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