Leash Use.

[Admin]

And if you are one of the few here who find it hard to agree with the statement "leashes save lives", would you similarly object to the statement "wearing the correct leash saves lives"?

Bill wrote this above:

I've seen this firsthand. pulling people out of the ocean in Manzanita. It explains why PFDs don't get inflated, and why leash entanglement victims don't release their leash.

Many never reach for the release on either the vest or the leash.

[pdxmike]

I've tried to read thru this entire thread to make sure I'm not saying something already said.  Of course safety should be a high priority, and yes sometimes what you think should save you, might in some circumstances be what kills you.  I think it comes down to using your head, maybe practicing a few things to make sure you have your plan for if things go bad, etc.  Granted, we can't plan for everything, but there is a reason why police and firemen train and practice.  Anyway, my only additional thought on this huge issue is what each person might want to consider when they head out for a paddle.  You might be a true waterman, super healthy, super experienced, etc and it is your choice about your safety gear.  And, if you die because you didn't use it, or died because you did but you ran into what Pono Bill described in another thread "a perfect storm", it is your choice.  However, what about if you have a spouse, or family?  What about what you could be potentially leaving behind?  For the ones that you care about that are left behind to deal with the aftermath like Andres Pombo's family has had to, how would you feel about that?  They have suffered threw a few false reports that he was found alive, and then had to suffer through waiting for his body to surface.  What if your body weren't found for weeks?  I'm not sure how life insurance works on the payout, but what if your family wasn't in the best of financial shape and now needed the money from your policy, but they have to wait because your body hasn't been found.  Again, I don't know if that could happen, but I'm just bringing it up.  Sometimes, it not just you that is affected by your choices, it's also the ones that you love.  Andres's family needed the help of many to get out there and deal with bringing him back home.  Would you want your loved ones to suffer like that?  Not trying be sound all high and mightly, it's just another thing to maybe think about when you make your choices.

That's very true a big reason I wear one.  I'm rarely anywhere my board would get away from me if I fell, but my first year paddling someone fell off their board right where I paddle and as far as I know they never found his body. 


In addition to the family, think also of the rescuers--first putting their own lives in danger not knowing you're already dead, then using up resources trying to find your body--not to mention the emotional aspect they also go through, even for a stranger. 

[Area 10]

And if you are one of the few here who find it hard to agree with the statement "leashes save lives", would you similarly object to the statement "wearing the correct leash saves lives"?

Bill wrote this above:

I've seen this firsthand. pulling people out of the ocean in Manzanita. It explains why PFDs don't get inflated, and why leash entanglement victims don't release their leash.

Many never reach for the release on either the vest or the leash.

That is just a matter of education and training. It is not an argument for everyone not wearing a leash.

I have nearly lost my life twice through leash entanglement. It is very frightening. Both times I could have avoided the situation if I'd have been wearing an appropriate leash.

But my life has probably been saved countless times by a leash, most notably when downwinding. It may also have saved the lives of others who might otherwise have come into contact with my board.

Nothing is foolproof. But on balance, if you are wearing the right equipment and know how to use it, for most paddlers the benefits far outweigh the risks.

This is the same rationale as for seat belts etc (and for PFDs).

But surely for SUP yoga, or where people are paddling in indoor pools, some common sense has to be applied.

[Admin]

That is just a matter of education and training. It is not an argument for everyone not wearing a leash.

Safety is a matter of education and training but that is essentially the opposite of a single line of text.   

Bill was referring to the Instinctive Drowning Response.  I had mentioned that two of the SUP drownings had involved SUPers that were wearing uninflated life vests.  The actuation was right there but they never inflated them.

[Area 10]

That is just a matter of education and training. It is not an argument for everyone not wearing a leash.

Safety is a matter of education and training but that is essentially the opposite of a single line of text.   

Bill was referring to the Instinctive Drowning Response.  I had mentioned that two of the SUP drownings had involved SUPers that were wearing uninflated life vests.  The actuation was right there but they never inflated them.

Yes. But my point is that anyone who can be saved will be more likely to be saved by the correct leash for the situation (than not wearing one).

The fact that some people will drown no matter what help you provide (and sometimes will also drown a person trying to help them) does not alter the veracity of the line of text. The text wasn't "the correct leash will save every person's life". That would be fatuous.

[Blue crab]

Will there be useful statistics to make that assessment? NO.

There will never be adequate samples size, and there are way too many confounding variables, to make statistical comparisons (with meaningful p-values) amongst various safety options (say waist vs ankle leases). That being said, I think there is a role for precise statistical thinking to assess the situation. I use a serial probability approach every time I go downwinding to plan for specific situations. While admittedly imprecise, it provides a reasonable framework to assess risk for myself and those in my group.

At the heart of the issue are the multiple of two probabilities: the probability of becoming permanently separated from the board and the conditional probability of not being able to make it back to shore in one piece without the board? These probabilities vary enormously for an individual and a set of conditions.  However, when assessing personal risk, I make conservative assumptions. 

First, what is the risk of losing a board? For some context, I did a Viento run with my wife this weekend and it was her first time. We were out there forever and I got to watch dozens of people go by.  To my surprise, nearly everyone fell at one point or another (except for the SIC team riders).  I am nothing special and fall most runs.  I suspect that a reasonably high percentage of my falls would be associated with board separation. For me personally, if I did a run in the gorge without a leash, I bet I'd lose the board 20-80% of the time. Huge uncertainty, but this number is unacceptably high no matter the true value, and highlights to me that the leash is the single most important piece of safety equipment on a downwinder other than the board.  Based on Bill's history of 100s of runs and only a few mishaps, the risk of separation with a high quality leash is <1%. I try to get this number infinitesimally small by using new leashes & 2 tie down strings. I bring an extra leash on most runs as well in case the first one feels gimpy.

Second, can I get to shore? This is where there is a bit more nuance. I honestly have no idea whether I could easily swim half way across the Columbia river in big conditions. I'd like to think it would be no sweat but this is perhaps bravado.  A conservative assumption is that I would make it in from the middle of the river without a pfd 70% of the time.  However, there are easy ways to lower this risk which are more appropriate for certain runs than others.  I always bring a pfd so I have an option of using it if swimming is not working.  I believe in the buddy system: when I am with newer paddlers, I try to stay within a minute of their position to assist if need be. If possible, I stay near shore. The Columbia is a great place to do a first downwinder relative to Puget Sound or Maliko because there are great swells very, very near the Oregon shore. I of course realize that none of these factors ensures total safety and drowning can occur very rapidly. However, I think that the conditional probability of not being able to make it out of the water alive is lowered dramatically with the use of a pfd, buddy system and a route near shore. I would say less than 10% for sure.

The multiple of these probabilities (the prefect storm) is <0.1% which is pretty low (lower than my bike commute to work for sure). I therefore conclude that downwinding can be quite safe with the right preparation, and used this logic to justify taking my kids out this weekend. 

That being said, I also do 9 mile solo runs on Puget Sound in the middle of winter when it is hailing out. These may be on a Tuesday afternoon when no one else is on the water.  I am therefore extremely careful about board separation on these days, and have used 2 leashes (one ankle, one waist) in the past.  I also wear full PFD (not the inflatable kind) and obviously bring a phone. Probably not as safe, but within my acceptable margin of risk.

[kjulks]

Yes. But my point is that anyone who can be saved will be more likely to be saved by the correct leash for the situation (than not wearing one).

The fact that some people will drown no matter what help you provide (and sometimes will also drown a person trying to help them) does not alter the veracity of the line of text. The text wasn't "the correct leash will save every person's life". That would be fatuous.

This is the cost/benefit utility argument rearing its ugly head again, and I must vehemently argue against it. The choices are not A) Leashes save lives, or B) <no message>. The message can be anything you want. What I've been trying to articulate, and if I'm not mistaken what Admin has been saying, is that simply stating "Leashes save lives" doesn't address the times when it doesn't, and furthermore could augment the times when leashes take lives. To make this the industry-standard silver bullet would be a mistake.

You cannot say, "Well it's the best option, people are going to drown no matter what. So on balance, 100 times more lives saved by encouraging wearing leashes offsets the 1 time where someone dies from wearing it." That is a positive action taken that will influence some beginner to wear a leash when it is explicitly inappropriate to do so. That cannot be allowed to happen.

The message, whatever it is, must be more than an inadequate alliterative one-liner.

[Admin]

Yes. But my point is that anyone who can be saved will be more likely to be saved by the correct leash for the situation (than not wearing one).

The fact that some people will drown no matter what help you provide (and sometimes will also drown a person trying to help them) does not alter the veracity of the line of text. The text wasn't "the correct leash will save every person's life". That would be fatuous.

I appreciate your opinion and I don't doubt your interest in safety but I completely disagree.  The ACA said it perfectly:

"Leashes are another crucial piece of equipment in numerous situations, know which style to wear and in what venue, and know when not to wear a leash".

[Bulky]

I've tried to read thru this entire thread to make sure I'm not saying something already said.  Of course safety should be a high priority, and yes sometimes what you think should save you, might in some circumstances be what kills you.  I think it comes down to using your head, maybe practicing a few things to make sure you have your plan for if things go bad, etc.  Granted, we can't plan for everything, but there is a reason why police and firemen train and practice.  Anyway, my only additional thought on this huge issue is what each person might want to consider when they head out for a paddle.  You might be a true waterman, super healthy, super experienced, etc and it is your choice about your safety gear.  And, if you die because you didn't use it, or died because you did but you ran into what Pono Bill described in another thread "a perfect storm", it is your choice.  However, what about if you have a spouse, or family?  What about what you could be potentially leaving behind?  For the ones that you care about that are left behind to deal with the aftermath like Andres Pombo's family has had to, how would you feel about that?  They have suffered threw a few false reports that he was found alive, and then had to suffer through waiting for his body to surface.  What if your body weren't found for weeks?  I'm not sure how life insurance works on the payout, but what if your family wasn't in the best of financial shape and now needed the money from your policy, but they have to wait because your body hasn't been found.  Again, I don't know if that could happen, but I'm just bringing it up.  Sometimes, it not just you that is affected by your choices, it's also the ones that you love.  Andres's family needed the help of many to get out there and deal with bringing him back home.  Would you want your loved ones to suffer like that?  Not trying be sound all high and mightly, it's just another thing to maybe think about when you make your choices.

Well said.  Spot on.  I also don't have much to add but put me down for education, etc.  Bottom line for me is, I enjoy paddling and understand there's risk.  It's not really a matter of obeying the law (I break it everyday as I'm far out of the surf zone without a PFD--and the likelihood of ever seeing any enforcement agency is negligible), but taking my safety seriously (my conditions are nothing like the Gorge, but you won't catch me without a leash).  With a leash, phone and good judgement regarding local conditions (I won't go out if things are shaping up a certain way) I feel like I've adequately prepared for most emergency scenarios I'd encounter.

There's certainly some freak events that might result in tragedy, but you just can't prepare for every one of those.  For me, it's most important to think of my wife and kids with a clear conscience and know that I'm not doing anything inordinately risky or stupid that would impact them.

The vexing thing is that you often can't educate complete ignorance.  Most of us here are experienced enough to know the dangers and prepare accordingly, but I worry about people with rented/borrowed gear who just don't realize some of the risks they're taking.  But then again, in the recent tragedy and in DJs video that still gives me chills, ignorance wasn't the issue--sometimes we just forget, make mistakes or poor calls.

[Area 10]

Yes. But my point is that anyone who can be saved will be more likely to be saved by the correct leash for the situation (than not wearing one).

The fact that some people will drown no matter what help you provide (and sometimes will also drown a person trying to help them) does not alter the veracity of the line of text. The text wasn't "the correct leash will save every person's life". That would be fatuous.

This is the cost/benefit utility argument rearing its ugly head again, and I must vehemently argue against it. The choices are not A) Leashes save lives, or B) <no message>. The message can be anything you want. What I've been trying to articulate, and if I'm not mistaken what Admin has been saying, is that simply stating "Leashes save lives" doesn't address the times when it doesn't, and furthermore could augment the times when leashes take lives. To make this the industry-standard silver bullet would be a mistake.

You cannot say, "Well it's the best option, people are going to drown no matter what. So on balance, 100 times more lives saved by encouraging wearing leashes offsets the 1 time where someone dies from wearing it." That is a positive action taken that will influence some beginner to wear a leash when it is explicitly inappropriate to do so. That cannot be allowed to happen.

The message, whatever it is, must be more than an inadequate alliterative one-liner.

I said "wearing the *correct* leash saves lives". Not "wearing leashes saves lives". My phrasing is much more nuanced because it leads to the question "what is the CORRECT leash?". If you don't know that, you might die. Just like I very nearly did, twice. So you don't need to lecture me about the potential risks of leashes.

But if you are going to reject any cost/benefit analysis as a matter of principle, even when there might be good pragmatic reasons for doing so, then it's going to be tough to please you. Perhaps we should just let people make up their own minds, like happened on Hood River. That's the approach we tend to favour in Europe. If you decide to take a risk with your own life then mostly we don't care. Go die if you want to. It is only when that decision puts others at risk that we care. But even if you take this approach then it might still be useful to tell people that leashes might save their lives. You clearly don't think much of the proposed messages. So how do you think that message should be phrased?

But the vociferousness of your voice on this matter makes me wonder if you have had some personal experience that is driving it. What is your own personal experience of leashes?

[Area 10]

Yes. But my point is that anyone who can be saved will be more likely to be saved by the correct leash for the situation (than not wearing one).

The fact that some people will drown no matter what help you provide (and sometimes will also drown a person trying to help them) does not alter the veracity of the line of text. The text wasn't "the correct leash will save every person's life". That would be fatuous.

I appreciate your opinion and I don't doubt your interest in safety but I completely disagree.  The ACA said it perfectly:

"Leashes are another crucial piece of equipment in numerous situations, know which style to wear and in what venue, and know when not to wear a leash".

Other than the very specialised situations (maybe) of whitewater or surfing weirs etc, when is a person safer not wearing a leash? I obviously need educating.

[PonoBill]

Not much going on today, so I took the grandkids down to the event center to swim and play with boards. Leashes and PFDs for those gomers all the time--they don't swim well and are constantly trying to drown each other. While I was sitting around, watching the war, I observed people headed out into the Columbia. It looks so harmless. Of the 21 people I watched paddle out into the middle of the river, all had PFDs tied to the nose of their board. Four had leashes.

I resisted the urge to scream at them.

[Easy Rider]

The biggest "issue" I have with the pfd strapped to the . . . is that it totally creates a false sense of security. 

"Oh the rental place strapped a life jacket to my board, I must be safe then"   

This is what needs to change. 

[pdxmike]

I'd almost say safety would improve if all that changed was a legal ban on strapping pfds to boards.  Not a requirement to wear them, or replace them with leashes,  but simply a ban on bringing them along on your board. The false sense of security would go away, but safety wouldn't be harmed, except for very rare circumstances.   


And of course on the leash subject, it takes no more time and effort to strap a leash to your leg than a pfd to your board.

[kjulks]

But if you are going to reject any cost/benefit analysis as a matter of principle, even when there might be good pragmatic reasons for doing so, then it's going to be tough to please you. Perhaps we should just let people make up their own minds, like happened on Hood River. That's the approach we tend to favour in Europe. If you decide to take a risk with your own life then mostly we don't care. Go die if you want to. It is only when that decision puts others at risk that we care.

I don't reject them on principle, only when the principle of utility furthers an argument that would lead to a positive harm. I'm really not trying to be an argumentative dick, I'm just clearly unable to articulate the subtleties of what we're discussing. Let me try again:
The conversation started with the letter, and Dave Kalama put forth the argument that leashes save 100 times more lives than they take. He cited an example of helping someone who became entangled. He acknowledged the risk of entanglement, but stated that the potential benefit outweighs that risk. From that letter, Starboard appears to be spearheading a movement to include a "Leashes save lives" sticker on all of their boards. That has ramifications for the industry. Starboard is widely regarded as one of the leaders, if not the leader. This could mean that several other manufacturers do the same.
So, fast forward to how this plays out: Somebody rents a board, and the rental outfit has boards that have these "Leashes save lives" stickers. The outfit follows this advice, as does the customer. They're on a river, or they take the board to the river. They snag. They die. That is what I mean by a positive action that results in an inappropriate application of safety equipment. That would be directly caused by a positive action taken (the sticker campaign, the inappropriate enforcement of an inadequate generalization), and it would result in a life lost. That is differentiated from a lack of action.
Deaths from lack of action, one could argue, are just as bad. We see Andres, these other poor guys that have drowned recently due to board separation. That's horrible, and I don't want that to happen either.
What I'm trying to say is that these are not the only two options.
The pragmatic approach is the neither "Leashes save lives" nor <silence>.

But even if you take this approach then it might still be useful to tell people that leashes might save their lives.

Yes, but that "might" in the "save their lives" is the important part. Manufacturers jumping on a message that could actually take lives is a horrible mistake. "Leashes save lives" is a very forceful statement. It suggests that leashes are the answer. Beginners, less informed facilitators of the sport, and all sorts will view that as a statement made from a position of authority, and will likely follow it. A small percentage of those adherents could do so to their detriment.

You clearly don't think much of the proposed messages. So how do you think that message should be phrased?

I think the examples cited by Admin from Bic and the ACA are the realistic approach. I understand the desire for an easy solution, but safety is a complex issue. I don't have a good answer, because I think "the message" is more of an industry-backed approach. It's not a blurb, a sentence, a sticker, but rather a mindset. Facilitators and enthusiasts should do everything they can to aid newbies and educate them. Experienced paddlers should take responsibility and call each other out when we aren't being safe for dumb reasons. Whether this means pamphlets like Eagle said, videos like several people have suggested, or some sort of facilitator certification system, I don't know. I don't think there's ever going to be an easy answer to safety. What I'm trying to caution against is the feel-good reaction to a snappy phrase that will do a lot of good, but will also result in harm. That can't be the answer.

But the vociferousness of your voice on this matter makes me wonder if you have had some personal experience that is driving it. What is your own personal experience of leashes?

Fortunately no. I love this sport, and I'd hate to see it misstep because we acted out of grief. That's all.

And, Area 10, I'll say this one more time because I'm really not trying to be a dick: I'm sorry if some of this is stated in a "holier than thou" way. That's not my intention. I'm not trying to lecture anyone. I feel strongly about safety, especially when it's targeted to beginners and could have ramifications for the industry as a whole. When the stakes are high like this - yknow, life and death - I'd rather state the obvious and come off as condescending than leave things unsaid and assumed. So I sincerely apologize if I'm doing any of the above, which were, in summary: being a dick, holier than thou, lecturing, or condescending. Pretty sure I did them all, but it comes from a good place. [See? I can get behind cost-benefit arguments...  ]

EDIT: The last last thing I'm going to add on to this friggin treatise... This snag hazard isn't some outside chance. I live near a bunch of rivers that are used recreationally like lakes by a lot of people. Kayaks, canoes, power boats, you name it. I'm not going on and on about this because it's not a perfect solution. I recognize that nothing will ever be death-proof. I'm saying that if the sport keeps growing (and here it certainly will... we're about 5 years behind coastal trends I'd guess), then telling a load of people to use leashes in inappropriate scenarios will lead to issues that will be statistically significant.