Phil Sellers wrote:

I would question the Coast Guard's jurisdiction in issuing a directive on
the subject. Like motorcycle helmets, the states should be making this
call.

Were the US Coast Guard to issue such a regulation (and I am unaware of
anything actually pending) it would apply only where the Coast Guard has
jurisdiction. Without gettting into a lengthy discussion of inland sea
law, suffice it to say that most inland lakes and rivers are not within
the US Coast Guard's jurisdiction, so it would be up to each state or
other governmental entity to set the rule.

That's why my BS detector goes off every time I hear somebody tell me
that the federal gummint is going to require PFD's everywhere. The
regulatory jurisdictional boundaries simply make it impossible for it to
be done with one fell swoop. If it happens, it'll happen one state at a
time. So far, the score seems to be oh-for-fifty.

But note that where the Coast Guard has jurisdiction, they do get to set
the rules. Likewise the US Park Service gets to set rules where they
have jurisdiction - and when their jurisdiction includes whitewater,
sometimes they require you to wear a PFD. I don't think this is
unreasonable, although I do think it's unreasonable to require PFD's on
calm shallow water when the weather is nice. The question is where to
draw the line.

--
//-Walt
//
// http://tinyurl.com/2lsr3

Walt wrote in message

Were the US Coast Guard to issue such a regulation (and I am unaware of
anything actually pending) it would apply only where the Coast Guard has
jurisdiction.

Just because the government has no jurisdiction does not meant that it
won't try to impose its will on the states. Look at the 55 MPH speed
limit, seat belt laws, and education (to name a few areas). These are
areas where, constitutionally, the states should be able to make the
rules. But, as long as the federal government continues to tax us at
a high rate and then gives it back with strings attached, they will
call the shots whenever they want to.

The worst part is that any such regulation is likely to be pretty
arcane. For example, there was a time when rafts (and other boats of
a particular size) had to carry a "Throwable Flotation Device," an air
horn, and a fire extinguisher. Wes****er Canyon is now inspecting
life jackets before you are allowed on the river. If it does not
specifically say "For Whitewater Use" or "For Paddling" or if it is
faded or modified in any way, you are denied the right to float.

I really think that we are better off with the federal government
defending us and regulating interstate commerce (and a few other
constitutionally mandated functions) and then leaving most of the
other decisions to the states or to the individual. When it comes to
paddling equipment, I'd like to make my own choices and I will take
the consequences thank you.

Randy

Randy Hodges wrote:
Walt wrote in message

Were the US Coast Guard to issue such a regulation (and I am unaware of
anything actually pending) it would apply only where the Coast Guard has
jurisdiction.

Just because the government has no jurisdiction does not meant that it
won't try to impose its will on the states. Look at the 55 MPH speed
limit, seat belt laws, and education (to name a few areas).

Point taken. US Congress can arm-twist states through appropriations
bills. But unlike road construction and education, boating is not
highly subsidized by Federal grants to the states, so the leverage is
ouite limited. I don't see a bill coming out of congress that says
"make PFDs mandatory or we'll cut the funding for X for your state."

The worst part is that any such regulation is likely to be pretty
arcane. For example, there was a time when rafts (and other boats of
a particular size) had to carry a "Throwable Flotation Device," an air
horn, and a fire extinguisher.

Still true today, depending on what state's jurisdiction you're in. We
have a patchwork system of hundreds (if not thousands) of separate
jurisdictions each with it's own rules that vary by boat size and type.
Not that I'm arguing for comprehensive Federal regulation to supplant
state and local laws, but a single set of laws for the entire country
would be significantly *less* arcane.


--
//-Walt
//
// http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=63