"Melissa" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Rick,

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:41:01 GMT, you wrote:

Sometimes, having a mix of novices and experienced paddlers is what
keeps a group from making the wrong choices.

I solve this problem by paddling solo most of the time! Well, almost,
as I can still have some pretty entertaining discussions with myself
before deciding to do something stupid; then I go ahead and do
something stupid, because after all, sometimes the "stupid me" is the
designated leader of the trip! :-)

Seriously though... (my comments to follow are related specifically to
sea kayaking, as my experience with whitewater river paddling is very
limited to date; though I intend to do more of it!).

All the variables that the Tsunami Rangers consider are valid, and
good to think about; whether paddling with a group or paddling solo.
I still don't use the rating system as such, because I just don't
want to spend half an hour sitting on the beach playing with a
calculator before I go paddling!

Also, while the Ranger's system does consider various potentialities
"in general", it necessarily disregards several specific
possibilities that can be unique in every different place, like
shoals, very specific configurations of rock gardens and sea caves,
and how these influence conditions in those areas during various
times of the tide/current cycles, and in various weather conditions.
No matter how specific we can get with the numbers at the time of
launching, we have to constantly reevaluate conditions while on the
water based on our overall situational awareness.

Even as I begin to write this, I'm realizing that I can just keep on
writing without end, trying not to forget some important detail here
and there, yet in reality, all these things are also "considered" in
a transparent way that is as natural as breathing, and what might
take five single spaced pages to *try* and explain actually flashes
by in an instant of simply "being in the moment" while standing on
shore or paddling on the water.



If I'm reading you correctly, Melissa, you bring up an incredibly salient
point, which is: "What is a rating system used for?"

When I was leading canoe trips in the NWT, I would often come across a rapid
and have to decide whether or not to run it, to let the clients run it, or
to line it. I never rated the rapid, or even cared an iota what it was
rated....my decision was not based on the rating; it was based on being 'in
the moment', looking at the rapid and making an educated judgement.

Rating systems are actually not for making on-site decisions. They are for
communciating things to people who are not there.

For example, someone deciding if they are going to run a certain long rapid
might ask someone what it does around the corner. Being 'half' in the
moment, the other person might say "Oh, it continues like this part
here....no larger than an easy class 3." At least that person has a
reference for what the other person is describing.

Or I might have to explain why I did not let the clients run a certain drop.
I would tell my boss "it was a tricky class 3, they weren't up to it".

Then you might have someone who is packing for a trip on a river they have
never done before. The guidebooks all agree that this river has certain
Class 4 rapids, so the tripper has to use that information to decide what
kind of gear to bring, how long the trip will be, what boat to paddle. Thats
where internally consistent grading systems become important: for the folks
who cannot just be 'in the moment' and need some info about the river to
prepare for it. And this is where the system sometimes breaks down. I
remember when I ran the MidFork Salmon at flood stage: there were boaters
from both coasts on the trip, in kayaks and rafts, and the first 20 miles
was rated 'Class 3'. We all were shocked at how technical, continuous and
irregular the wave were, and all the East Coast boaters insisted that this
was class 4. The west coast boaters (who were used to Grand Canyon sized
rapids) insisted that these were really more like an easy class 3. We ended
up compromising and calling them "Idaho Class 3s". But forever after that,
whenever I was running a Western river that was rated Class 3 or 4, I had no
idea if I could get down it in an open boat, although I had been running
Class 4 rapids in my open boat in the East Coast for years.

I'm pretty sure that this is because most NorthEastern rivers (and North
Central) are rated from the perspective of a canoeist, since the history of
that region is the history of the Voyageurs. However, SouthEastern rivers
are rated from the perspective of kayakers, being the home of recreations
steep-creeking. And Western Rivers are rated from the perspective of
Oarsmen, thanks to the Post WW2 army surplus pontoons . For each of these
boaters, the same river would pose different obstacles and have differing
difficulties. As an open boater, I could not possibly distinguish between
Class 4+, Class 5- and Class 5+. As a rafter (or a solid kayaker), Class 2-,
2+ and 3- are pretty indistingiushable (and boring). As a result, there is
some internal inconsistency between regions.

The hardest part comes when we are trying to correlate rapids of very
different nature in different places. A class 3 in Maine on a rocky,
clearwater woods stream like the Penobscot will be different than a Class 3
in the Grand Canyon (if you adjust the Canyon scale accordingly), and will
be different than a Class 3 on the Orange in South Africa, which is a desert
river. Different types of rock, different volumes of water, different shaped
waves all change the charteristics of the rapids so that, as per Oci-One's
assertation: class 3s are harder than class 2s, but the problem is that not
all Class 3s are equally hard.

Funny thing, however, is when some people let the rating system override
their momentary presence. These are folks who get laundered in some rapid,
then amazingly declare "Hey, I should have been able to run that! The book
says its only class 3!"...even though their eyes told them at the scout rock
that it would have probably been rated a class 4 if it had been back in
their home state.

--riverman