD's belong on boards, even though I recognize that some people should wear them.  Just not everyone in every venue and condition.  I don't even fully support the Australian model that leashes are required.

All water sports are dangerous to one degree or another.  SUP is about the safest.  Self regulation through education can make it even safer!

Jack


SeaMe

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: HPWA update
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2015, 11:02:50 AM »
Yep, I agree.  Too long.  But, the letter was addressed to people in the Coast Guard staff who sat through all of the meetings where Chairman Stec designed and pushed his resolution through his committee and council.

My micro-complaint was aimed at the formatting for reading here on the Zone, not the length. Socalsupper70 thought it was important enough to share so I took the time and made the effort to read it.

If anyone thinks he is qualified to set standards for SUP regulatory safety, I will be pleased to debate in short or long form.  Because the law he supports makes putting a life jacket on a board compliant with the regulation.

You've had more interaction with the man than I think I ever will, but my point is not that I think he as an individual is qualified or unqualified, but that the ACA has a strong history of high standards for certifications. You're there so if you say he supports carrying but not wearing life jackets you must be correct, but I must point out that the ACA has promoted the exact opposite in their literature and PSA's. Here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axU0QpSdi_M
Go to the 0:11 mark for PFDs. Leashes are shown as "appropriate equipment" at the 2:19 mark.

I don't know why Stec is promoting carrying-only for this resolution but I think it's more complicated than "[he's] behind the learning curve."

In SO Cal, few water cops enforce that law...... now.....but eleswhere, in Lake Tahoe a young woman was arrested violently for failing to go fast enough to retrieve her life jacket.

Violent arrest is a police training and management issue. You can make the case that the police would not have approached the woman at all if there was no law, but the law/lack of professionalism is not a cause/effect relationship. Plenty of people have had incidents with law enforcement officials on the water with having things turn violent. I don't know any of the particulars of the incident you refer to, but if the woman feels it was violent she should file a formal complaint with the Police Department. Enforcing any law is not carte blanche for brutality.

Placing a buoyant device capable of floating 20 lbs on a device capable of floating 250 lbs is  IRRATIONAL. But worse, it is dangerous to let people go out in lakes with new and rented boards thinking that they are safe because they have a vest lying on thier board.  Wind and current separate rider and board and there is a real chance of drowning.  you might have noticed that they shoot away during a fall in calm water.  Leash up and recover the board.  This year, millions of dollars will be spent to send thousands of cops looking for boards without PFD's, just not in Orange or San Diego counties.

I agree with you 100%. If you watch the ACA video above, it looks like they agree with you too. I don't know why Stec is supporting carrying a pfd instead of wearing one or wearing a leash, but getting that conversation to take place out in the open is not going to happen if one or both sides approach the conversation with proverbial torches and pitchforks in hand.

The political power in the East doesn't care as long as racing shells continue to be exempt from carriage because they have oarlocks.  So, if you find yourself in a jurisdiction like San Rafael that tickets riders for not carrying a pfd, throw your paddle away and you wll no longer be on top of a "vessel".  Sorry if you think I'm bashing the esteemed COO of ACA.  But, I have a nasty streak intelligence.  I just don't think that PFD's belong on boards, even though I recognize that some people should wear them. Just not everyone in every venue and condition.  I don't even fully support the Australian model that leashes are required.

I'm not a member of the ACA or a friend of the COO, my point is that picking a fight with an individual/organization with deep pockets and lots of political sway is setting yourself up for failure. Better to figure out their motivation and make a deal so that both sides are satisfied.

“I must be a mermaid, Rango. I have no fear of depths and a great fear of shallow living.” ― Anaïs Nin
¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º>
Fanatic Fly HRS 10'6"
Fanatic Ray HRS BVI 12'0" ヾ(@°▽°@)ノ

HPWA Jack

  • Waikiki Status
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: HPWA update
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2015, 02:40:10 PM »
I have done little else in 2014 than to pursue the isuses of which you correctly write.  If I say why I think he did what he did, that would be inflamatory and hard to prove.
If I tell you he said leashes were dangerous because of snap back head and eye injuries in fall of 2012, that is public record.
If I tell you he gaveled me down and repressed my suggestions, that too is public record, although I havnt read.the.staff summary yet.
Look, a kid died in Florida.  Drown with a pfd attached uselessly to his board.  The deck is stacked against leashes and for approved pfds.  But, this is no longer about agressive cops, life jacket lobbies, or a 100 year old venerable canoe organization.
The issue is self regulation for safety and a council and staff that did not do the homework.  They are liable for that kid and the next one.

SeaMe

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: HPWA update
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2015, 04:22:40 PM »
Violent arrest is a police training and management issue. You can make the case that the police would not have approached the woman at all if there was no law, but the law/lack of professionalism is not a cause/effect relationship. Plenty of people have had incidents with law enforcement officials on the water with having things turn violent.

Correction: I left off a word,  the above should say, "Plenty of people have had incidents with law enforcement officials on the water without having things turn violent.

I have done little else in 2014 than to pursue the isuses of which you correctly write.  If I say why I think he did what he did, that would be inflamatory and hard to prove.
If I tell you he said leashes were dangerous because of snap back head and eye injuries in fall of 2012, that is public record.
If I tell you he gaveled me down and repressed my suggestions, that too is public record, although I havnt read.the.staff summary yet.
Look, a kid died in Florida.  Drown with a pfd attached uselessly to his board.  The deck is stacked against leashes and for approved pfds.  But, this is no longer about agressive cops, life jacket lobbies, or a 100 year old venerable canoe organization.
The issue is self regulation for safety and a council and staff that did not do the homework.  They are liable for that kid and the next one.

I wouldn't want you to write anything on a public forum that might come back to bite you on the ass. I'm on your side, you don't have to convince me.

In a perfect world, you would present logic and cumulative SUP experience  and that would be convincing enough on its own, but that it not how the political game is played. Without friends in high places or huge numbers backing you every step of the way, being right isn't enough. Shaking hands and kissing ass might help more than righteous anger. Saying they're responsible for all deaths that occur is not going to make friends where you need them most.

Personally, I would argue that SUP/SUS marketing is just as much to blame for fatalities since they barely show swimsuits and almost never show safety equipment when promoting the sport, however, I believe people need to take responsibility for themselves. Going out on the water, wearing a leash or not, wearing a pfd or not, are all choices. Some people will live to learn from their mistakes, some won't. I'd rather take the risk than have the government dictate more than they already do. 
“I must be a mermaid, Rango. I have no fear of depths and a great fear of shallow living.” ― Anaïs Nin
¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º>
Fanatic Fly HRS 10'6"
Fanatic Ray HRS BVI 12'0" ヾ(@°▽°@)ノ

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal