# Kayakers rescued of WA coast today with NO LIFEJACKETS !!



## couta1 (Sep 10, 2005)

Hopefully thats a leason to be learnt from that embarrasing moment for those two blokes...lucky there mobile phone never got wet!!!...you risk any offshore trip...but you do need a lifejacket on board ... bet they wont do that in a hurry again

Kayakers rescued off WA coastGABRIELLE KNOWLES, The West Australian 
June 12, 2011, 12:04 pm tweet1EmailPrint
Two kayakers have been rescued from the water off Ocean Keys at Clarkson this morning after calling triple-zero for help when one capsized and the craft blew out of reach.

Water Police said one of the men clung to the other's kayak after falling in the water about 600m offshore and being unable to retrieve the vessel.

The men, believed to be a father and son, were being pushed out to sea by the strong north-easterly breeze.

One man managed to call emergency services for help from his mobile phone about 9.30am.

Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group sent two boats to rescue the stricken men, while a Water Police boat and the police helicopter were also on their way to the scene.

It is believed a sea rescue boat picked up the men and one kayak and took them back to shore. The other Whitfords boat retrieved the second kayak and was towing it back to shore.

It is understood neither man was wearing a life jacket.


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

No PFD, not a good look.


----------



## spottymac (Aug 29, 2005)

Bloody stupid that's all I can say Steven


----------



## bunsen (Jan 2, 2009)

gra said:


> Once again, Darwin's theory is foiled by the do-gooders..
> 
> Gra


even tongue in cheek, that's pretty harsh...


----------



## yankatthebay (Dec 14, 2007)

bunsen said:


> gra said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, Darwin's theory is foiled by the do-gooders..
> ...


gra does have a good point there though. If there are no consequences for stupidity then you will only see more of it happening and the government will be forced to regulate to protect the growing number of stupid people.


----------



## Nativeman (Sep 6, 2005)

Were these guys kayakers or Kayak fishermen.

If they were kayakers as in Surf kayakers, like what a Lifesaver guy might paddle they never wear life jackets, well I don't see ski riders with jackets on.

But if they are kayak fishermen well they should have been wearing life jackets.

Anyone Know?

Cheers


----------



## bunsen (Jan 2, 2009)

so, if someone had died would that be enough consequence?
Inexperienced people often overestimate their ability, and underestimate the conditions. Not just kayakers. 
I'm not arguing that it wasn't a dumb thing to do, just wondering if that was someone from the forum, would we call it a T.O.W. or still say the world would be better off without them?


----------



## Cuda (Sep 18, 2006)

In answer to Nativemans question, I believe they were not kayak fishos and were just out for a paddle. They still should have been carrying the required safety gear, no excuses there. They were also silly IMO going out in strong ne winds. Now we are seeing some negative comments on other fishing sites about kayaks unfortunately.


----------



## AJD (Jul 10, 2007)

Dumb arses!
Hope they get a bill from the rescuers for GROSS stupidity!
Inexperienced or not it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that lifejackets are GOOD when far from shore on a little piece of plastic.


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

couta1 said:


> Water Police said one of the men clung to the other's kayak after falling in the water about 600m offshore and being unable to retrieve the vessel.
> 
> .


I think we are also missing this point - should he have been tethered to his craft - even with life jackets this could happen to us


----------



## bunsen (Jan 2, 2009)

AJD said:


> Dumb arses!
> Hope they get a bill from the rescuers for GROSS stupidity!
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Easy mistake for a novice to be blown by strong winds and not use a pdf if the initial plan was to stay close to shore. They did the right thing and stuck together, called for help and got rescued. By some of the comments here from board members sounds like they would let there son or father drown.
Just for the record I only wear a pdf because Im required by law, when Im kayak fishing in asia I never wear one, and IMHO people who rely on a pdf rather than sufficient waterman skills are just as foolish.


----------



## joeincairns (Aug 3, 2010)

Well said Breambo . That's man talk . Good onya


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

bunsen said:


> Funny, there was me thinking that's what rescue services were there for, to rescue people. As with everything else, now they are expected to make a margin on their service?


A lot of marine rescue's are from volunteer services. Most boaties who need to be rescued do generally pay for the service in one or another. Either through fuel, a flat fee or hours served. It's not about making a margin, it's about making the service solvent.

If you don't take proper precautions why should be exempt from funding the volunteer service that has enabled you to still be alive? At the very least it's courteousy.

Think of it this way, if you are being resuced there's a high chance the conditions are dangerous. You are making people risk their lives to save you, heading out into these conditions to make sure you do not die. That's worth nothing to you?

Don't be such a selfish tightarse.

That's some motherflippin' man talk right there.


----------



## 4weightfanatic (May 19, 2011)

The very reason I'm not going offshore till I get one, however tempting it may be.Pat.


----------



## Shorty (May 11, 2008)

In W.A you need a pfd type 1, flares, bailer and an effective anchor and line before you can launch a kayak in the ocean by law,,these folks had nothing and should be up for several hundred dollars in fines but i bet they get off scot free.

The story goes dad was in a very tippy racing type kayak and fell out,,the kid looked like he was in a more stable tarpon or something.

BTW > Often in W.A the sea rescue will hand you a docket to show you how much it cost in fuel etc for your rescue and hopefully folks contribute.


----------



## bunsen (Jan 2, 2009)

koich said:


> bunsen said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, there was me thinking that's what rescue services were there for, to rescue people. As with everything else, now they are expected to make a margin on their service?
> ...


Sarcasm detectors offline?

Umm, these rescue boats are generally pretty seaworthy vessels, while every trip in a boat at sea presents some risks, I think it's getting a little dramatic.
All I was trying to say was there were some pretty harsh comments about this rescue being posted. Can someone please clarify the difference between a tale of woe and this, other than that the people involved didnt get to post their own terribly witty report?

Perhaps the world is suffering less from an excess of stupidity than from a lack of compassion.

Not very macho, I know.


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Shorty said:


> In W.A you need a pfd type 1, flares, bailer and an effective anchor and line before you can launch a kayak in the ocean by law,,....


Just goes to show what a bunch of freakin idiots we have making up useless laws in our once was great but now a complete nanny country. Can someone educate me on how one would use a bailer on a scuppered sot kayak ? And an anchor WTF.
At least in NSW its only a PDF if you go out more than 400m or have they passed more laws for my own safety making me not only a man talker but a criminal as well. I just want to go and have a paddle and catch a few fish not an expedition to the south pole or be a legal genius to keep up with the freakin regulations.
Whats happening to this sport ?


----------



## bunsen (Jan 2, 2009)

has anyone actually got any evidence these guys havent contributed to costs? Other than "I bet"?


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Dunno but now they want to fine them as well, perhaps they should be flogged :twisted:


----------



## Shufoy (May 28, 2008)

Breambo said:


> Shorty said:
> 
> 
> > In W.A you need a pfd type 1, flares, bailer and an effective anchor and line before you can launch a kayak in the ocean by law,,....
> ...


Not entirely stupid Breambo, an anchor can be useful in howling offshore breezes if you snap a paddle, break a drive, and dont want to be blown out to sea, or even become incapacitated due to injury or even sea-sickness and are awaiting rescue. A bailer can take many forms, and the hand pump style would be effective if for example you were swamped with a hatch open, or had a slow leak into the hull inner, i believe in the WA laws a bailer can even consist of a large sponge in the case of a kayak.

As is the case of most "laws" of this type, they are designed to protect the stupid from themselves..


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Shufoy said:


> Breambo said:
> 
> 
> > Shorty said:
> ...


Well I must be one of the stupid because I cant work out why you would go out in howling off shore winds in the first place.
Or why you wouldnt use a spare paddle or paddle with your hands if your paddle broke.
Or I dont even know what a drive is, is it a new type of kayak ?
Or why would you open a hatch with a risk of getting swamped.
Im sorry but its all a bit much for me.


----------



## cheaterparts (Jul 3, 2010)

Breambo said:


> Can someone educate me on how one would use a bailer on a scuppered sot kayak ? And an anchor WTF.
> At least in NSW its only a PDF if you go out more than 400m or have they passed more laws for my own safety making me not only a man talker but a criminal as well. I just want to go and have a paddle and catch a few fish not an expedition to the south pole or be a legal genius to keep up with the freakin regulations.
> Whats happening to this sport ?


only last year while fishing at night with 2 others and one of the other guys found he was taking on water in a sot scuppered fishing kayak - of cause we cut our fishing trip short but he bailed water twice on the way in

so a bailer isn't silly at all or it wasn't at 11.30 pm that night


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

cheaterparts said:


> Breambo said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone educate me on how one would use a bailer on a scuppered sot kayak ? And an anchor WTF.
> ...


I guess its a good idea if you go out in a leaking kayak. I make sure my kayaks sea worthy before I go in the water.


----------



## cheaterparts (Jul 3, 2010)

Breambo said:


> I make sure my kayaks sea worthy before I go in the water.


and one would hope they stay that way for you all the time you are on the water


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

bunsenSarcasm detectors offline?
[/quote said:


> You clearly do not know what sarcasm is.
> 
> Or man talk.
> 
> ...


----------



## Junglefisher (Jun 2, 2008)

Breambo said:


> Shorty said:
> 
> 
> > In W.A you need a pfd type 1, flares, bailer and an effective anchor and line before you can launch a kayak in the ocean by law,,....
> ...


Couldn't agree more.
Apparently I broke the law A LOT whilst I was in WA. 
I kayak fished from Broome down to Esperance and never took more than a PFD type 2 and a sponge.
All that garbage to head 200m off a beach???? People SWIM that far!!! In fact, people swim to Rottnest island!!!
I'm dead set sick of Nanny laws and it's one more reason why I'll never go back to living in WA.
I NEVER went out in rough or windy conditions and never went further offshore than I could swim without a PFD. But no, you can't rely on people to do the right thing, you have to make LAWS that will punish those that do do the right thing whilst having no effect on those that don't. They'll simply break the laws anyway.
Oh, I can hear Occy now... but if it saves one persons life, it's worth it.
Well, no it's not!! Getting rid of cars would save thousands of lives, but it's not worth the cost to society is it? Banning people from entering the water would save lives, banning swimming pools would save lives......


----------



## Shorty (May 11, 2008)

I guess everybody has different views on whether you need safety gear or commonsense to go kayaking but these incidences can put nails in our kayak fishing coffin and the boat fishing forums have a field day,i was reading a couple months back the last 4 kayaking fishing deaths in the U.S had one thing in common they were by themselves and had no life jackets,at least these guys were together and thank god they had a mobile phone,,but now these guys are heroes with back slapping and hugs from familys and T.V appearances,,but you would not even launch a boat in the conditions they went out in, i think South Australia has already brought laws in saying how far you can go out ? A few more incidents and it could go Australia wide.


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

I can see it now, " What are you in for mate ?"
"Paddled my kayak out too far."
Part of the problem is the industry itself backing all this so they can sell more crap to the novices entering the sport.
IF they ever bring in such moronic laws here they can drag me off to jail because I aint gonna change and that will be my protest to yet another freedom lost.


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

Junglefisher said:


> Breambo said:
> 
> 
> > Shorty said:
> ...


Craig, I'd hazard a guess that your kids would be wearing their seatbelts even if it wasn't a law.

Exactly the same concept.


----------



## bunsen (Jan 2, 2009)

Well, I may not know what what sarcasm or man talk is, but clearly I know when I am bested by an intellectual titan, personal attacks are a sure sign of that.
Anyway, gotta go, I think ACA has an informative piece on refugees coming up next.


----------



## Cuda (Sep 18, 2006)

As Shufoy has said, unfortunately such "Nanny" laws are in place because we have people in society that don't assess the risks such as strong offshore winds and probable washing machine seas combined with a scant regard when it comes to safety if and when they do invariably get into trouble when they accept the high risk involved and go out on the briny. The sea is a cruel mistress when she wants to be and deserves a lot more respect than some people give her. These two really should have either waited a bit to see if the wind would ease, or just said nope it aint worth the trouble and gone home, but they ended up choosing the wrong option :roll:


----------



## Brc226 (Jul 31, 2009)

I recon that there isn't a bloke alive that hasn't over estimated his ability at some point in his life. Hell, I know I have been guilty of this from time to time.

That said, Gra's comment is a classic. The theory of natural selection ...... Bless ii 

Keep 'em coming Gra...very entertaining


----------



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

Is it possible that those who complain the loudest about the "nanny state" are over represented as victims in rescues?


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

Breambo said:


> Dunno but now they want to fine them as well, perhaps they should be flogged :twisted:


yeah - then we will permanently see the scars representing a time when they were idiots - brilliant 8)


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

emufingers said:


> Is it possible that those who complain the loudest about the "nanny state" are over represented as victims in rescues?


I dont really get what you are trying to say but if it is have I ever been rescued the answer is no, have I ever rescued anyone the answer is yes.


----------



## Junglefisher (Jun 2, 2008)

emufingers said:


> Is it possible that those who complain the loudest about the "nanny state" are over represented as victims in rescues?


You got me, I've needed to be rescued at least once a year since i took up kayaking at the age of 6.
Look, this thread is a clear indication that laws don't work.
People without the sense to choose their conditions don't have the sense to check the legalities of what they are doing anyway.


----------



## Shufoy (May 28, 2008)

Junglefisher said:


> Look, this thread is a clear indication that laws don't work.


Classic.... Oh what, your serious?


----------



## Jumpstart (Jun 4, 2011)

Shufoy said:


> Junglefisher said:
> 
> 
> > Look, this thread is a clear indication that laws don't work.
> ...


I don't think he is far off the mark there laws don't work it only softens the actual impact


----------



## Junglefisher (Jun 2, 2008)

Shufoy said:


> Junglefisher said:
> 
> 
> > Look, this thread is a clear indication that laws don't work.
> ...


You have laws that state you must wear a lifejacket, carry flares, a bailer and an anchor to go in the water. Did these laws work? Did these people who are incapabale of making judgement calls carry these things?


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

onya breambo.

i got no objections to compulsory safety equipment like pfd's etc for kids or on boats if you are responsible for others.

but once you reach 18 or 21, you gotta live and die by your own personal decisions.

if you want to ride rodeo bulls or rock climb sheer cliffs, then emergency services and hospitals seem to be more than willing to patch you up.
if you want to paddle 400m offshore and you need help, i cant see you were doing anything that outrageously dangerous.

ive had 20 knot offshore winds blow up on days that were predicted 5 to 10.

i'm more than happy to pay for a tow (though ive towed 2 blokes back and havent yet been towed myself). but the local vmr's really brought in the fees because some boaties were going out week after week with flat batteries and if you talk to em it was always the same blokes getting towed in.

if you go kayaking , you'll probably stay fit and work til your 65 and pay a lot of taxes.
if we make it too hard, dudes will zone out in front of the box, have a heart attack at 50, spend 15 years on disability .

so society should be more supportive in general of people having a go.

my thoughts anyway.


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Id even go as far as saying these requirements would lead to more incidents by giving a false sense of security of being "safe" rather than obvious requirements like "are you a strong swimmer".
I still cant get my head around requiring an anchor, which is a specialized piece of equipment for a kayak, and can get someone into trouble very quickly if not used correctly in the correct conditions, which I would argue would be in a state of panic when used for "safety reasons".
Next they will be recommending tying yourself to your kayak. :lol:


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Another question I have for the "experts" is where do I keep all this extra safety equipment I have aquired including a heavy anchor, in a backpack perhaps.
"You keep it in a hatch" would be the reply, well I dont have a hatch on my kayak and everyone knows its dangerous to open hatches in rough conditions anyway, right.
What a joke these rules are obviously made by people who have no idea about kayaking and backed by the people selling all this crap. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Shorty (May 11, 2008)

Junglefisher said:


> Shufoy said:
> 
> 
> > Junglefisher said:
> ...


Well i should say most people getting into kayaking here are probally not aware of any laws and are suprised to hear about them,a lot don't worry about weather forecassts i guess its a case of i have saturday morning off i am going kayaking,myself i am checking the wind a few days out.

Most kayakers carry a hand pump or sponge in case of a leak ,the light weight foldable kayak anchors and line most people store behind the seat,,the safety gear required you would not even notice as it takes little or no room,,

Breambo asked what a "Drive"is ,,its the peddles that drive a Hobie,the beauty of a hobie is it you get a hole or leak you can open up the hatch and pump the water out while heading back to shore.


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

If people choose to take extra gear for safety thats their choice. I object to laws that make me have to do something that I dont need.
As for having an anchor stowed behind your seat might be ok for flat water but its not ok for surf entries and exits. Ive done it all over the years including anchors (I wont have one one my kayak as they are dangerous) so often Ive learnt the hard way and I know whats safe and works for me. A blanket rule on safety like compulsory using of an anchor is not right and fueling sheep mentality.


----------



## cheaterparts (Jul 3, 2010)

Breambo said:


> If people choose to take extra gear for safety thats their choice. I object to laws that make me have to do something that I dont need.
> As for having an anchor stowed behind your seat might be ok for flat water but its not ok for surf entries and exits. Ive done it all over the years including anchors (I wont have one one my kayak as they are dangerous) so often Ive learnt the hard way and I know whats safe and works for me. A blanket rule on safety like compulsory using of an anchor is not right and fueling sheep mentality.


not sure on other states but in Vic anchours aren't part of the min saftey gear

for all waters in vic inland , bays and up to 2 Nm (3.7 Km)off shore you must have a PDF ( that can be a pdf 1 - 2 or 3 )
and thats all the time you are in the yak on water

and the other thing is a bailer or bilge pump

not a lot to carry realy - a PDF on your back and a big sponge to bail water ( used more offen to keep the area around my feet dry )

out side 2 Nm off shore you must have more safty gear - flares , torch . compass , epirb

I have no problems with the extra gear if venturing futher off shore

myself I do take an anchour as I need that to fish, it fits easy inside the hull if not needed


----------



## Shufoy (May 28, 2008)

Junglefisher said:


> Shufoy said:
> 
> 
> > Junglefisher said:
> ...


Mate i think saying the laws simply don't work based on a single case is ridiculous. How many people out there are here now or better off because of the laws, do you know for a fact carrying these extra items has never saved a life, theres one case mentioned in this thread already. I think it's a bloody irresponsible attitude to discourage the use of safety gear, especially on a forum that has such a broad reader base from guys with hours of experience to first time kayakers.

I agree in some cases an anchor may not be viable, or even an EPIRB ruling makes no sense, but generally they are there for good reason, and i support and encourage it. The WA rules are so broad because there is no seperate category that covers Kayaks individually, as the sport has taken a lot longer to get off the ground than the east coast, we are covered by a blanket ruling that covers all small craft. I'm just glad they dropped the fire extuinguisher off a few years back.. I will always encourage the use of the required safety gear, call me a nanny, or that i have no idea, whatever you like, but if thats the price i have to pay to keep the sport safe, and keep fishing, so be it. The Laws are there, they are in place, and should be followed, for every yakker that gets pulled up without the proper gear, a little more damage is done to our reputation. There are also some of us here in WA who are going out of their way to try to get Safety rules changed to better suit kayak fishing, we are putting our time and effort in, what are you guys doing?


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Shufoy said:


> I agree in some cases an anchor may not be viable, or even an EPIRB ruling makes no sense, but generally they are there for good reason, and i support and encourage it.


So you agree that its not viable or makes good sense but you support and encourage it?
Can I assume by your signature that you have a commercial interest in kayak fishing ?
Are clubbies skis exempt from these rules as Im sure they wouldnt put up with this nonsense.
Anyway if they bring in here I"ll ignore it or use my surf ski or standup paddle board until they outlaw that too.
Thats all from me on the subject Im going kayaking .... catch me if you can :lol:


----------



## Junglefisher (Jun 2, 2008)

Shufoy said:


> Mate i think saying the laws simply don't work based on a single case is ridiculous. How many people out there are here now or better off because of the laws, do you know for a fact carrying these extra items has never saved a life, theres one case mentioned in this thread already. I think it's a bloody irresponsible attitude to discourage the use of safety gear, especially on a forum that has such a broad reader base from guys with hours of experience to first time kayakers.


I'm sorry? Discouraging the use of safety gear? Can you please quote that bit back to me, I seem to have forgotten typing it.
I detest the abundance of Nanny laws. I think that everyone should be encouraged to be safe. I don't think a law should be passed saying that if you paddle a waveski on a beach that you need to carry excessive saftey gear that will never be useful. I think that is making people not responsible for their own choices. Do the surfclub guys carry this gear? The Ironmen?
Once you start, where do you stop?
People who make bad choices are not stopped from making bad choices by laws.


> There are also some of us here in WA who are going out of their way to try to get Safety rules changed to better suit kayak fishing, we are putting our time and effort in, what are you guys doing?


So are you lobbying for more laws to be passed? What else should we carry? Cold weather gear? Hypothermia can be a killer at times so the gear should be carried always. A satphone is a good idea.


----------



## Shorty (May 11, 2008)

Well everybodys has different views , i think a minimun you should have is a PFD and a visible flag,,99% of problems is from boaters who say they can't see kayak fishers (around Perth anyway)

Another thing after last weeks rescue here is a sea rescue guy saying they spent hours searching after a kayak was found offshore with nobody around,,it came loose off a boat at Rottnest and the owner never mentioned it to anyone, the sea rescue guy suggested folks write the details somewhere on the kayak,,a few of us are writing our details inside a hatch with a water proof marker pen.


----------



## Shufoy (May 28, 2008)

Junglefisher said:


> Breambo said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently I broke the law A LOT whilst I was in WA.
> ...


C'mon Jungle, by ridiculing the existing laws, Nanny State comments, calling the gear required by law "garbage", you wouldn't call that discouraging? Give me a break... You even say here, it's not worth it, even if it saves one life?! Wow, i might just go burn my safety gear now, dance around the flaming mass in a loin cloth and chant "Bring down the man!"

No, we aren't lobbying for more laws, we lobby for more sensible applications, carrying a PLB instead of an EPIRB for example.


----------



## solatree (May 30, 2008)

Shorty said:


> i think South Australia has already brought laws in saying how far you can go out ?


For about a year we were limited to 2kms - but now we can go out further than that with safety gear - flares, EPIRB, V-sheet etc - or if we are in a pod of kayaks where one is carrying the gear or near a "mother ship". No matter how far we go out though in SA, we must wear a PFD1 or 2. Many don't.


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Shufoy said:


> Junglefisher said:
> 
> 
> > Breambo said:
> ...


First of all if you are going to quote other board members get it right, I didnt write that Junglefisher did, even though I agree with him 100 %.
And as for your lobbying thats great but please dont come to the east coast trying to push all your great ideas onto everyone, if you like it you do it and leave it at that.
BLP or EPIRB ( thanks google I know what it is now) all the same to me Im not carrying one, instead of spending $300 + on something that might or might not work I'll invest in something that I know works- a new pair of flippers :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Junglefisher (Jun 2, 2008)

Shufoy said:


> No, we aren't lobbying for more laws, we lobby for more sensible applications, carrying a PLB instead of an EPIRB for example.


So you lobby for changes to the laws at the same time you are on here saying how wonderful they are and everyone should obey them?
Do you surf Shufoy? Would you be happy to carry flares, an EPIRB and an anchor when you went surfing?
I agree with Kraley (unfortunately)


kraley said:


> Anyway - you can't legislate common sense - but I am pretty sure that the gendarmes aren't gonna let us live in our libertarian paradise much longer. This sport is so inherently risky anyway that its a bit hard to see it surviving long term.


We are living in a Nanny country and the more people let them take away their freedoms, the more they'll take away.

By the way, I usually wear a PFD when fishing the open ocean.


----------



## Shufoy (May 28, 2008)

Breambo, it wasn't directed at you, you were neither quoted or mentioned. The PLB comment is an example.

Jungle, i would lobby to change the laws that exist here in WA to better suit our form of recreation, this thread is about an incident in WA, hence the title, thats why i'm posting. You have your own laws, that's fine, i'm not saying you need to follow WA laws, as you say, please quote me... If this was a post about "Kayakers rescued of SA coast today with NO LIFEJACKETS !!" i probably wouldn't even be posting.

This is about the law here in WA, the thread is about the incident in WA, the nanny state as its been referred too. What the laws are over east, i dont now, its not about that. I'm not pushing anything, what i'm trying to do is justify why applying the laws here is the right thing to do, why they are there for a reason, why we comply. Jungle i have surfed since i could walk, there are no laws surfers need to comply to that i know off, kind of an irrelevant argument.

My whole point is, the laws are here, in place in WA, i would like to see everyone comply to those laws, they may even save someones life. I will continue to do this, and whilst doing so, if i can help to make them better suited to our sport, i will. I also agree with Kraley, but i would like that stage to be as far away as possible, by not complying with existing laws, all i see is the process being sped up.

Is it so wrong to encourage people to carry the required safety gear? What is the extra cost of an anchor, a bailer or flares? Compared to how much some spend on rigging a kayak? This just shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Dodge (Oct 12, 2005)

occy said:


> Bullshit, crap, rubbish. We are living in the most liberal society ever, and the only problem we have these days is idiots who think they can do what they want without consequences. I'm over it. Deadshits need to wear bloody life jackets too. :twisted: :twisted:


occy have to challenge your quoted comments.

Recent outing with 6 other forum kayakers, and fishing on a dam for 3 days.
Two wearing a life jacket [pedallers], and five without [paddlers].
ALL were complying with the law in Queensland regarding jackets on these waters.
NONE are idiots, or deadshits, but just enjoying our liberal society as proclaimed by yourself.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

occy said:


> We are living in the most liberal society ever


If that's the case Occy, why is the latest NSW Government conducting a scientific audit into the efficacy of the Marine Parks declared under the Labor/Greens administration? Maybe it's because the old administrators created over the top regulation that lacks both public accountability and all manner of scientific transparency.

These parks were created by a NANNY STATE with the existing regulations to be made less offensive by another NANNY STATE.


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

occy said:


> Bullshit, crap, rubbish. We are living in the most liberal society ever, and the only problem we have these days is idiots who think they can do what they want without consequences. I'm over it. Deadshits need to wear bloody life jackets too. :twisted: :twisted:


Hogans Ghost Occy dont you get out and about any more mate, we are so over regulated we will have to get permission to draw a breath shortly , politicans of all persuasions cant seem to keep their sticky fingers off our private lives . And having surfed all my life on all sorts of crafts and body surfed ,there is no way i would ever wear a life jacket in the surf , but when going offshore there is no way i would go offshore without one . However when fishing the small freshwater rivers and creeks , there is no way i would put on a life jacket , but Occy , i'm not a deadshit, I have to agree with Dodge here .


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

occy said:


> Bullshit, crap, rubbish. We are living in the most liberal society ever, and the only problem we have these days is idiots who think they can do what they want without consequences. I'm over it. Deadshits need to wear bloody life jackets too. :twisted: :twisted:


I'm presuming that the first 3 words relate to your own post.

If you want to have any form of legal fun you have have to travel out side of Australia.
Have a look at what you are aloud to do in New Zealand. Their laws are so much more liberal and encourage people to get out and be adventurous most adventure tour guides can't believe what tour companies are aloud to do with their clients in NZ.

From what I can tell the main reason for this is the accident compensation cover that people pay as part of their tax in NZ. Medical bills are covered and no body get sued.
This country is so over legislated it is unbelievable.

As for the original topic. 
These guys got in trouble and got rescued. Fantastic.
If they had pfds, flares, anchors etc would it have altered the outcome ? no.
I personally think they should wear a pfd but that is my choice and I guess they made theirs.
I carry a pfd, plb on big trips and a vhf but I have a wife and kids to support and need to make sure I come back. When I was young and single I wouldn't have bothered.
The rescue guys got to rescue someone and they are probably pretty happy that they saved a life or two, that is why they do it.

The trouble with threads like this is that next time one of us gets in trouble we will think, should I call for help, am I making an arse of myself, should I just keep trying to save myself or should I take the shit and call for help.
Call for help, that is what it is there for. We don't know if these guys will donate money, become rescuers themselves or pay back their debt in another way so what is the point in speculating.
I bet they are happy to be alive and very grateful for the help that they received.


----------



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

This is deteriorating into a black and white government no - government intervention debate typical of so many these days. The I won't be told what to do by government or anybody mob versus the rest. A lot of the farce is created by the idea that individual examples can be used to determine whether a safety law is effective or ineffective. The issue is what happens to the risk of a population not an individual.
In 1963 when the compulsory use of seatbelts there was a hue and cry about individual freedom and there were many who said they would never wear a seatbelt because they would be burned to death in a crash. Since 1963, the rate of road crash related death and injury have plummeted due to this intervention and many others that decide what level of crash resistance a car must have. Over almost 50 years a few people have been burned to death because they were unable to get their seat belt undone. We can never know how many of these would not have been conscious without a seatbelt on and so survived.
The aim of government with safety laws is two-fold. 1 To reduce population risk. 2 To ensure those that build risk attenuation measures into their setting are not open to vexatious liability suits on the occasions where the safety measure contributed to an injury or death.
Government will get things wrong and take a while to correct them. This is often due to the sort of muddled thinking about individual cases and to trying to reach a compromise with those who have an almost religious commitment to the freedom of all individuals to do what they want when they want.
In the case of Kayak safety equipment laws, they are different in each State. They have been developed partially by rational debate and partially by emotive reaction to particular events and cases. There are also different conditions and different exposures to risk in different states. What is introduced is what is possible given the group of decision makers and powerbrokers involved. Where kayakers do not have a reasoned and powerful voice they will not be seen as a unique part of the issue and silly requirement like fire extinguishers will be required on non powered vessels.
The government aims to reduce the risk to the population by making laws about the use of safety equipment. There will be times when particular circumstances make these laws seem a bit silly. Overall though the laws increase the correct use of safety measures and the population risk falls. If it doesn't then it is necessary to change the laws or introduce better safety equipment.
Commercial enterprise is assisted by these laws because they can use their compliance with them as a defence against liability claims. By complying with laws they obtain lower insurance premiums and in a court case can show that they have made reasonable efforts at meeting duty of care.
The desired outcome of laws is increased access to safer activities , with higher usage of appropriate safety measures and lower incidence of injury and death.
If we see individuals not complying, it does not mean that the law is a failure, providing compliance is increased, and in particular if compliance is increased among those at high risk, like newcomers to an activity. 
The whole "nanny state" argument is typical of a range of arguments that create a derogatory term in order to avoid a thorough analysis of the issues. Other terms are "do gooders" and "greenies".
Those that believe that they have a God given right to do what they please, will probably do so, but in the long run increased use of appropriate safety interventions will lower population injury and death rates regardless of the name calling and spurious analysis of risk.
We need to remember that government reflect the society they represent. The poorer the quality of societal debate the poorer the response of government.


----------



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

kraley said:


> emufingers said:
> 
> 
> > The government aims to reduce the risk to the population by making laws about the use of safety equipment. There will be times when particular circumstances make these laws seem a bit silly. Overall though the laws increase the correct use of safety measures and the population risk falls. If it doesn't then it is necessary to change the laws or introduce better safety equipment.
> ...


There is no doubt that sometimes a government of a society with poor analytical skills gets it right. My argument is that if the method of debate in a society is driven by shallow point scoring and lack of sound analytical thought that this is more likely to been seen in the processes of government. Our current debacle in Australia is a case in point. There has been little attention to detailed rational analysis and a great deal of attention to inuendo and prejudice.

I hope I am keeping to my own rules and following a rational approach to debating this issue. Together we may make some progress to better answers. There is no perfect solution and even if there were, we couldn't prove it was perfect.


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

What a load of dribble. Governments should keep their grubby little noses out of kayak fishing, with their nanny like, do -gooder, animal liberational, greeny, left wing muesli chewing laws.
Kayak fishing has far too many variables to covered by general laws, what might apply in Sydney Harbour doesnt apply here and vice versa. This I have already demonstrated with the WA laws.
Why are people so hell bent on trying to make risky things safe anyway, people should ACCEPT the risk and be done with it, not that kayak fishing is even dangerous , how many deaths have been in the sport ?
Safety recommendations should always be made but making laws for paddling out on a kayak to catch a few fish is over governing gone mad.

[Edit - tidied]
Thanks sorry didn't mean to offend anyone.


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

the most important bit of safety equipment i have is my brain, to think before i act.

hmmm looks like i am in trouble :shock:


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

eagle4031 said:


> the most important bit of safety equipment i have is my brain, to think before i act.
> 
> hmmm looks like i am in trouble :shock:


Lol,Mate you dont need brains to be safe look at me.
I think thats the problem people thinking about it too much, its not rocket science.


----------



## trewy2428 (Jan 9, 2011)

Always where a lifejacket


----------



## trewy2428 (Jan 9, 2011)

Always where a lifejacket


----------



## Tommo (Sep 24, 2009)

Two lucky guys

they Broke the first rule. Prob did not look at the weather report and plan accordingly

I'll monitor the weather for days prior to going offshore, and one last look prior to leaving home

Also good idea to register with your local marine rescue

Cheers


----------



## couta1 (Sep 10, 2005)

is there laws in WA for kayak fishing....if so what are they??????...i always assumed it was best practice to carry the necessaary safety gear going anywere in the ocean from 1m ofshore to 3000m offshore


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Shorty said:


> In W.A you need a pfd type 1, flares, bailer and an effective anchor and line before you can launch a kayak in the ocean by law,,these folks had nothing and should be up for several hundred dollars in fines but i bet they get off scot free.
> 
> The story goes dad was in a very tippy racing type kayak and fell out,,the kid looked like he was in a more stable tarpon or something.
> 
> BTW > Often in W.A the sea rescue will hand you a docket to show you how much it cost in fuel etc for your rescue and hopefully folks contribute.


There you go mate dont forget an anchor :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Shorty (May 11, 2008)

couta1 said:


> is there laws in WA for kayak fishing....if so what are they??????...i always assumed it was best practice to carry the necessaary safety gear going anywere in the ocean from 1m ofshore to 3000m offshore


PFD type 1,inshore flares,pump or bailer,anchor and rope for inshore work,different laws as you go out further.

Theres no laws for kayaks or boats in W.A everything comes under "Vessels" whatever boats need to have we need to have also.


----------

