In message , riverman
writes

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"riverman" wrote in message
...

Uh oh. Shoulda listened to my lawyer.

There's a natural hierarchy to these things. Always listen to your
plumber and your electrician first.....then your accountant.....then your
doctor......and then your lawyer.

But still, Wolfie, play nice with your new friends.

The Burnsian postulate is always uppermost in my mind.


Huh?
Either youre a fan of Haggis, the Simpsons, or M*A*S*H.

--riverman

Has anyone seen the band Haggis that hail from Phoenix? We passed some
of their fans on the Grand the other year. We enlightened them about
what a haggis is and even gave them one - we were a predominately
Scottish trip - too much whisky and not enough gin!



--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

"Franklin" wrote in message
...
Snip
Will Usenet prevent accidents in the future? Probably not.

Major snip end

I'm not so sure about that. Everyone that reads discussions such as this
mentally go through the event and decide what they would do. This mental
exercise makes us better. It makes us confront the problems that we may
encounter. There are many people here that do lead trips and many people
here participate in group trips, so where better to get the mental
gymnastics going.

In my younger years I spent many hours in and around airplanes and that
community goes over every accident to try to learn from the other's
experiences. If nothing else it keeps everyone aware of the risks so that
they may intelligently manage them. - - It must work to some extent - I'm
still here. ;

Ken

"Franklin" wrote in message
...

Personally, I generally prefer discussion to debate, but that's a
minor point and I realize that one or the other may be more
appropriate and/or useful depending on circumstances. As to whether
debate on Usenet will prevent similar accidents from happening in the
future.......well, that is debatable. At any rate, I think there is
ample reason to believe that people who hand down a verdict before an
investigation reveals whether any malfeasance or negligence has
occurred are not likely to be much interested in debate or discussion.
Nor are they likely to be of any appreciable use in either.


Will Usenet prevent accidents in the future? Probably not.

Probably so, as a matter of fact. This is a pretty weak beginning. Let's
see where it leads, shall we?

But deciding
not to talk about unfortunate events which have occurred because you might
be seen as imposing some form of judgement on the participants will
*definitely* not prevent future accidents.

Should you encounter anyone who feels these matters should not be discussed,
kindly refer them to me. I am confident that I can convince them (or those
among them who are interested in discussion.....and at least marginally
qualified to discuss anything) that they should reconsider. As for the rest
of that sentence, rather than pass judgement on it, I will simply decline to
discuss it.

You can't discuss events like
this without imposing some form of "judgement" on those who are involved.

Horse****.

You criticize those who find fault with the guide in this case for passing
judgement.

Not all.

Yet riverman above finds no real fault with the guide, and
that's a judgement as well.

See what I mean?

Do you find fault with his assessment as well?

None whatsoever.....for a number of reasons.

In the first place, having corresponded with riverman for a couple of years
on another newsgroup, I happen to know that he is a highly experienced and
formerly, if not currently, professional watersports guide with a great deal
of experience in precisely the sort of activity that in this instance
resulted in the reason for this thread. As a result of this correspondence,
and despite numerous and not always friendly disagreements with him on
numerous other matters (some trivial and others not at all so), I have
acquired a pretty fair respect for his expertise and his judgement in
matters highly and specifically germane to the subject at hand.

Secondly, his contributions to this thread so far have been not only closely
reasoned but also eminently reasonable. That they are corroborated by his
own not inconseqential experience gives them added weight.

Third, and by no means least important, even an embarrassingly close
examination of riverman's position, as stated, will reveal no hint of lynch
mob mentality. His judgements in this instance (whatever anyone may think
of them) will not result in the premature and quite possibly unjustified
destruction of the life of anyone who may not be guilty of anything more
than bad luck, nor (and this is critically important) of the lives of such
an unlucky individual's family members.

There's more (and yeah, I really don't mind if you try me), but that will
suffice for now.

On the other hand, with the single exception of yourself, no one with whom
I've taken exception on this matter has yet displayed any hint of
qualifications, reason, reasonableness, or anything else but a propensity to
leap to whatever conclusion he (one would hope to believe foolishly......but
here you are) thinks will improve his standing among others in this group.

Moreover, anyone whose expertize in these matters allows him to
correctly diagnose exactly what went wrong in this situation at some
great distance and based solely on preliminary newspaper reports (or,
more likely, a condensation of such reports found on a website.....or
what someone else in a newsgroup said about such a condensation)
would, obviously, have been able to prevent the accident from
happening in the first place. This being the case, one has to wonder
why these savants are nattering on Usenet when they SHOULD be out
saving lives. Further, I thinks it's safe to assume that they were
NOT out saving lives in uncannily similar situations on that
day......otherwise, they'd have told us exactly how they did it,
right? Therefore, they MUST have been free to take the Florida
situation in hand, thus saving two needlessly wasted
lives......um.....unless they had something more important to do,
which I am willing to concede, though I'm having some trouble figuring
out what it may have been.

Again, you criticize take the known facts and pass a negative judgement;
do
you feel the same about those who take those same facts and find no fault
at
all?

Known facts? Take another look at the facts presented by those I have
(mildly, thus far) admonished. Beyond that, see above.

You seem to be coming down solely on those who find fault based on the
known information,

Well, things aren't always what they seem. I am, in fact, "coming down" on
those who wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit them on the ass, and
who have no interest in or respect for truth, fairness, reason.......or
simple basic humanity.

but if you're going to be intellectually honest, you have
to criticize both those who pass a negative judgement (like Brian) and
also
those who pass a positive judgement (like riverman).

Not only unsubstantiated, but a stupid assertion on the face of it.
Intellectual honesty doesn't demand anything of the sort. As a matter of
fact, equating such an assertion with inellectual honesty flies in the face
of good sense and belies a claim to either on the part of whatever ass might
make it.

I guess my main point
is that I understand your disagreement as you've stated it,

I beg to differ on two fronts. You have yet to make a point worth anything
more than summary dismissal (thus rendering the very idea of a "main" point
moot.....at best), and you've shown no sign of understanding anything I've
said.

but I find your
means of arguing your point to be needlessly confrontational.

Need is a hard thing to pin down. How many calories do you 'NEED" to ingest
in a day? And if you think THIS is confrontational......well, you ain't
seen nothin' yet, Sparky.

Just my opinion, however.

Well, we are agreed on that much.


I also wonder where you came to the conclusion that those who are
"nattering" on about safety aren't out saving lives?

I assumed that anyone who was typing inane bombast on a Usenet newsgroup was
probably not simultaneously engaged in sundry heroic endeavors out in the
Gulf of Mexico. Unjustifed, perhaps, but I'll stand by that assumption
until informed otherwise.

I would be willing to
bet that many of the people who have expressed criticism have found
themselves in a rescue situation and have strong feelings about these
situations as a result.

Ah, a gambling man! I trust you will not take it amiss if I decline any
offers you might make in the future to guide any young person I know on open
water adventures.

And it's hard to do something about a situation in
Florida if you happened to be in California when it happened;

Ya know, that sounds a lot like something I might say. Oddly enough, it
sounds a LOT like something I DID say.

I have no
doubt that most of those you've attacked for offering their opinions would
have done everything in their power to help had they been there.

So would Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and a host of others. What a peculiar
coincidence that NONE of them was available, huh?

Tacitly or otherwise, anyone but an abject fool MUST accept the death
of kids like this as part of the game. Any and every activity in or
on water is inherently dangerous. For that matter, life is dangerous.
To be sure, we can devise ways of reducing some of the risks associate
with virtually any activity, but one can go only so far in this
direction without obliterating what makes it worthwhile. Could this
particular venture have been made safer? Of course. Could it have
been made foolproof? Well, water is tricky stuff. I suppose the trip
could have been made on a nice soft lawn, out of the sun, away from
any trees that might fall or a bicycle path off of which some crazed
biker might careen into the crowd.


I don't buy this.

It wasn't for sale. It was given away, gratis.

You say "could this particular venture have been made
safer? Of course." Well... isn't that the point?

Well, it's "A" point. And I must say that I take some pride not only in
having made one, but also in the fact that at least one person of manifestly
diminished capacity noticed.

Nobody is saying that water safety can be made foolproof.

No?

From your quote, even you obviously see
that the trip could have been safer,

Perceptive.......I'd wondered if anyone would notice that.

so my question is- why wasn't it?

Um.......cuz nobody could afford outriggers, flak jackets, kevlar helmets, a
United States Coast Guard escort, atropine ampules, morphine ampules, signal
flares, shark repellant, splints, contraceptives, nylon stockings, a 1911
model Colt .45 autoloaders, self inflating rubber rafts, food caches,
reflecting mirrors, LORAN gear, GPS gear, sattelite phones, Hershey's
chocolate bars, 3 miles of two inch Samson cord, parachute cord, assorted
bandages, magnesium blocks, stainless steel knives (with etched inch
markings on the serrated backside to measure legal abalone), dye markers,
suture kits, smoke grenades, epinephrine ampules, block and tackle, scuba
gear, parasails, a small hatchet, hemostats, rongeurs, a hotline to CSI, a
Leatherman multi-tool, c-rats, MREs, trade beads, a porta-potty,
biodegradble toilet paper, instant coffee, a sun shower, a space blanket,
claymores, land mines, light artillery, armored personnel carriers, on call
air cover, and granola bars?

Everybody appears to be in agreement that it could have been, so why
wasn't
it?

Actually, it was. Has ANYBODY stopped congratulating themselves on their
own heroism and perspicacity long enough to consider the fact that FOUR
people didn't die?

Not to speak for others, but I think that's what folks are saying.

Now, before we go any further, just take a moment to go back and look at
that sentence. Do you see what we're up against here?

And
I don't get the lawn example. Nobody's trying to say that kayaking is or
should be risk free.

You're absolutely right. You don't get the lawn example.

Meanwhile, and speaking only for myself, I think there can be little
doubt that the guide made an error. Assuming a reasonable degree of
humanity on his part, he doubtless made more than one. Whether or not
any error or errors on his part contributed to or directly caused the
deaths remain to be seen. Any number of circumstances beyond his
control could have come into play. For example, teenagers are
notoriously fractious. Isn't it at least possible that a couple of
them deliberately hung back from the group for God knows what reason
of their own? And then, when things got ugly, what should a group
leader do? Should he abandon a larger group, who would also need
whatever help he might be able to provide, in favor of a smaller?
Clearly, there are many other possibilites. Just as clearly,
judgement should be held in abeyance until all the facts are known (or
at least as many of them as can be discovered) and have been assessed.


Of course there are a myriad of possibilities.

Well, that's one possibility.

And many of the sources of
problems you cite above are probably impossible to deal with.

O.k.......then let's don't.

But it
appears that some other problems *were* possible to deal with.

That darned past tense! One of these days I was definitely going to do
something about that. I mean it! Just watch and saw if I didn't!

Even you say
that there can be little doubt that the guide made an error.

That was based on the assumption that he is human. I make no guarantees.

Which is
pretty much the judgement of everybody else, and the judgement which you
seem to be harshing on them for.

See, and we were doing so well! And then you have to go and say something
really stupid!

Leaving aside the fatuous notion that what anything looks like to
anyone (and, in particular, to anyone who gets his information from
speculation on a Usenet newsgroup) this early is of any earthly use,
the question of responsibility isn't quite as clear and simple as you
suppose either. Presumably, in this day and age, the parents of all
the minor participants were required to give written consent.
Moreover, if fourteen year olds are not in a position to assume risk
on their own, then how is it that every state in the U.S. allows them
to ride bicycles in traffic or engage in myriad other dangerous
activities unsupervised? Is kayaking inherently more dangerous than
skiing, martial arts or skateboarding?


I don't know if kayaking is more dangerous than the other activities you
mention, but I would argue that the dangers are much less obvious.

Yeah, getting hit by a bus is pretty subtle.

This position makes perfect sense if one assumes that I'm part of some
sort of cover-up conspiracy. Otherwise, it suggests you need a
refresher on what constitutes evidence.


Look, God knows that I'm not trying to start a flame war with you,

Good thing. Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, I'm ready!

so there's no cause to be nasty.

Cause? We don't need no steenking cause!

I wasn't assuming you're part of some cover up.

Too bad. That would have been your first reasonable assumption thus far.

All I was saying is that I thought you were unduly harsh towards others
who held a viewpoint other than your own, and it made me rethink the whole
thing.

Well, you're easily moved......that's what we like about you.

And I found that I disagreed with you.

Would you be surprised to learn that you ain't gettin' no cherry?

Nothing personal.

Tut tut.....think nothing of it.

The real tragedy is that there is an endless supply of cretins ever
ready to destroy yet more lives in a futile attempt to convince the
world (and thus perhaps even themselves) that they would have done
things differently and inevitably have saved the day......as any good
superhero should.


I guess I didn't see this in any of the responses.

I guess I agree......you show no sign of doing so.

I saw several people
point out that unnecessary errors were made that resulted in loss of life,
and that the guides decisions would not have been their own. What's wrong
with that?

Aside from the fact that it's entirely wrong, misses the point, is a crass
and unmistakable apologia, is self-serving, pig headed, willfully ignorant
and fundamentally inhumane?.........nothing that I can see.

Don't you ever second guess the actions of others?

I've been thinking about giving that a try. Is there a "...For The Complete
Dummy" guide?

That's just human nature, I would say.

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure you just did. Homicide, if history is
any guide, is just human nature too. And then, there's incest, thievery,
infanticide, pedophilia, adultery, apostasy, heresy, false witness, pride,
gluttony, sloth, envy......well, you know.

Nobody here is claiming to be a superhero, as
far as I can see.

These days you can get a pretty decent pair of binoculars at a decent price
at most sporting goods stores, discount chains (ala Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc.)
and many other fine local retail establishments.....watch your local paper
for flyers.

Wolfgang

OK. Well, I'm really not interested in a flame war, so I'll just let you
have it. You have your opinion, I have mine, we'll just leave it at that.

"Franklin" wrote in message
...
OK. Well, I'm really not interested in a flame war,

Can't say I blame you. All that trouble and at the end of the
day.......nobody gets hanged.

so I'll just let you have it.

I win?.......I WIN!......YIPPEE!

You have your opinion, I have mine,

I disagree.

we'll just leave it at that.

Oh........well.......rats.

Wolfgang
with one more friend to add to the list.

I'll let Wolfgang take care of himself in your address to him, Franklin,

I think he's taken care of himself quite nicely. But until he's capable of
stating his point of view without belittling, insulting and generally
antagonizing anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him, I won't have
anything more to do with him. I know he's your friend, but... sorry.

However, there is ample evidence that
it was an artifact of some bad luck, and that the trip was well-thought
out
and equipped. Specifically:

-the guide was experienced, had 25 years professional guiding experience
and
the experience of running his own company with dozens of trips per year
for
this same school. That's much more than most trip leaders have in any
given
situation.

But... how does *past* experience guarantee that no mistakes were made on
*this* trip? I can't agree that you build up some sort of positive karma by
successfully leading previous trips. Did he do a good job over the last 25
years? Probably, and kudos to him. But that doesn't mean he didn't mess up
on *this* trip.

-the guide was well-acquainted with the kids, being their HS English
teacher, and having worked in that school with those kids for several
years.

Again, I don't see how this supports the assertion that he didn't make a
mistake.

-the ratio of guides to kids is advertised to always be at least 1:8,
which
is a very safety-minded and reasonable ratio.

That's true, I agree with you.

-the ratio of boats was 6 client boats to 1 motorized guide boat. This is
_extremely_ reasonable, in my experience.


True also.

Additionally, it appears that the guide made the judgement call to stick
to
their schedule, which would have assisted anyone seeking them in knowing
where they were. I don't know if the trip did not have a radio: at one
point
when all the other members of the trip were safely at the pontoon, the
guide
decided to send his strongest paddlers to search/rescue the other boys.
That
it was himself indicates to me that there was probably an additional trip
leader.

The first is a good point, although I would alternately argue that sometimes
you have to be willing to abandon a plan also. If the threat is immediate
and rescue is not, I might suggest that it's time to go to plan B and not
count on your rescuers to search along plan A. Why not include an inclement
weather "escape route" in your planning, rather than sticking to plan A and
hoping the rescuers will find you in time? I'm not sure I agree that his
leaving the group to fend for itself is an indication that there was an
additional trip leader.

Remember,
this was primarily a coastal cruise, with what looks like one open water
crossing to that night's campsite. Even the local enforcement folks made
mention that this one particular stretch of water had the unusual
characteristic of being shallow enough to make ocean waves steep-sided.

But this sounds like a challenging crossing for a group of beginners,
doesn't it? Something that might have made it worthwhile to have additional
safety precautions?

Anyway, at this point I think that assuming that it was negligence is a
judgement based on the thinnest of information, and is being based solely
on
the outcome. Hindsight is always 20/20, but having been in enough
situation
that have gone sour, I know that you can never prepare for ALL
possibilities, and from facts I can glean, it looks to me that this guide
and company had established enough protocols to indicate that they
probably
were not negligent, but just caught in a small series of misfortunes and
reasonable misjudgements.

That's true, and I'm not saying the guy should be hung. All I'm saying is
that a few mistakes were made, they appear to have been preventable, and
that there's a lesson to be learned; it's important to prepare for the worst
if you can, sometimes "standard" protocals need to be augmented.
Personally, that's why I like discussions like this- I think it helps all of
us learn and rethink their notions regarding safety and etc.


What would you have done differently?


Well, as you say, some of the facts of what was done are unknown so it's
hard to say specifically what I would have done differently. But I'll say
one thing; I'm not sure I would have taken a group of beginners across a
shallow open water crossing known to generate steep waves.

riverman wrote:
"Steve Cramer" wrote in message

riverman wrote:

The definition of 'reasonable precautions' is vague, but mutually
recognized by people with experience, and in the lack of details we must
look at the guide's qualifications to determine if he was qualified to
assess what was 'reasonable'. It sounds like the guide was well-qualified
to lead this type of trip, had done it many times before, and in this
case, as sometimes happens, a series of unfortunate events resulted in
two students' deaths.

14 y.o. beginners, open tandem canoe, no immersion clothing, paddling open
58-60 degree water, on a day with high off-shore winds forecast. It takes
a very kind heart to find "reasonable" in that, and I appreciate your
trying, but it's hard for me to do so.


Again, I think you are taking the best possible view of the situation,
and assuming fact not in evidence. For example...

Appreciated, but look at it this way: A small group of 14 y.o. adventurous,
enthusiatic and well-discipled paddlers who were in the midst of an
expedition that emphasized resposibile actions and teamwork,

12-18 y.o. High school kids on Spring Break. This was not a NOLS course.

unloaded tandem

fla****er

boat accompanied by 4 kayaks and a motorized pontoon boat, clear skies, camp
only a few miles away,

across open Gulf of Mexico where, accoring to several reports, there had
been small craft advisories that morning with forecast of high winds

an entire shore-based network who knew your
minute-by-minute itinerary and expected you to be on the Island that night,

Where did you hear that? In all the reports I am aware of, the first
anyone knew of problems was 9:00 PM Saturday night when the outfitter
managed to call his wife in Georgia, several hundred miles away.

well stocked food and water supplies, everything had been running like
clockwork for 4 days,

alledges fact not in evidence, AFAIK

and one small open-water crossing to be made.

That was the situation when they set out that morning. Situations
deteriorate; it doesn't imply negligence.

I do appreciate that situations deteriorate fast, hell, I've been in
some. But I think it is clear that the outfitter did not check the
weather before starting out and took beginners in an open tandem on an
open water crossing, which, in good weather, would probably have been
OK. We all know that one mistake is usually not fatal, but that things
tent to snowball and then **** happens. I do feel sorry for Steve Hall.
His reputation has been wrecked by this one incident. These days, there
are no second chances. Certainly were't any for the boys.

--
Steve Cramer
Athens, GA

-the guide was experienced, had 25 years professional guiding experience
and
the experience of running his own company with dozens of trips per year
for
this same school. That's much more than most trip leaders have in any
given
situation.

But... how does *past* experience guarantee that no mistakes were made on
*this* trip? I can't agree that you build up some sort of positive karma
by
successfully leading previous trips. Did he do a good job over the last
25
years? Probably, and kudos to him. But that doesn't mean he didn't mess
up
on *this* trip.


I wanted to clarify this, because upon reflection I don't think I made my
point very well. What I'm really trying to say is that although I truly
believe that he has extensive experience leading trips as you note, that
only convinces me that he's been successfully leading trips for 25 years
previous to this incident; it doesn't convince me that he lead *this*
particular trip very well.

You also asked me what I would have done differently. I am primarily a
whitewater boater these days, and most of the trips I lead are on whitewater
rivers rather than streams. I do a fair amount of sea kayaking as well,
usually up on Lake Superior, but do not typically lead. I take inexperience
very seriously; I would never put a beginning whitewater paddler on class IV
whitewater, and I would never put a beginning sea kayaker in exposed
conditions such as these. I would also not allow canoes to be used in
exposed conditions, as the article indicates was done. God knows that
putting a open canoe on Lake Superior is just asking for trouble.

Wolfgang mockingly suggested that perhaps I would have preferred that they
do their kayaking on dry land. While I realize he was just being stupid in
an attempt to goad me, it's not too far from the truth. For several years I
was an ACA certified whitewater boating instructor. I never put a newbie
boater into a kayak, with a sprayskirt on, out on the water. The very first
thing I would do would be get them into a boat on dry land, show them the
outfitting, let them get the feel of the cockpit, etc. Once I thought they
were confortable with the boat and outfitting, I'd let them get on the water
in a pool or a designated swimming area (or some other similar, appropriate
area) *without* a skirt on, in which case the very first thing I would do
would be to make them do wet exits until they thought I was being
ridiculous. When I decided they were ready to paddle with a skirt on, I
would put them on dry land and make them remove their sprayskirts ad nauseum
until I was convinced they had it figured out automatically, then I'd put
them back on fla****er again and make them do wet exits with an attached
skirt until once again they thought I was being ridiculous. After I'd
taught them the basics of fla****er paddling, I would then take them on
class I/II whitewater with some experienced boaters to help them get the
hang of paddling on moving water. My point is that you can never be too
cautious with newbies.

I also want to make sure that you understand that I have a great deal of
respect in general for your opinion on this, although I don't necessarily
agree with some of your points. I mention this because your friend Wolfgang
seems to think that disagreeing with another person's opinions means that
the discussion must automatically devolve into a ****-slinging festival, and
I find that unfortunate.

If it is the Steve Hall I know then I have to say that all the comments
made here are out of order since we do not know the FACTS we only have
reportage, and if the Steve Hall is a different one then the comments
are still out of order as far as I am concerned the defendant is
innocent till proven guilty.

I also think you are ALWAYS going to have accidents and deaths if you do
"adventure sports". - see my previous post

n message , Franklin
writes

-the guide was experienced, had 25 years professional guiding experience
and
the experience of running his own company with dozens of trips per year
for
this same school. That's much more than most trip leaders have in any
given
situation.

But... how does *past* experience guarantee that no mistakes were made on
*this* trip? I can't agree that you build up some sort of positive karma
by
successfully leading previous trips. Did he do a good job over the last
25
years? Probably, and kudos to him. But that doesn't mean he didn't mess
up
on *this* trip.


I wanted to clarify this, because upon reflection I don't think I made my
point very well. What I'm really trying to say is that although I truly
believe that he has extensive experience leading trips as you note, that
only convinces me that he's been successfully leading trips for 25 years
previous to this incident; it doesn't convince me that he lead *this*
particular trip very well.

You also asked me what I would have done differently. I am primarily a
whitewater boater these days, and most of the trips I lead are on whitewater
rivers rather than streams. I do a fair amount of sea kayaking as well,
usually up on Lake Superior, but do not typically lead. I take inexperience
very seriously; I would never put a beginning whitewater paddler on class IV
whitewater, and I would never put a beginning sea kayaker in exposed
conditions such as these. I would also not allow canoes to be used in
exposed conditions, as the article indicates was done. God knows that
putting a open canoe on Lake Superior is just asking for trouble.

Wolfgang mockingly suggested that perhaps I would have preferred that they
do their kayaking on dry land. While I realize he was just being stupid in
an attempt to goad me, it's not too far from the truth. For several years I
was an ACA certified whitewater boating instructor. I never put a newbie
boater into a kayak, with a sprayskirt on, out on the water. The very first
thing I would do would be get them into a boat on dry land, show them the
outfitting, let them get the feel of the cockpit, etc. Once I thought they
were confortable with the boat and outfitting, I'd let them get on the water
in a pool or a designated swimming area (or some other similar, appropriate
area) *without* a skirt on, in which case the very first thing I would do
would be to make them do wet exits until they thought I was being
ridiculous. When I decided they were ready to paddle with a skirt on, I
would put them on dry land and make them remove their sprayskirts ad nauseum
until I was convinced they had it figured out automatically, then I'd put
them back on fla****er again and make them do wet exits with an attached
skirt until once again they thought I was being ridiculous. After I'd
taught them the basics of fla****er paddling, I would then take them on
class I/II whitewater with some experienced boaters to help them get the
hang of paddling on moving water. My point is that you can never be too
cautious with newbies.

I also want to make sure that you understand that I have a great deal of
respect in general for your opinion on this, although I don't necessarily
agree with some of your points. I mention this because your friend Wolfgang
seems to think that disagreeing with another person's opinions means that
the discussion must automatically devolve into a ****-slinging festival, and
I find that unfortunate.



--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

"Franklin" wrote in message
...

...Wolfgang...was just being stupid...

It comes naturally. You should be kind to the.....um......challenged.


...Wolfgang seems to think that...the discussion must automatically
devolve into a ****-slinging festival

So? There are options?

and I find that unfortunate.

Give it some time......you'll get over it.

Wolfgang